IANAL, but if I were I'd argue that this law doesn't comply with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights[0]. There is room for exception in that ar

IANAL, but if I were I'd argue that this law doesn't comply with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights[0]. There is room for exception in that article (e.g. for national security), but that doesn't take away the fundamental right of privacy. If this were to come before a court, the judge would try to balance the two rights (right to privacy and the right to be safe from child molesters or what not) to determine which of them should prevail in this situation. An important consideration is the fact that the aim of the government can mostly be achieved in a more practical way in this case (i.e. allowing them access to the data, without giving them a password), so I think that this law stands a good chance to be shot down. A good example of a case involving privacy and the margin of appreciation of a national lawmaker is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_and_Marper_v_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_and_Marper_v_United_Kingdom P.S. To explain the legal situation to Americans: international conventions and particularly the European laws (like the aforementioned ECHR, which has a special court that accepts cases from a national level that want to appeal on the basis of the ECHR) are more important than national laws. It is a bit like the Constitution in the United States. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conve...