
  > OK, I should have read the thread before posting my own $0.02.  I would
  > just add to Phil's very infomative discussion the following caveat: the
  > fifth amendment applies ONLY in crinial cases.  ("...nor shall any person .
  > . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...").

    Maybe you are using the wrong amendment.  If someone were to seize
a safe containing your (paper) records, and demand that you produce
the combination, the applicable defense would be on grounds of
unreasonable search and seizure.  The police would be entitled to
subpoena documents relating to a specific matter, but any broad search
such as implied by impounding all your records would be unconstitutional.
In the case of the safe, they would probably get a locksmith and
assert that they ONLY examined documents covered by the warrent.
(Sure!)  In the cryptographic case, their only resort would be
rubber-hose cryptography.

    (This would also make a good "mental experiment" to use in
choosing escrow agents.  Would you trust this proposed agent with a
key to your hard disk?--or half the key for that matter.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus