Am I correctly understanding this decision to mean that, if the government already knows there's incriminating data on the drive, a compelled decryption would not be testimonial (as in the referenced cases from the 5th Circuit); but that the gov't can't compel decryption in order to go on a "fishing expedition", as any evidence found would be self-incriminating, and thus incur 5th Amendment protection?
If so, that sounds spot-on correct to my (admittedly, lay and NAL) understanding of the issues.
If so, that sounds spot-on correct to my (admittedly, lay and NAL) understanding of the issues.