Not to go down the wrong rabbithole--the article should be in the Fanciful Speculation section of the paper, not the News section--but handing over a passphrase would mean the the Russian authorities' statement that they "are not working with" Snowden would not be semantically correct.

Not that I believe the Russians wouldn't lie, but the internal logic of the article does rest on the assertion that they are technically telling the truth while leaving themselves a loophole. Since it is safe to assume that Snowden did strong-encrypt the docs on his laptops, this internal logic falls apart.

(As a sidenote, I don't think I've heard the phrase "semantically (in)correct" as much in my life as in the past month. Someone should write a browser extension that automatically replaces it with the phrase "weasel words".)

Is it truly "working with" if they compel him to speak though? ;)

I believe it's "working with" in the same sense that I "work with" PL/SQL. You get the data you need, but it certainly isn't an amicable relationship. :)

Interrogation is definitely a risk, but it isn't what the linked article is suggesting.