Talk:Key disclosure law
Add topic | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]I beleive the importance of the subject matter on this needs to be flagged as high rather than low. In a world where data secuity, civil liberties and police powers are constantly at loggerheads this topic needs to be fully understood.
I would like someone from the relevant international judiciaries to comment on the application of the laws more fully including any successful challenges.
For example what is the position if a person is required to provide a key but they have in fact lost the key. Would this constitue "witholding" or "refusal to provide"? 62.189.19.125 (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a review of the page I created for United States v. Kirschner, if anyone is willing. Copiesofcopies (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
likely copyvio
[edit]The diff from 2012 March 13 adds a bunch of text identical to this ars technica article. --Nanite (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Please add Russia
[edit]https://www.mondaq.com/russianfederation/Privacy/750216/Privacy-And-Cybersecurity-In-Russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.255.10.178 (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't the section on the US mention CBP's "100-mile zone"?
[edit]The Border search exception gives federal Customs and Border Patrol agents in the United States broad powers to demand that a person hand over their passwords and decryption keys for their devices without any warrant. B9 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
UK law change
[edit]Hi, there are ongoing discussions about including 'information of interest to EU member states' with an increased penalty of 10 years for failing to comply. This would be added as an amendment to the 'The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022' 88.81.131.186 (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)