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 articles
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 articles
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]