Originally posted here by Striek
Used in this context, encryption software is a means to an end. If I beat you to death with a pipe wrench, I will be carged with `assault with a weapon` or whatever the local equivalent in your area is. This does not mean that all plumbers are guilty of deadly weapons posession.
It should be noted that, at least according to the article, there was no evidence presented that any files were encrypted or evidence destroyed using the encryption program (PGP). It would seem that the legal decision found that the mere act of having encryption software constituted evidence of criminal intent, and was thus relevant to the case. I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like it goes a tad too far, even in the light of other evidence against the defendant.

If encryption were used to hide or destroy evidence, that's one thing. But simply having encryption software in the first place?

Isn't that a bit like saying we have evidence you ran a drug lab, and the fact that you had a lock on your front door further demonstrated criminal intent, even if you didn't use it?