Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption (News.com)

Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption (News.com)

There's a reason that hasn't been discussed so far that it may be bad for a court to be able to consider the presence of PGP as weighing in favor of guilt.

As so many have said, the presence of PGP does increase the likelihood of guilt.

But in legal process, there are certain kinds of evidence that are protected -- you can't use them even though they provide useful information. For example, in the US, when a person refuses to answer the question, "did you take this woman's purse?", you can't hold that against him, even though it clearly raises his suspicion level compared to the person who answers, "no, I didn't." The reason you can't use it has nothing to do with its validity as evidence. Also, in some jurisdictions, you can't use statements made by a person's spouse, or evidence found in a privacy-invading search.

So some people might believe that, in the interest of promoting privacy, society should choose not to consider existence of PGP on one's computer as evidence of guilt even though it is. That way, an innocent person could use PGP without fear of being erroneously convicted of a crime.