Legal compulsion and self-incriminating passphrase

[David Swarbrick]

In message <000201bdab49$49d1f220$dc77e4d4@cpsb>, Caspar Bowden
<cb@fipr.org> writes
>> Almost, but the requirement only works (if it works) because
>> the hash is a direct and necesary descendent of your having made the
>> statement.
>
>Accepting again that this is all a bit far-fetched,

That about sums it all up. It is fun, but little more.

>I suppose if we do get export controls on intangibles, and one is accused of
>e-mailing a copy of PGP abroad (encrypted), we have meta-self-incrimination
>("I e-mailed this crypto code on dd/mm/yy + hash of my dig.sig. of this
>passphrase"). In this case I not only divulge, but prove my guilt. Now
>that's just getting silly.

The proper use of reductio ad absurdam should not be a source of
complaint.

-- 
David Swarbrick, Solicitor  
http://www.swarb.co.uk/swarbrick (office)  'a damn fine web-site'
http://www.swarb.demon.co.uk (home)