I don't understand what's being defended here. The guy already admitted what's on the computer. Like, the EFF saying
> "We store a wealth of deeply personal information on our electronic devices. The government simply should not put individuals in the no-win situation of choosing between disclosing a password—and turning over everything on these devices—or instead defying a court order to do so."
This is deeply baffling to me as applied to this case. The personal information being ‘protected’ is not his property.
> "We store a wealth of deeply personal information on our electronic devices. The government simply should not put individuals in the no-win situation of choosing between disclosing a password—and turning over everything on these devices—or instead defying a court order to do so."
This is deeply baffling to me as applied to this case. The personal information being ‘protected’ is not his property.