Ceci n'est pas une pipe. Reasonable people are sophisticated enough to understand that there is a difference between using a sentence as a password, and believing that sentence to be true.

On a related note, I once looked into changing my middle name to an executable implementation of RSA, so that my passport would be a non-exportable munition. (No go.)

What was their reason for declining the name change?

I would guess that it would be too long if written out in English, and that they'd probably deny a name change to a name that contains characters not normally used in names (asterisks, semicolons, underscores...)

What if you read the article?

"Prosecutors in this case have stressed that they don't actually require the passphrase itself"

It's not testimony. Even confessions can't be used against you if not given in the form of a testimony.

Source? Not trying to be snarky, just would like more details. What counts as testimony?