Could I be held liable for simply sharing the idea for a crime? If I were to share an observation that I made using publicly available information/knowledge, and then somebody acted upon this to commit a crime, could I be held liable in any way? For example, let's say that I observe from a public vantage point some security guards at a building that fall asleep. I then post online in a public place the following: "I saw the security guards at Building 123 had fallen asleep, that place would be easy to rob!" If somebody who I did not know had intent to commit robbery then went and robbed the building, could I be held liable for providing the information about the sleeping security guards and 'planting the seed' for the crime? An alternate example would be for fraud. Let's say I publicised a potential fraud/scam method that I had thought of - with the intention of raising awareness and sharing the idea, could I be held liable if somebody actually committed fraud or scammed somebody using my idea? I am interested in the UK law on this.
By my understanding you should not be held criminallly liable. In order to be held guilty of a crime the prosecution needs to show the elements of the crime are met. One of these elements is "mens rea" - ie guilty mind/intent. According to your question you lacked intent to commit the crime, so the prosecution can't prove it, so their case must fail. Note that in some places there are "crimes" which are strict liability - I'm ignoring these abominations here, as they are generally a grey area between criminal and civil law where freedom is not at stake and do not seem in the spirit of your question.
The ultimate question is whether an obviously joke enterprise constitutes a real offering of securities or just performance art (a Ponzi scheme is one of many types of securities fraud). An unregistered offering of securities that does not fall within an exception is per se unlawful under federal law, but a security is generally defined as something offered with at least a prospect of making a potential profit for the investor which is not something that is true of this offering. (And if less than $1,000,000 are sold it might even be within an exemption to securities laws). State securities laws are divided into two categories. Most allow any offering of securities so long as proper disclosures are made and the offer is restricted to the right kind of investors. A minority impose substantive quality standards on offerings and this offering might violate the law in those states (although this still would present the question of whether a known money losing opportunity is really a security since there is no evidence of an intent to potentially make a profit from the investment). I do not believe that California imposes substantive quality of investment standards on public or private offerings of securities. Any deal whether or not it is a security is actionable if it is fraudulent. Normally an element of any claim for fraud is justified reliance upon a representation or upon a failure to disclose information. But, in this case, it is hard to see how anyone could say that they were justified in relying on any representation in making a purchase because they were told that they were being cheated. So, it is hard to see how a fraud claim would be sustained here either. I'm not sure that this cleanly falls into the category of gambling either, even though there is money at stake and the outcome isn't entirely certain. This doesn't really seem like a game of chance to me. Indeed, viewed as performance art, this scheme might even be entitled to First Amendment protection. Ultimately, I would not prioritize a civil or criminal action against this enterprise either from the perspective of a private lawyer representing an investor, or from the perspective of a government enforcement authority. And, while I would be a little nervous about running this enterprise, I wouldn't be quaking in my boots. In a civil lawsuit, any award would probably be minimal, and in a criminal case there would probably be an extremely generous plea offered.
No. Causing someone "pain and suffering" is not against the law; it is merely one kind of damages that can be awarded when someone has done something that is against the law. You may, for instance, endure pain and suffering from a car accident or shooting, in which case you could collect damages for your pain and suffering after proving that the other party committed the torts of negligence or battery, which are illegal. But if you were enduring pain and suffering from the last episode of Lost, you could not collect damages for your pain and suffering because it is not against the law to write a crappy finale. So in your case, cannot sue for pain and suffering based simply on the existence of a secret audio recording. North Carolina allows secret audio recordings, and it does not make exceptions for audio recordings that hurt someone's feelings. But to go beyond your explicit question, there still remains the possibility that you could pursue a legal action. If the other party used that recording in a way that violated the law, that might give rise to a tort that would support an award of damages for pain and suffering. If they publicly distributed a recording of themselves having sex with someone, that might constitute the tort of public disclosure of private facts. If they edited the recording to make it sound like someone had said something that they had not and then gave it to someone else, that might be grounds for a libel action.
