I say this below, though, when people refuse to serve access to a lawful warrant, there are now multiple cases where people will be held in contempt of court essentially indefinitely, likely for life. The court is certain that the information necessary to convict them exists, but is being vexatiously withdrawn by the suspect.
I don't really think that's a good end. I think holding people in contempt that long is a system failure. What do we do about that? Just release people when they hide evidence that they can still have full access to once they're released?
I think it's been easier to do this stuff since the founding of the government, but our government does have certain powers, lawfully enacted by the wills of all of the states for the betterment of society. If some of those powers can't reasonably be enforced, and other, less lawful, more coercive powers arise in their absence, I think everyone loses.
So we must accept that a certain amount of State violence is necessary to keep the peace. Think of a schoolyard Bully going unchecked; it takes someone standing up to them and enforcing the threat of future violence in order to end the actual occurrence of violence.
But there is a clear legal framework here:
I don't have to produce any materials to the State without a warrant acquired by due process (and not parallel construction). This is my protection from unwarranted search and seizure as outlined by the US Bill of Rights.
However, I don't have to tell you where it is. I can't prevent you from taking it, but I have the right to not have to testify. Because the enforcement for my testimony comes from State violence, and we learned from the Dark Ages what happens when we allow the government the power to extract information with force.
It would be quite ironic if, in our quest for not "going dark", we enter the Digital Dark Ages.
This seems like a pretty clear distinction to me that could be argued in court. But, as I said... not a lawyer.
And the entire concept is backed by State violence. People are only compelled to testify under threat of violence in some form. This form used to be open torture, but we've found ways of outsourcing the torture to other criminals in order to wash the State's hands clean of blood.
Sometimes we need to catch a bomber. If you ask me, that problem is only getting worse and "sometimes" may turn into "often". However, we can't risk a journalist or political activist being caught in the jaws of the system while attempting to expose the State's secret crimes. And less severely, the State doesn't have the right to know what your shopping list was last week.
The entire crux of this argument revolves around the fact that at one time it was easier to do this stuff thanks to wiretapping laws and banned encryption, but now it's harder. However, the wild west of the 70-90's isn't the base line for sensible policies when it comes to digital intrusion of your life by the State without reasonable cause.