Corrections
If something here is wrong, we want to know — and when we fix it, we say so publicly rather than quietly editing the page.
Email [email protected]. A link to the provision you think we have misread is the fastest way to get it changed.
What we have corrected
2026-10-04 · /uk/ports-schedule-7 · raised by internal
Was: Quoted paragraph 55 of the Schedule 7 Code of Practice as ending at “may include passwords to electronic devices”, without the sentence that follows it. /scotland/seizure-and-cyber-kiosks, /compare/at-the-border, /protect/before-a-border, /methodology, the rights card, the next-60-seconds tool and the border-prep tool did the same.
Now: Adds the next sentence of paragraph 55: an examining officer may not, however, compel a person to disclose or confirm the identity of a source of journalistic information or disclose information subject to legal privilege. Each place says that this is a rule for the examining officer and, as quoted, does not give the person a right to refuse any Schedule 7 duty.
2026-10-04 · /compare/face-or-finger · raised by internal
Was: Stated the offence in paragraph 18(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 as wilfully failing to comply with a duty imposed under or by virtue of the Schedule, and nothing more. /compare/at-the-border, /uk/ports-schedule-7, /scotland/seizure-and-cyber-kiosks, /protect/before-a-border, /methodology, the rights card, the next-60-seconds tool and the border-prep tool did the same.
Now: States all of paragraph 18(1): a person commits an offence if he wilfully fails to comply with a duty imposed under or by virtue of the Schedule, wilfully contravenes a prohibition imposed under or by virtue of the Schedule, or wilfully obstructs, or seeks to frustrate, a search or examination under or by virtue of the Schedule.
2026-10-04 · /uk/warrants-and-premises · raised by internal
Was: Stated PACE Code B para 6.8 — copies of the Notice and warrant left on the premises are endorsed “subject to paragraph 2.9” with the name of the officer in charge of the search — without saying what paragraph 2.9 says. Stated s.50(4) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 by reference to “the power of seizure conferred by s.50(2)” without stating s.50(2).
Now: States paragraph 2.9: nothing in the Code requires the identity of officers, or anyone accompanying them during a search of premises, to be recorded or disclosed in the case of enquiries linked to national security including terrorism, or if officers reasonably believe recording or disclosing their names might put them in danger; in these cases officers should use warrant or other identification numbers and the name of their police station. States s.50(2) in the Act’s words, with each of its conditions.
2026-10-04 · /uk/seize-and-sift-cjpa-50-51 · raised by internal
Was: Stated s.59(7) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 as ending “the person mentioned in paragraph (a)” without marking which words are paragraph (a). Stated s.51(1) and s.51(4) by reference to the power conferred by s.51(2), and said that s.51(2) was not quoted on the page.
Now: Letters the two grounds in s.59(7) as the Act does — (a) to issue, on the application of the person who is in possession of the property at the time of the application under section 59, a warrant in pursuance of which, or of the exercise of which, it would be lawful to seize the property; or (b) to make one of the listed orders under which the property would fall to be delivered up or produced to the person mentioned in paragraph (a) — and states s.51(2) in the Act’s words.
2026-10-04 · /compare/warrant · raised by internal
Was: The England and Wales answer stated s.8(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 without saying that the words “in relation to each set of premises specified in the application”, which the revised text prints at the end of the subsection, were added by amendment at the end of paragraph (e).
Now: A note under that answer states s.113(3)(b) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which added those words at the end of paragraph (e) of s.8(1).
2026-10-04 · /tools/whats-on-your-phone · raised by internal
Was: Stated Android’s description of Device Encrypted (DE) storage without the documentation’s opening words, “On an FBE-enabled device”. /on-your-phone/what-a-full-extraction-contains and /tools/could-they-get-in did the same.
Now: States that the documentation says that on an FBE-enabled device each user of the device has two storage locations available to apps, one of which is Device Encrypted (DE) storage.
2026-10-04 · /tools/rights-card · raised by internal
Was: Said every line on the card “links to the law it comes from”, though some lines quote an agency’s own statement or directive. The tools index said the same of every tool, and /tools/border-prep described its content as “what the law says” at each border.
Now: Says every line links to the quoted source it comes from; the border-prep tool says it gives what the law and the agencies’ own documents say. The line above each page’s duty map, which said every claim “links to the law it comes from”, now says “the source it comes from”.