The decoder is aware that someone might read the combination, open the lock, and go into the locked area ...Has the person committed a crime? england-and-wales Maybe not a criminal offence, but the decoder might be liable civilly under the Tort of Negligence, which is: a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk. In many cases there will be a contractual relationship (express or implied) between the parties involved, such as that of doctor and patient, employer and employee, bank and customer, and until relatively recently it was necessary for such a contractual relationship to exist in order for a claim for negligence to succeed. But the civil law relating to negligence has evolved and grown to deal with situations that arise between two or more parties even where no contract, written or implied, exists between them. Is it legal to obtain and publish that information, if no physical damage is done to the object when deriving the information? One scenario where this might be a criminal offence is if the information is protected with a Government Security Classification marking (i.e. spying). See Section 1, Official Secrets Act 1911: (1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State— (b) makes any sketch ... which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy; or (c) ... communicates to any other person any secret ... sketch ... which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy; he shall be guilty of felony Section 12 states that: The expression “sketch” includes any photograph or other mode of representing any place or thing;
I can’t speak for Indonesia but if you did this in Australia you would be a criminal. You either committed fraud or are an accessory to fraud. You would probably be considered an accessory at and after the fact which means you are subject to the same maximum penalty as if you had committed the fraud yourself - 10 years in jail. In addition, you are liable to repay the money taken, jointly and severally with your ‘friend’. However, if they can only find you, you cannot recover from your ‘friend’ as you were engaged in a joint criminal enterprise. Scams such as you describe are distressingly common and many people fall for them. As such, assuming the court accepted your story (because you might actually be the fraudster and have just made it up) you would be unlikely to get close to the full sentence and if you caught the judge on a good day, might even escape jail. If you are lucky, the jury might acquit, even though, on the facts, they shouldn’t - juries do what juries do. If you’re really lucky the police might decide not to prosecute.
Basically, it is up to the court. The relevant law is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). You don't give much in the way of specifics, but it sounds like you confessed something to the police at the side of the road immediately after the accident, and now wish to dispute that confession. If you are taken to court and the police want to introduce your confession as evidence then you (through your lawyer) can ask the court to rule it out. You may be able to do so on a number of grounds. Was the confession properly recorded at the time? Were you treated in an oppressive manner, such that you felt you had to say what the police wanted to hear. Did you think you might get more favourable treatment if you said what the police wanted? For instance, did you think you might be allowed to go home once they were satisfied? Were you given a proper rest, or were you in a mental state that might cause you to say things without understanding the consequences (it sounds like this would be your main argument, but consider the others too). [Edit] If you needed medical treatment that would also be relevant. Were you properly cautioned (that speech beginning "You do not have to say anything...") before the police asked you questions. If you think you may be facing criminal charges then you should get yourself a lawyer sooner rather than later. A lawyer will know all about this and be able to navigate the relevant legal processes on your behalf. A bit of background: back in the 1970s the police frequently attributed incriminating statements to suspects when arrested, such as "Its a fair cop, guv", or "Who ratted on us?". The rules in PACE were made to stop such "verballing".
There is no law against a person creating and distributing such a poster, to the best of my knowledge. However such a poster pretty clearly implies that the person shown is guilty of a crime, or at least strongly suspected. If the store somehow made an error, pulling the image of a person who did not use the stolen card or there is some other error, the person pictured might well suffer a significant loss of reputation, and might sue for defamation. Damages could possibly be significant. Such suits have, I believe, happened when surveillance photos were posted but there later proved to have been an error. Mary might wish to double check how sure the store is that the photos are of the person who actually used the stolen card.
...many [countries] forbid even the possession of software for &quot;hacking&quot; despite intentions That is not the case in the united-kingdom where accessing a computer, and possessing the tools to do it, are only offences if the activity is unauthorised. In fact, private entities and government departments are encouraged to carry out authorised penetration tests to identify vulnerabilities in their systems. [by] using my computer to break into my old brick laptop... This is perfectly legal as you have authorised access to the brick. The relevant offences are at s.1 to s.3A of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, in particular: s.1 - Unauthorised access to computer material. (1) A person is guilty of an offence if— (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer, or to enable any such access to be secured; (b) the access he intends to secure, or to enable to be secured, is unauthorised; and (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case [...] Sections 2, 3 and 3ZA (not reproduced here to save space) follow similar wording for unauthorised access relating to such things as commiting other offences, impairing a computer's functionality, or creating serious damage to health, infrastructure etc. s.3A - Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence under section 1, 3 or 3ZA [...] (3) A person is guilty of an offence if he obtains any article— (a) intending to use it to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1, 3 or 3ZA, or [...] (4) In this section &quot;article&quot; includes any program or data held in electronic form. [...] So, hacking is not always unlawful - all it needs is the right permission from someone who is authorised to give it. Edited To Add This is also the case in canada (the subject of the OP's first linked article) where s.342.2 of the Criminal Code makes an exception for having a lawful excuse to possess &quot;hacking tools&quot;: (1) Every person who, without lawful excuse, makes, possesses, sells, offers for sale, imports, obtains for use, distributes or makes available a device that is designed or adapted primarily to commit an offence under section 342.1 or 430, knowing that the device has been used or is intended to be used to commit such an offence, is (a) guilty of an indictable offence... (b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. [...] (4) In this section, device includes (a) a component of a device; and (b) a computer program within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2).