Hopefully in the USA this makes it to the supreme court soon so that it can be ruled as unconstitutional. At least we would hope it is ruled unconstitutional, but the government has all kinds of arguments as to why it is perfectly fine to demand people incriminate themselves. The thing about the USA is that on paper it is completely different than it is in practice, but politicians talk about it like it is on paper and then disregard it in practice. There are several possible technical countermeasures to this sort of attack. The first is deniable encryption, although I believe that operating system leaks and such can still give fornesic analysts the ability to determine that there is a hidden volume present. There is also the risk that they will simply demand you to decrypt a hidden volume as well, on the assumption that anybody who uses programs that support hidden volumes must have a hidden volume. Essentially a lot of people are worried that this is going to turn into "Incriminate yourself and go to prison or go to prison for not incriminating yourself", even in cases where people really don't have any incriminating files, because they don't have hidden volumes but are demanded to decrypt something into the illegal things the police claim that they have. Another option is to use offshore servers with encryption as well of course (never storing plaintext on the server), I am not positive but I think that maybe the police in UK or NL cannot demand you to decrypt a hard drive that is in a different country. The best option of all is to never get to the step where they demand you to decrypt your files, taking measures against traffic analysis should prevent them from ever determining who you are in the first place. Encryption of persistent storage has always been a back up plan in case measures against traffic analysis fail, if you protect from traffic analysis and hacking then your encrypted persistent storage will probably never be put to the test.