> In deciding against Rawls, the court of appeals found that the constitutional rights against being compelled to testify against oneself were not being breached. That's because the appeals court, like the police, agreed that the presence of XXXXXXXXXX on his drives was a "foregone conclusion." The Fifth Amendment, at its most basic level, protects suspects from being forced to disclose incriminating evidence. In this instance, however, the authorities said they already know there's XXXXXXXXXX on the drives, so Rawls' constitutional rights aren't compromised.
> ""Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe [Rawls] had downloaded thousands of files known by their "hash" values to be XXXXXXXXXX. The files, however, were not on the Mac Pro, but instead had been stored on the encrypted external hard drives. Accordingly, the files themselves could not be accessed.""
A good guess can figure out what I've redacted.