2026-10-04 · /uk/victims-witnesses-pcsc · raised by internal
Was: Referred to “conditions A to C” in s.40 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and set out only Condition B. /scotland/seizure-and-cyber-kiosks did not mention s.40.
Now: Sets out Conditions A, B and C, and s.40(5), which says the exercise of the power in s.37(1) by virtue of s.40 is subject to s.37. The Scotland page states s.40 too, with s.207(2), which says sections 37 to 44 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
2026-10-04 · /uk/seizure-pace · raised by internal
Was: Stated s.22(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by reference to “the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(a)” without saying what those purposes are. /uk/retention-and-deletion did the same, and the description of /compare/how-long-kept gave s.22 without “subject to s.22(4)”.
Now: States s.22(2)(a): use as evidence at a trial for an offence, or forensic examination or investigation in connection with an offence.
2026-10-04 · /on-your-phone/what-a-full-extraction-contains · raised by source-drift
Was: Quoted a sentence from Cellebrite’s Inseyets product page — “access devices previously unreachable and extract the Full File System, including encrypted and containerized data” — that is no longer on that page, and described it as something the product is “able to” do. /on-your-phone/deleted-is-not-gone did the same, and /tools/whats-on-your-phone said the page “says it can extract the Full File System”.
Now: Quotes the sentence now on Cellebrite’s page, in an FAQ answer on what Inseyets includes: “Access devices and data previously unreachable and extract the Full File System data including containerized applications and encrypted data.” It is given as Cellebrite’s own words. The same change was made on /on-your-phone/deleted-is-not-gone and /tools/whats-on-your-phone.
2026-10-04 · /compare/what-they-can-extract · raised by internal
Was: Showed Apple’s sentence about what happens “shortly after the user locks a device” under “Off / before first unlock” — a state that sentence does not describe. Introduced the device-state lines as being “about key availability by lock state” and as describing “how the vendors handle keys”, which not all of the quoted lines say.
Now: That slot quotes Android’s file-based encryption documentation: on an FBE-enabled device, Device Encrypted storage is available both during Direct Boot mode and after the user has unlocked the device. Apple’s sentence is no longer shown under that heading, and the lines are introduced as what the vendors document for each device state.
2026-10-04 · /australia/qld-device-information-orders · raised by internal
Was: Stated what an order under s.154(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 can require without the subsection’s opening words, and did not state s.154A(5).
Now: States that s.154(1) applies “If the issuer is a magistrate or a judge”, who may make the order “in a search warrant”, and states s.154A(5): what a magistrate or judge must be satisfied of before making an order after a device has been seized.
2026-10-04 · /usa/return-and-retention-rule-41 · raised by internal
Was: Listed the sentence quoted from Utah’s 2019 bill under “Limits on them”, though the subsection containing its exceptions is not quoted and the bill’s currency has not been checked.
Now: Lists it under “What the sources say”, as what an enrolled 2019 bill says.
2026-10-04 · /uk/ports-schedule-7 · raised by internal
Was: Stated the penalty for an offence under paragraph 18 of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 as imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, with nothing more. The Scotland seizure page and the border-prep tool did the same; the rights card gave that term as what the penalty “includes”.
Now: States the whole of paragraph 18(2): imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
2026-10-04 · /uk/online-accounts-2026-act · raised by internal
Was: Described the power that s.178 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 (not yet in force) will add to Schedule 7 without sub-paragraphs (3) and (6) of the paragraph it will insert, each of which will limit the exercise of that power.
Now: States that the power will be exercisable only to extract information which was accessible by means of the online accounts at the time the search or examination began, and only for so long as the electronic device continues to be detained under paragraph 11.
2026-10-04 · /uk/ripa-notice · raised by internal
Was: Stated Schedule 2 paragraph 4(2) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by reference to “paragraph 2 or 3” without saying when paragraph 2 applies.
Now: States when paragraph 2 applies — in the case of protected information falling within section 49(1)(a), (b) or (c) where the statutory power in question is one exercised, or to be exercised, in accordance with a warrant issued by the Secretary of State or a person holding judicial office, an authorisation under Part III of the Police Act 1997, or a targeted equipment interference warrant issued under section 106 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 — together with paragraph 2(2) and paragraph 2(9). The Scotland seizure page and the comparison of passcode duties say the same.
2026-10-02 · /australia/qld-device-information-orders · raised by internal
Was: Said a Queensland order under s.154 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 can require a person to use access information for a device themselves.
