So, handing over the house key is a legitimate
demand but handing over the password is not.
One must therefore conclude that the password
is different than the cryptographic key, i.e.,
that a demand for the one is not the same as
a demand for the other. If one argues that
they are the same, then one must then describe
how it is that a citizen can claim that the key
is property. It does not seem likely that a
court of competent jurisdiction would be able
to find that a key is, simultaneously, property
and testimony -- that it must be one or the other.
Consider the widespread first world practice of
requiring DNA swabs at every encounter with the
gendarmes. It is neither evidence nor testimony
if you are innocent (and remain so), but it is
evidence and hence testimony if you are guilty
(or become so). If some idiot savant memorized
his genome as well as you memorize your password,
would compelling him to recite it be legitimate,
or not -- again on the grounds that refusing the
demand to recite could be overcome merely by
holding him down long enough to touch a Q-Tip
to a mucous membrane.
--dan, for the moot court still
_______________________________________________
FDE mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.xml-dev.com/mailman/listinfo/fde
