The Law on encryption passwords in the US is well established.
Unlike files in a safe, the contents of an encrypted drive are entirely visible, just not understandable. A seized hard drive can have its contents examined right down the 1’s and 0’s of each bit, regardless of encryption.
Thus, turning over the password does not hand them new information, like papers out of safe. Instead, it interprets the data they already have, but do not understand.
It is precisely testifying against one’s self. It is the act of taking data the prosecution already has but does not understand and interpreting it for them so that they may use it against you.
A better analogy would be a diary written in code. The government, which already HAS the diary, can see its contents clearly, but without your cooperation, cannot understand it.
They are free to try and crack the diary code on their own [as they are free to try and brute-force your encryption] but to compel you to interpret it for them - to supply the meaning - is precisely the act of testifying against yourself.
In the US, the Courts have long held that you can't be compelled to recite the combination of a combination lock as that would violate your 4th Amendment rights, and the Courts have extended that to encryption passwords.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
