your ipso isn't quite so facto. There are many scenarios where encrypted information is evidentiary in non-thought-only crimes. Consider bitcoin theft, other money laundry. Consider second-order evidence, e.g. incriminating pictures or video of illegal acts for which not enough physical evidence has been gathered.
Self-incrimination is highly compelling evidence in all crimes. Interesting to note, however, is that a confession is one of the lowest and most unreliable forms of evidence.
But in speaking of thought crime, I'm merely speaking of crimes which are entirely inevident (which admittedly is a term I just made up) save for self-incrimination. Likewise, if it is evident that a crime has been committed, then by definition it is not a thought crime.
If there is evidence beyond self-incrimination, by all means find it and produce it at trial. For example, bitcoin theft by definition must effect an unwilling 3rd party, therefore there's at least a human who can testify their coins were stolen. It's evident in victim testimony, on the blockchain, in access logs and source code of the central service that was hacked, or in malware left behind on the victim's computer, etc.
The existence of a wronged third party is not evidence of guilt; the existence of a bitcoin wallet with the stolen funds on your phone, however, would be.
The idea that the digital world is so sancrosanct that it's totally exempt from existing law is enticing, I'll grant you. But not necessarily convincing.
It can be perfectly evident that a crime has been committed, without it being evident who committed it. So the evidence potentially found by examining the contents of a suspect's devices is not at all necessarily evidence of thoughtcrime.
