Legal compulsion and self-incriminating passphrase

[Caspar Bowden]

> We have nothing to which a fifth amendment could be applied. The
> statement that your passphrase contained a confession would merely be
> seen as a source of glee by any passing officer. You have already made
> the statement when you used it, and if it wasn't true when you made it
> you woldn't be worried about it. They are not asking you to make a new
> statement but executing a search on a confession already made

Not literally true. The key which protects your private keyring is generated
each time from a hash of the passphrase. The passphrase is not saved or
stored anywhere permanently. Therefore each time I type in the passphrase, I
make the confession anew. Therefore if asked to divulge the passphrase, I
would be compelled to incriminate myself.

This is all very weird I agree, but it seems arguable. If it is arguable,
then the question arises whether the intention to circumvent access
nullifies the defence, and if a judge compelled disclosure in spite of the
defendants *claim* that the passphrase was incriminating, what would happen
next.
--
Caspar Bowden
Director, Foundation for Information Policy Research
Tel: +44(0)171 354 2333
Fax: +44(0)171 827 6534