Is it legal to hack my wifi hotspot&#39;s password? I'm gonna explain it exactly: Parents divorced, I have a laptop from mom, and a smartphone from my father (with subscription contract), with internet access, and hotspot capable. My question is: If i make hotspot on the phone (from my father), to share internet, is it legal to crack it's password using the laptop (from my mother), for penetration testing purpose? I'm not exactly sure, and i don't wanna end up messing with the police. I'm just trying to see how long it takes to crack the phone's wifi password, to make it as secure as possible.
US law (18 U.S.C. § 1030) only addresses US government computers, computers used in a way that affects interstate commerce, and those of financial institutions. Turns out, cell phones and home computers affect interstate commerce. So the forbidden acts are delimited by expressions like "having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access", "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access" or "knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value". Notice that the law is stated in terms of authorization to access, and not "cracking passwords". Similarly, 18 U.S. Code § 2701 uses phrases like "accesses without authorization". Each state has its own laws: in Washington, RCW 9A.52.110-130 identifies forbidden acts via phrases like "without authorization, intentionally gains access". The closest I can find that comes to a law that might imaginably have some bearing on "password cracking" is 18 U.S. Code § 1029 which prohibits uses of "counterfeit access devices". An "access device" is defined in para (e) as "any ...means of account access that can be used, alone or in conjunction with another access device, to obtain money..." (there is the usual attempt at an exhaustive listing behind the ellipses). A password cracker would then be an access device since it along with a user interface to a system allows one to access the system and thus the internet of things. A counterfeit password cracker would be e.g. one manufactured by BlackhatHackersoft which passes itself off as one manufactured by WhitehatHackersoft. However: 18 USC 1029 specifically says "knowingly and with intent to defraud produces, uses, or traffics in one or more counterfeit access devices", and the intent that you describe is not to defraud. If you want a paid analysis by a professional, you can hire an attorney. My view is that if the police were to come after you, that would be an abuse of law, because the law does not prohibit taking reasonable steps to select a safe password (something like "CorrectHorseBatteryStaple", which I hear is now just behind "password" in use as a password).
Surely such a well meaning albeit naive driver wouldn't stand a chance in court if they said that it's because they've a section 230-like protection. Because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act explicitly protects computer service providers from such charges. A driver is not a computer service provider, and the US legislature has never voted to offer similar protection to drivers picking up hitchhikers. You say that an email can easily be classified as fraudulent, but that's not true. Spam detection has gotten pretty sophisticated, but they still get plenty of false positives. They were a lot less sophisticated back in 1996 when the Communications Decency Act was passed.
It's generally correct in the American system that everything not forbidden is permitted. But the law you're looking at isn't really an exception. You have the legal right to tamper with evidence if tampering is not illegal, but this statute makes it illegal. The language you've highlighted merely says that the law does not apply to those who have some other affirmative grant of authority to do so. So if you stab someone to death in your kitchen, you can't remove the body or other evidence, but the detectives investigating the case can, because they have the legal authority to process the scene and maintain the evidence for trial. So the law is similar to the &quot;speaking in public&quot; hypothetical, but that doesn't make it meaningless. Because of the First Amendment, that law doesn't actually outlaw anything, but the tampering law faces no such legal barriers. You had the right to tamper until the government said you didn't. Now that it says you don't, you can only do it on the government's terms, which require an affirmative grant of authority.
This hinges on what you mean by "spy". Generally, a landlord cannot enter a leased or rented property* without the tenant's consent, nor can their agents. (They can arrive and ask to enter, as can your neighbors whether or not you own your home, but you are not required to acquiesce in either case). A landlord can view the publicly viewable portions of the property at their leisure, as can their agents, or any member of the public for that matter. A landlord could possibly be notified of a tenant's actions in a number of ways: such as viewing the public portions of the property, being notified (or billed) by utilities or public agencies, or receiving complaints from the neighbors. A neighbor has no more, and no less, legal ability to spy on you if you owned your home vs if you rent your home. So, they would have no more right to, say, spy at your house with a telescope than if you owned the property yourself, but no less right to complain if you have a loud (or audible) party or a large number of guests; the only difference being they can complain to someone who could potentially do much more than they could if you owned the property yourself. Thus, the answer to your question depends on what is meant by "spying". *This assumes that this is a separate property; a landlord who rents out a room in their own home often has far greater rights.
Since there are cases where it is legal to break into a car, is it legal to publish a guide on how to break into a car online? It is legal to publish this guide. Indeed, it is legal to do so even if there are no cases where it is legal to do so. Does it need to have a disclaimer saying to comply with all applicable laws? No. Could the author be held responsible if someone uses the instructions to illegally break into a car? Generally not. I could imagine that there might be some very specific and exceptional fact pattern where it might, but that would be the rare exception. But see man sentenced to twenty-years in prison after pledging support to ISIS and uploading a bomb making video related to that pledge.
If you show that you received a message through WhatsApp that looks like it was sent by some person, then this is to some degree evidence that the person sent that message. Obviously they can claim that someone used their phone, or that someone forged the message and so on. The contents of the message may be hearsay. Just because someone sends a message doesn't mean the message is true. On the other hand, if someone sends a message saying "I'll kill you", that's not evidence that they were trying to kill you, but it is evidence that they threatened you.
Under United States law, it is not illegal to simply make an account on a forum where criminal activity takes place. The closest thing I can think of would be misprision of felony (AKA failure to report a crime), which requires active concealment (see United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1977)). Simply observing evidence of criminal activity and not reporting it would not qualify. However, if that forum also contains material that is illegal to posses (such as child sexual abuse material), downloading that (even by simply viewing it using your browser) could be a crime. I would note that I am specifically not advising you whether or not doing any of the other things, like making and publishing tutorial videos on how to access such sites, is likely to get you into trouble with the law. If you want that sort of legal advice, you should contact a lawyer, as the advice is going to be very specific to the exact details.
Your code is considered free speech (Bernstein v. United States) and you have allowed the use of the code via the MIT license. Since the application of your code is very generic and is not specifically targeting anyone. You probably are not criminally liable. This is simply writing a "Proof of Concept" for security testing purposes. That same way Metasploit, Nessus, and Nmap have actual exploit code but are considered tools of the trade. Now if you go around using your spyware on non consenting victims. You might get a visit from some people with guns and badges that have 3 letters on them.