I don't think she used truecrypt.

Nothing to see here, just a bunch of gross misunderstanding of American Constitutional law.

Good to know, I didn't know what PGP had or not - also I don't pay much attention to the conspiracy theory crowd :).

I disagree, but I don't really care how it's rationalized so long as ultimately, police and courts can't compel people to cooperate with the police in accessing encrypted data.

I think there's a strong argument that the founding fathers thought they couldn't.
You can be compelled to hand over the key, yes. If it's a combination I'm not sure.
While I don't actually disagree, in the US there's case law forcing you to hand over keys (of the physical variety) if the judge says so.
The story I read indicated she did, but I'm not really up to searching for it tonight.

It is any different than a court order which requires you to provide a key for a locked box? Cause if not, it's not a violation of the 5th amendment.

There's usually more than meets the eye in a case that results in this hot a dispute. It's not over whether she can be compelled to furnish the unencrypted data. The prosecution already can do this. Whether you think it's a Bad Thing or not, it is already so. The dispute is over whether she can do so without incriminating herself. If she cannot do so without incriminating herself, she cannot be forced to.

There's a whole legal formality called "production" involved. Production is not just turning over the evidence that is demanded. It's turning it over in such a way that your adversary can connect it solidly to you. You can't be compelled to do so, if the act of doing so would allow your adversary to make the connection between the evidence and you that he otherwise couldn't do.

This is an oversimplification, but it may serve to explain the point of the judge's ruling.

Say the prosecution thinks it's your computer, but can't prove it. If they demand that you decrypt files on it, and you do so, that would prove the connection between you and the files. It doesn't matter whether you do so by giving them your passphrase, or typing in your passphrase privately, or decrypting the files by any other means. It would be self-incrimination, and your lawyer would rightly direct you to refuse.

On the other hand, say the prosecution damn well knows it's your computer, that they know you know it's your computer, and that you have encrypted files on it, and that they can prove it. Now, the act of decrypting the files no longer incriminates you. They already know they're your files. (This is called the "foregone conclusion doctrine".) Because they already know and can prove your relationship to the files, you are not incriminating yourself by decrypting them, and you can no longer refuse to do so.

What the judge actually ruled was not unusual for a "foregone conclusion" case. It has three points:

1. The prosecution is entitled to read the files in the clear, and the defendant is ordered to make it so.

2. The prosecution must not use the defendant's compliance with the order in proving "production". They must base their proof of "production" on what they already know. (They know the computer was found in the defendant's bedroom. They know the defendant talked about the computer in a way that identified that computer as hers. They know the computer had the defendant's name as its host name. The judge said that was enough.)

3. The defendant is entitled to at least a copy of the disk.
The judge's order said the disk was encrypted with PGP Desktop. Full text here:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/01/decrypt.pdf
The whole thing comes down to whether the act of doing so incriminates you. If the prosecution can't prove it's your box, they can't compel you to produce the key, not because they can't compel you to yield up the evidence inside, but because they can't compel you to prove it's your box.

very interesting analysis, cheers! So if I understand correctly, it is not whether the evidence itself links you to the crime, but whether or not the act of producing the evidence links you to that evidence of the crime?

So I'm not sure about a lock combo, but a judge did rule that you don't have to give up a password, but I'm not sure where the distinction is. I found crjgreen's analysis very interesting.

Very good explanation. Thanks a lot.

EDIT:

Is all that for criminal cases too?

In civil law countries court cannot order you to bring a key for a locked box.

I don't know how it is in barbaric states of USA :P

Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination doesn't apply directly to civil cases. It does apply indirectly: if your testimony in a civil case (or a non-trial proceeding such as a grand jury or Congressional investigation) might implicate you in a crime, you can "take the Fifth".

Because this could prevent a lot of valuable testimony, it is a common practice to bargain for immunity, when a witness testifies in a civil case, or a witness not charged testifies in a criminal case. To the extent that you are granted immunity, the evidence you give can't be used against you in a criminal trial, and you can't take the Fifth to avoid testifying.

In the UK yes, section 4 of RIPA is all about "notice to surrender" passwords safe combinations/keys. 2-5 years in prison (+ fines of course) for failure to comply depending on what is being investigated.

The UK is a total police state, the law doesn't even pay lip service to the universal declaration of human rights (or the ECHR or human rights act) any more.

Actually, thinking about this again.. Can't she just claim that the encrytion is her method of DRM, protecting her property on her HDD?

I know it's illegal to break DRM so would the police even be allowed to try breaking her encryption even if they have her pc?

Phew - I was starting to think 10+ years of crime drama shows had been telling me lies about the legal system