📝 Correction | Canadian Key Disclosure status #2039
Labels
No Label
🔍🤖 Search Engines
approved
dependencies
duplicate
feedback wanted
high priority
I2P
iOS
low priority
OS
Self-contained networks
Social media
stale
streaming
todo
Tor
WIP
wontfix
XMPP
[m]
₿ cryptocurrency
ℹ️ help wanted
↔️ file sharing
⚙️ web extensions
✨ enhancement
❌ software removal
💬 discussion
🤖 Android
🐛 bug
💢 conflicting
📝 correction
🆘 critical
📧 email
🔒 file encryption
📁 file storage
🦊 Firefox
💻 hardware
🌐 hosting
🏠 housekeeping
🔐 password managers
🧰 productivity tools
🔎 research required
🌐 Social News Aggregators
🆕 software suggestion
👥 team chat
🔒 VPN
🌐 website issue
🚫 Windows
👁️ browsers
🖊️ digital notebooks
🗄️ DNS
🗨️ instant messaging (im)
🇦🇶 translations
No Milestone
No Assignees
1 Participants
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#2039
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Description
Canada is listed under countries where individuals are subject to key disclosure laws, yet the link to the Wikipedia citation actually reads as the opposite - that attempts to compel individuals to turn over keys have failed in court and that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines the right to protect against self-incrimination.
Why I am making the suggestion
I don't know what the legal status actually is in Canada, but the citation provided in the list actually says the opposite of what Canada's listing in that column suggests.
My connection with the software
None
I've update your issue, please use the templates provided in future. This is definately something to look into, so thanks for opening the issue.
Ok thanks - sorry will do in the future.
Yes, we need to put a PR in for this. I had forgotten about it https://github.com/privacytools/privacytools.io/issues/1167#issuecomment-604583930