[Revel]

"A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent."

That is a pretty lame and disprovable statement if you ask me.
Sometimes people are not doing anything illegal but they don't want other people who have access to a computer to read personal info. Everyone who pays attention knows that authorities can break any encryption available to the public anyways. but it would prevent normal people from reading stuff, or looking at personal data.

[sourcery]

I have a text file containing all my passwords for all my accounts. It's encrypted by PGP. If that's not a legitimate use, without any possible implication of criminal intent, then keys, locks, passwords and passcards are all just as incriminating.

[Arthalion]

Everyone who pays attention knows that authorities can break any encryption available to the public anyways. but it would prevent normal people from reading stuff, or looking at personal data.

Yes and no. It's true that the NSA can break RSA encryption, but that's only because they have a supercomputer that can brute-force the key. Depending on the quality of the key and the number of encrypted layers, it can still take from several hours to WEEKS to decrypt a single file.

So while they can, theoretically, get into any encrypted file, there are practical limits to what they'll do. It's unlikely that the NSA is going to waste supercomputing time decrypting an image for a small-time local kiddy porn case, but they'll certainly do so if they think a file may contain data important to national security. The practical limitations of brute force decryption basically reserve its use for the most important cases. Criminals know this, which is why they still encrypt.