[I want the USA back]

So, he was not jailed for not turning over his password, as the lying headline says.
This is like opening a safe. If the court can order someone to open a safe (search done with warrant), then they can order someone to decrypt data.
He was jailed for not complying with the search warrant (court order).
Headlines should not aim for sensationalism, but for a clear statement of the facts.

[monkeybrau]

So the penalty for not complying with the search order is to be jailed forever? Seems disproportionate at first glance.

[JAKraig]

So, he was not jailed for not turning over his password, as the lying headline says.
This is like opening a safe. If the court can order someone to open a safe (search done with warrant), then they can order someone to decrypt data.
He was jailed for not complying with the search warrant (court order).
Headlines should not aim for sensationalism, but for a clear statement of the facts.

_____________________________________________________

Wrong!

Courts have already decided that you don't have to unlock a door or a safe, the prosecution can break the door down with whatever means they want when they have a warrant however. The same is true here, they have the drive(s) let them have at it. If there was a code that you kept your personal notes in could you be required to decrypt it, heavens no, that would be self incrimination. I say he should keep his mouth shut even if he is a pervert. Let the law figure it out.

Our 1st 10 amendments have already been watered down too much.