Now: Says what s.154(1) says: the order can require the person to give a police officer access information for the device, and to allow a police officer to use access information for it. Also now states that s.205A(2) of the Criminal Code says the risk of self-incrimination is not a reasonable excuse.
2026-10-02 · /australia/border-abf · raised by internal
Was: Listed the Australian Border Force’s statement that there is “no legal compulsion” to give a passcode at the border under the heading “You can refuse” (sub-line “No penalty for saying no.”), and its statement about seizing the device under “Lawful to refuse — but it costs you”. Also stated the Customs Act s.186A copying power without its condition.
Now: Quotes both statements as what the ABF said in a written answer to a parliamentary question, under “What the sources say”, without presenting them as a rule of law. States that s.186A(1) lets an officer copy a document only if, as a result of the examination, the officer is satisfied it may contain information relevant to the matters the subsection lists. The s.186A condition was also added on the border-prep tool and the comparison of what can be extracted; the ABF statements were moved out of “You can refuse” and “Lawful to refuse” on the rights card and the border page in the “protect” section.
2026-10-02 · /australia/nsw-digital-evidence-access-orders · raised by internal
Was: Presented “without reasonable excuse” as a limit on the New South Wales offence without the provision that narrows it. The Victoria page had the same gap.
Now: States s.76AO(2): it is not a reasonable excuse that complying would tend to incriminate the person. The Victoria page now states s.465AA(6) and all the elements of the s.465AA(9) offence.
2026-10-02 · /uk/seizure-pace · raised by internal
Was: Stated the PACE s.19(4) power to require electronic information to be produced, and the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 s.50 “seize and sift” power, without their conditions; stated the s.22(1) retention rule without “subject to subsection (4)”.
Now: States the s.19(4) reasonable-grounds and necessity conditions, each limb of s.50(1) including that it is not reasonably practicable to determine the matter on the premises, and s.22(4): nothing may be retained for the purposes in s.22(2)(a) if a photograph or copy would be sufficient. The s.22 change was also made on /uk/retention-and-deletion, /uk/online-accounts-2026-act, the England and Wales cell of /compare/how-long-kept and the rights card.
2026-10-02 · /compare/must-i-give-the-code · raised by internal
Was: Said that permission to give a RIPA section 49 notice in Scotland is granted by a sheriff, quoting Schedule 2 paragraph 1 (“if, and only if”), with nothing more. The Scotland seizure page said the same, under the heading “Limits on them”, without the words “subject to the following provisions of this Schedule”.
Now: Also states, in the Schedule’s words, paragraph 4(2) — for protected information falling within section 49(1)(a), (b) or (c) to which paragraph 2 or 3 does not apply, and subject to paragraph 6, where the statutory power was exercised, or is likely to be exercised, by the police, the police have the appropriate permission without any grant of permission under paragraph 1 — and paragraph 6(2): subject to sub-paragraph (3), a constable does not by virtue of paragraph 1, 4 or 5 have the appropriate permission unless he is of or above the rank of superintendent, or a person of that rank or higher has granted permission to give the notice. The England and Wales cell of the same comparison, /uk/ripa-notice and /scotland/seizure-and-cyber-kiosks say the same.
2026-10-02 · /usa/border-cbp · raised by internal
Was: Listed CBP’s statement that travelers are “obligated to present” devices under the heading “You must” (sub-line “Refusing is a criminal offence.”), though the quoted directive states no offence. Described an “advanced search” without the definition’s own exclusion, and the retention rule without section 5.6.2.
Now: Quotes the statement as what CBP’s directive says, under “What the sources say”. States that using equipment merely to make a device’s contents available for inspection, including to bypass a password, is not an advanced search under the directive; states section 5.6.2; and states that the directive says it creates no rights.
2026-10-02 · /usa/return-and-retention-rule-41 · raised by internal
Was: Stated Utah’s warrant requirement for electronic device data as if it had no exceptions and as current law.
Now: Quotes the bill as enrolled in 2019 with its opening words — “Except as provided in Subsection (2)”, “for a criminal investigation or prosecution” — and says this site has not checked later amendments. Since the update of 6 October 2026 the page instead says it does not quote the current Utah Code section 77-23c-102 and does not say what it now provides.
2026-10-02 · /compare · raised by internal
Was: The overview grid showed bare badges such as “They can”, “A limit applies” and “May refuse” on cells that rested on a regulator’s or NGO’s report, or on an agency’s own policy or statement.
