Talk:Key disclosure law

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptography: Computer science Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

likely copyvio

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)[reply]

Please add Russia

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)[reply]

Shouldn't the section on the US mention CBP's "100-mile zone"?

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)[reply]

UK law change

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)[reply]