🚀 go-pugleaf

Thus said ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter):
> In <1992Nov12.213519.9323@news.cs.indiana.edu>
> Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>However, personal information which is not obtainable
>>without my cooperation (such as facts I have memorized) cannot be
>>obtained without my consent for use against me.
>
> Nonsense.  Clearly you are not required to yield your memories.
> However, *anything* (you) write or "have" *can* be "obtained
> without (your) consent for use against (you)," provided only that
> a specific warrant does issue for probable cause.

The key word in my text is "cooperation"; perhaps I should have said
"assistance".  If I write something down, and you get a warrant to
search and find it, it can be used against me.  I have seen no proposal
to change this.  However, I am not required to help you find what is
written down, nor to help you understand the meaning of what is written
down.  Really, I don't think we're disagreeing on this...

[ stuff re the Constitution deleted ]

> Since I have access only to the document itself, I can only form
> an opinion by reading it, and I believe my position is entirely
> consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

I must have misunderstood your position then.  I thought you were saying
that I could be compelled to reveal the (memorized) key to any encrypted
files which are found in a warranted search.  What exactly *is* your
position?
-- 
Marc VanHeyningen    mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu    MIME & RIPEM accepted
Thinking of the kind that GPS and other AI models that attempt to reason
from first principles hardly occurs at all. [sic]
		- Riesbeck & Schank