Now: Shows the source under every badge, uses “A report says” for report findings and “Agency says: …” for an agency’s own statement, and explains each badge in a legend.
2026-10-02 · /australia/identify-and-disrupt-2021 · raised by internal
Was: Described what the 2021 Act’s warrants were for, who they were aimed at and what would happen at the sunset date, in sentences no quoted provision carried.
Now: States only what the quoted commencement, definition and sunset provisions say, and is retitled to match.
2026-10-02 · /tools/could-they-get-in · raised by internal
Was: Placed Apple’s sentence about what happens “shortly after the user locks a device”, and Magnet Forensics’ description of the iOS 18 inactivity reboot, under “Off / before first unlock” — a state neither passage describes — and labelled device states by where encryption keys are held, which no quoted source says. The same labels appeared as chips on /tools/whats-on-your-phone.
Now: Places both passages with a phone that has been unlocked since it started and then locked, and labels the states by what has happened to the phone. At that date the tool said this site had not sourced vendor documentation for an iPhone that is off or not yet unlocked; since 2026-10-04 that case quotes Apple’s sentence that the protection in the Protected Until First User Authentication class “protects data from attacks that involve a reboot”. The Android Credential Encrypted storage line on /tools/whats-on-your-phone no longer carries a state chip.
2026-10-02 · /uk/victims-witnesses-pcsc · raised by internal
Was: Listed Condition B in s.40(3) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (a user who is a child or an adult without capacity, where an authorised person reasonably believes the user’s life is at risk or there is a risk of serious harm to the user) under “Limits on them”, and did not state s.40(1). Stated “You may refuse” as this site’s own sentence rather than as what the written notice must say.
Now: States s.40(1) under “What they can do”: if any of conditions A to C is met, an authorised person may exercise the power in section 37(1) even though the device has not been voluntarily provided, or no user of the device has agreed to the extraction. States s.39(3)(d) and (e) as what the written notice must state.
2026-10-02 · /uk/online-accounts-2026-act · raised by internal
Was: Stated s.174(4) of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 (not yet in force) without its closing words “but this is subject to section 176”, and s.173(2) with one of its two conditions.
Now: States that s.174(4) will be subject to section 176, and both limbs of s.173(2): reasonable grounds to believe that the information includes information relevant to a reasonable line of enquiry, and that it is not reasonably practicable to obtain that information by other means.
2026-10-02 · /uk/ripa-notice · raised by internal
Was: Quoted s.49(1)(a) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 without its closing words “or is likely to do so”, added a sentence of this site’s own about seized devices, and listed the scope of section 49 and the wording of the s.53(1) offence under “Limits on them”. Did not say who has the “appropriate permission”.
Now: Quotes s.49(1)(a) in full, states the whole of s.49(2) under “What they can do”, and states Schedule 2 paragraphs 1(1), 4(2) and 6(2).
2026-10-02 · /uk/retention-and-deletion · raised by internal
Was: Listed two findings of the ICO’s 2020 report under “Limits on them”, and gave limb (a) of the s.35(8) definition of “sensitive processing” as the definition. The rights card stated the extraction Code’s deletion sentence without the Code’s statement of its own scope.
Now: Lists the ICO findings, and limb (a) as one limb of the definition, under “What the sources say”. Wherever the deletion sentence appears it is now stated with the Code’s words that it only applies as regards the powers in Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Act.
2026-10-02 · /uk/extraction-after-seizure · raised by internal
Was: Opened with a description of what a full extraction “typically pulls” that no quoted source carried, and listed s.42(1) and the extraction Code’s scope paragraph under “Limits on them”.
Now: The description is removed; the two statements are listed under “What the sources say”.
2026-10-02 · /usa/passcode-vs-biometrics · raised by internal
Was: Gave the Payne opinion’s account that an officer forcibly used Payne’s thumb to unlock the phone without the opinion’s own footnote on that fact. The same was true of the comparison of face and fingerprint unlocking and the rights card.
Now: Adds what the footnote says: whether the officer forcibly used Payne’s thumb or Payne “reluctantly unlocked the cell phone using his thumb print” was disputed before the district court, and for the purposes of the appeal the government accepted the defendant’s version of the facts.
2026-10-02 · /sources · raised by internal
Was: Printed “cited nowhere yet” beside sources that page text quotes and links.
Now: Counts every place a source is cited, and describes a source used only in page text as “linked in page text” or “not cited in a duty map, comparison or tool; its source is linked in page text”.