Analysis
An analysis area takes one question a developer actually has to answer, asks it of the whole law corpus rather than of one statute, and publishes what came back with the gaps left visible.
These are not summaries of the law. The corpus already does that, one jurisdiction at a time, on the law pages. An analysis asks something across the corpus that no single jurisdiction's page can answer, such as how common a duty is, where it is stated outright and where it is only implied, and how many of the people governed by the jurisdictions we have read live under it.
Each area states what has been measured and what has not, in the same table. A cell that reads not researched is a gap in our reading, and it is kept distinct from a cell that reads no duty, which is a finding about the law. Reporting the two the same way would publish our own backlog as the world's legal position, and it is the failure these pages are built to avoid.
-
Area 1
What the law requires of logs
What AI, privacy, age assurance and scraping law require to be recorded, per jurisdiction; what the drafters said the record was for; and where locating the person a log describes turns the log itself into personal data. Six documents, covering 1,545 instruments in force across 266 jurisdictions.
LexLint is a research index and a lint, not a lawyer. These pages describe published law as read on the date beside each figure, and set out what would have to be recorded to show it was followed. They do not apply that law to any product, project or organisation, and they are not a certification, an assurance or a compliance programme. Whether a duty reaches a particular system, and what to do about it, is a question for counsel.
The instruments behind every figure are on the LexLint software-law corpus, indexed by jurisdiction and dated on every row. The terms these pages share are defined in the LexLint glossary.