You've asked this question at least seven times in this thread. People have been surprisingly patient and given you a few answers. You may or may not agree, but please stop repeating yourself as it adversely affects the quality of the discussion.

I'm responding to adrianlmm's child post here due to nesting limits.

1) Because (in the US) of the fifth amendment, as I had mentioned before and you, it seems, either missed or chose to ignore.

2) Decrypting the device would, due to forensic procedures, result first in an image being taken of the entire device, meaning that content outside the scope of any discovery process or search warrant would then become available to the judge/state/prosecutor/government, and said content, depending on specific judicial rules in effect, may also end up as a matter of public record. It also means that anything you've said on your device's record, no matter how relevant, can be held against you without your ability to exercise your rights to refrain from speaking.

Privacy isn't about keeping secrets, it's about controlling access to the truth and ensuring that you are able to take an active role in any action that results in the truth being disclosed to a party who has the authority to take said actions against you.

Similarly, the fifth amendment isn't designed to protect criminals from confessing a crime which they in fact committed, but to protect an innocent person's "truth" from being taken out of context and used to bias a judge or jury against them.

Honestly, the more I think about it, it does boil directly down to freedom from self-incrimination (e.g. saying something that would get you in trouble regardless of its applicability or truth). Leaders in our history had the presence of mind to recognize that an authority figure could easily choose to punish anything said by someone who was, according to procedure, supposed to be innocent.

It's a moot point (encryption) in civil issues anyway. A civil complaint should not allow any random person to use the power of the courts as a bully to force their enemies to disclose their private information. There's a reason civil and criminal procedure are so different.

>You've asked this question at least seven times in this thread

w/o a proper answer, all I get is "Is not a case" and if I ask wht if there is case? I get people like you, so, do you have answer to the next question?:

What if there is case? why is it bad to use decryption there?

Encryption enforces privacy. In a world with no privacy vulnerable people are easily abused by people in positions of authority. Also note that the legal system is not a perfect mapping to human morality - things that are are legal are not always moral and things that are moral are not always legal. Hence it is dangerous to have a world where right and wrong is determined only by an all-powerful legal system.

In my opinion it is important for society to maintain the privacy that humans have experienced for thousands of years. Remember that mass surveillance of every conversation that you have ever had is new thing. Before the internet society had much more privacy. Encryption is a way to ensure privacy in the internet era.