Subpoena individuals and do investigative work. Identified individuals can choose to comply and reveal their digital artifacts that are specifically identified as being part of a crime or be held in contempt of the court order. If they don't use locks or use easily bypassable biometrics then the court order already allows latitude for that.
Just give up on being able to image and examine people's encrypted artifacts, and just give up on trying to tap a firehose of data from the providers now that they have an interest in encrypting what they store.
The state had a good 30 years of unprotected digital artifacts being available, and now it is just going back to the heuristic analysis of the days before, a level of accepted intrusion that government is built around.
> Identified individuals can choose to comply and reveal their digital artifacts that are specifically identified as being part of a crime or be held in contempt of the court order.
Abuse of "contempt of court" to compel third parties not accused of any other crime to assist in an investigation is also a problem. The court can ask for the data, of course, but one ought to have the legal right to refuse; refusal to provide the requested data, on its own, should not be considered evidence of guilt or probable cause to conduct a search.
Just give up on being able to image and examine people's encrypted artifacts, and just give up on trying to tap a firehose of data from the providers now that they have an interest in encrypting what they store.
The state had a good 30 years of unprotected digital artifacts being available, and now it is just going back to the heuristic analysis of the days before, a level of accepted intrusion that government is built around.