Not sure if that applies to a password used to secure crypto, since you can argue that the gov can see what's behind the password (ie: the crypto amount), and the purpose of the law is to reveal data hidden by the password, not to take control over it.

The "legitimate interests" clause is broad enough that it can probably be bent for that, but I reckon it would boil down to the interpretation of the "no signatures" clause:

> (9) A notice under this section shall not require the disclosure of any key which-

> (a) is intended to be used for the purpose only of generating electronic signatures; and

> (b) has not in fact been used for any other purpose.

I'm not versed in bitcoin enough to judge if wallet data protected by that password is used only for signing. This clause seems largely meant to avoid the possibility that authorities will impersonate a user after forcing him to hand over his key.

Info about the relevant law: https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investig...

I forgot my password.

Judges love arguments like this.

This has been tested in court as a defense. Try to guess what the result was.