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.
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.