Did anyone read the article?

Did anyone read the article?

The jury did not convict this man because he had PGP. They convicted him because the nine-year-old girl he took the nude photos of testified against him. Now he's trying to get a new trial based on the judge allowing the prosecutor to tell the jury that he had PGP and insinuate that he was therefore up to no good. But the prosecutor did not really need that evidence.

Here's the money quote:

The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files or how it would view the use of standard software like OS X's FileVault. Rather, Levie's conviction was based on the in-person testimony of the girl who said she was paid to pose nude, coupled with the history of searches for "Lolitas" in Levie's Web browser.

Also notice that the article is by Declan McCullagh. I appreciate that Declan cares so much about liberty and freedom, but sometimes he's on a hair trigger about such things, meaning you have to read him carefully. In this case, he positioned the paragraph I quoted above at the bottom, and an inflammatory headline was chosen (maybe not by him).