The big difference is the fact that a key is a physical object. A password is not.
On 2/21/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 > -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 _______________________________________________ FDE mailing list [email protected] http://www.xml-dev.com/mailman/listinfo/fde
