NO one is talking about the legality of the warrant per se, after its has been duely issued , and legaly and reasonably issued. I am talking about the legal process of obtaining a warrant in light of this immoral law. How to obtain a warrant against an encrypted file, when there is an assumption in law that:
Why is it (with a warrant) wrong/illegal/unethical/undemocratic to search encrypted data when it is not to search a safe, lock box or other locked physical device that hides its contents from plain view?
Until you can (and do) answer such a simple question that has been posed by multiple people, multiple times, there is zero point in continuing this.
1) A person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.
2) A person is not compelled to testify against their persons, by providing incriminating evidence, one of which might be an encryption key.
The Onus of proof is on the Prosecutor to say that Alice, has an incriminating material that she is hiding through encryption, and the reasons are demonstrates to be true.
The police can use brute force attacks to find out what Alice is hiding.
But Alice , under the view of the law, should not be compelled to give out her keys, because that can lead to self incrimination.
Asking Alice, under threat of jail time, to give out incriminating evidence in terms of keys, is to compel Alice to reveal information that would self-incriminate her. This is clearly against the law.
No one is saying that a warrant after being legally issued , and reasonably issued, that its illegal. I am talking about the process by which a police officer would have to go through to obtain such a warrant, after convincing a judge.
Your talking tomatoes, and I am talking potatoes. [A]