so... if a prosecutor has evidence has been gathered where a defendant has a drive with +n files that are encrypted. then the prosecutor has their evidence. However, if the files are when decrypted, then they have +n&#x27; -n files, which were not gathered during the initial investigation.<p>I recognize that the contempt is prior to formal charging, and thus &quot;during&quot; evidence gathering. but I feel like this is equivalent to the government saying: &quot;hey, so we have no proof you did anything, but we have these 107374182400 items that might prove something. So,  we want you to produce 107374182400 completely different items that might incriminate you because, well.... we cant&quot;. seems weird.<p>this is obviously not the first case that this has happened in[1][2]. each invoking the 5th, but it still seems strange.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;images_blogs&#x2F;threatlevel&#x2F;2012&#x2F;01&#x2F;decrypt.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;images_blogs&#x2F;threatlevel&#x2F;2012&#x2F;01&#x2F;decryp...</a>
[2]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;In_re_Boucher" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;In_re_Boucher</a>