This rather sparse on details article is getting quite a lot of play. The article does not provide all the information necessary, but many people are willing to suggest that it sets a precedent for 'encryption software is evidence of criminal activity." Actually, if one thinks of encryption as a tool, like, say, a knife, then this decision may make some sense. If a murder occurred and there was a knife present, wouldn't it be relevant to the case? That decision doesn't mean it was relevant to the *verdict*, but only that the judge didn't allow the defense to remove it from the trial.
From the article:
"We find that evidence of appellant's Internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him," Judge R.A. Randall wrote in an opinion dated May 3.
I'll wait for more information before drawing a conclusion on this one. "[A]t least somewhat relevant" to the case doesn't seem to quite the declaration that others are claiming.
In the end, however, isn't this type of decision a great reason for everyone to install gpg? I'm going to start encrypting my grocery list.
-----------------
I asked for more info...
The full text has been placed online. It looks like the court felt the presence of the encryption program was relevant because the appellant was suspected of having foreknowledge of a police search, i.e. he may have encrypted suspicious files prior to the search. The court, however, found no evidence of any encrypted files on the computer itself. Dubious at best...