My Objections Re Judicial Or Legislative
Constraints On Cryptology In A First /
Fourth / Fifth Amendment Domain:
The Idioglossia Paradigm

The following all occurs in San Francisco.
Imagine that Alice, a native speaker of english,
has devised a private spoken language,
which is grammatically and linguistically rich,
robust, and functionally complete, and which
also is completely indecipherable and
"un-analysable" to others by any means.
Assume that no one, without Alice's cooperation,
can definitively ascertain if she has taught
anyone else to speak or understand her language.

1. May Alice legitimately be constrained from
(or sanctioned for) expressing herself in this language?

2. If a communication by Alice in this language
has been audio-recorded, under what condition
may she legitimately be compelled to translate
the recording?

3. If the communication of item #2 has been
rendered -- or even originally produced --
in a faithful phonetic written form on a
single paper copy, under what condition may
Alice legitimately be compelled to translate it?

4. If the single copy of #3 is instead digital,
produced in a manner such that nothing about
its location, file-name, etc. imply anything
about the content of the communication, then
under what condition may Alice legitimately be
compelled to translate it?

5. Now imagine another person, Carol,
an "idiot savante", with idioglossic capability
which superficially seems equivalent to Alice's.
However, Carol's case is different, in that she
has the mental ability to perform the most
advanced and secure key-generation, encryption,
and decryption without artificial aids.
Carol's talent is so profound, that her
encrypted-from-english speech -- and her
comprehension of any received communication which
has been thus encrypted -- occurs in real-time,
and is indistinguishable from the naturalistic
communication of a speaker of some unknown
language (e.g. Alice).

Are the answers to items #1-through-#4 any
different in Carol's case?

6. Suppose that Ted purchases a new, blank,
never-formatted hard-drive, formats it,
creates a top-level directory named "Porn",
and three subordinate directories named
"Adults","Teens", and "Even Younger",
and in the last creates a subordinate directory
named "Screamed So Loud, I Had To Wear Hearing
Protection". Into this directory he creates --
eiher copied or "de novo" --
a file named "I Got This From Alice.mpg.pgp"
and one named "I Got This From Carol.mpg.pgp".
Ted then purchases a new laptop computer,
and replaces its single hard-drive with
the one containing those files.

Ted then proceeds quickly to a nearby place,
where he is detained and the computer examined,
and the the presence of the files is discerned
by the examining authority. Forensic
examination of the contents is fruitless.
IANAL, but I believe that it can reqasonably
be said that Ted has committed no illegal act
in arriving at this moment.

What can legitimately be compelled of any of
the three named parties?

7. Ted is suspected of having child-porn on the
disk, and is arrested. From the moment of his
arrival at the place where is was originally
detained,until the moment when a court orders
Ted to render the files intelligible, Ted has
communicated nothing to anyone except the
bare minimum which is legally required
(name, etc.).

The "government" has expended enormous effort
and expense in this entire matter. At this point
Ted complies with the court's order. (IANAL,
but I believe that the exact manner in which he
does this is irrelevant to the coming question.)

The contents of the files are shown to be
nothing but the most scatalogical, vile,
horrific, vituperative, and scurrilous written
characterizations of all of the individuals --
by name -- involved in Ted's detention, arrest,
prosecution and trial, including any judge(s) involved.

From the perspective of knowing nothing of
Ted's intentions or actions before the
examination of his computer -- and nothing after
except what was apparent to all involved
without his cooperation --
can Ted reasonably be said to have violated any
laws? Are there any charges which are likely
to be sustained, assuming adequate and competent
defense counsel?