🌐 Website Issue | Update Key Disclosure Law section for Belgium #1696

New Issue

2020-02-08T12:50:03Z

jeroenev commented

2020-02-08 12:50:03 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Description

The Belgian "Hof van Cassatie", which is the highest court in belgium, has recently concluded that forcing a suspect to unlock his own devices is lawful.
https://tweakers.net/nieuws/163116/belgische-rechter-verdachte-mag-verplicht-worden-code-smartphone-af-te-staan.html
(Article is in dutch)

So I think the star next to belgium on the page referencing to the:
"people who know how to access a system may be ordered to share their knowledge, however, this doesn't apply to the suspect itself or family members."
is no longer applicable

## Description The Belgian "Hof van Cassatie", which is the highest court in belgium, has recently concluded that forcing a suspect to unlock his own devices is lawful. https://tweakers.net/nieuws/163116/belgische-rechter-verdachte-mag-verplicht-worden-code-smartphone-af-te-staan.html (Article is in dutch) So I think the star next to belgium on the page referencing to the: "people who know how to access a system may be ordered to share their knowledge, **however, this doesn't apply to the suspect itself or family members.**" is no longer applicable

👍 3

blacklight447 commented

2020-02-09 13:28:47 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Thanks for the heads up! Are you willing to make a quick PR for this? :)

lrq3000 commented

2020-02-10 06:29:29 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

A bit more background on applicability, at the end of the article: "A judge cannot simply impose the obligation [to reveal the decryption code], they must be able to prove that the suspect knows the code. For example, this is possible if someone saw the suspect use their smartphone for a while."

blacklight447 commented

2020-02-10 08:34:03 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

A bit more background on applicability, at the end of the article: "A judge cannot simply impose the obligation [to reveal the decryption code], they must be able to prove that the suspect knows the code. For example, this is possible if someone saw the suspect use their smartphone for a while."

could you link to that btw?

> > > A bit more background on applicability, at the end of the article: "A judge cannot simply impose the obligation [to reveal the decryption code], they must be able to prove that the suspect knows the code. For example, this is possible if someone saw the suspect use their smartphone for a while." could you link to that btw?

lrq3000 commented

2020-02-10 09:44:33 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

In my PR it's linked, but the article is not in english, this text is my
own translation (but it's quite straightforward, no interpretation
necessary)

Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:34, blacklight447 notifications@github.com a
écrit :

A bit more background on applicability, at the end of the article: "A
judge cannot simply impose the obligation [to reveal the decryption code],
they must be able to prove that the suspect knows the code. For example,
this is possible if someone saw the suspect use their smartphone for a
while."

could you link to that btw?

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/1696?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAIRFXVDDQKCSCEWPULJFUTRCEGPZA5CNFSM4KR2KCLKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOELHUYNI#issuecomment-584010805,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIRFXRPDHGQEN2B326I2NTRCEGPZANCNFSM4KR2KCLA
.

In my PR it's linked, but the article is not in english, this text is my own translation (but it's quite straightforward, no interpretation necessary) Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:34, blacklight447 <notifications@github.com> a écrit : > A bit more background on applicability, at the end of the article: "A > judge cannot simply impose the obligation [to reveal the decryption code], > they must be able to prove that the suspect knows the code. For example, > this is possible if someone saw the suspect use their smartphone for a > while." > > could you link to that btw? > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/1696?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAIRFXVDDQKCSCEWPULJFUTRCEGPZA5CNFSM4KR2KCLKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOELHUYNI#issuecomment-584010805>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIRFXRPDHGQEN2B326I2NTRCEGPZANCNFSM4KR2KCLA> > . >

blacklight447 commented

2020-02-10 17:16:32 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

The PR just got merged, thanks guys!

🎉 1

This repo is archived. You cannot comment on issues.

1 Participants

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#1696