Phil Karn writes:

At 02:13 PM 6/17/93 PDT, Mike Axelrod 422-0929 wrote:

Who's this Axelrod guy? I'm Godwin.

...

If the key itself had embedded testimony that was incriminating, then it is possible one could invoke the 5th amendment to avoid disclosure of the key. But, I suppose a court could do an end run around that by giving limited use immunity for the incriminating content of the key. Comments?

Mike.

I think Phil thinks we're one and the same. See below.

What I've never been able to understand about Mike's claim is why the "fruit of the poisoned tree" principle would not apply to an encryption key. As I understand it, this principle bars the use of any evidence that was gathered as a direct or indirect result of inadmissable evidence (like a warrantless search).

Untrue. "Poisonous tree" doctrine applies to illegally obtained evidence, not to "inadmissible evidence" (a very different category, logically).

Mike, back at the Hackers' Conference you mentioned a Supreme Court decision that said in passing that one could not compel a defendant to reveal the combination to a lock, but that it wasn't a binding precedent because it didn't relate to the case at hand. (I forget the legal term you used).

"Dicta." I'm sure Phil is referring to me, not to Axelrod, here.

Could you find and post an excerpt of this particular decision?

I've been trying to find this case, but haven't found it. --Mike