Is it legal to hack a hacker back (in the US)? I was wondering if it's legal to do what most people call a &quot;hack back.&quot; Suppose someone tricked you into downloading software onto your computer that was designed to steal your data, but it was advertised as an online security software. Then you found out. Would it be legal to shut down their servers, or maybe even delete all the data on them, to prevent yourself and other people from this attacker? Because I think of it sort of like self-defense: Someone tries to attack you, you can defend yourself (mostly). If a hacker attacks your computer, could you go and prevent them from doing so (by shutting down their servers)? I would think yes, but I don't have any idea of the law. I have taken a look at this post, and though it does clear a small bit up about this, it does not fully answer my question.
Generally, no. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which is the law that generally forbids breaking into or damaging computer systems, does not have any exceptions for &quot;hacking back.&quot; Congress has considered amending the law on multiple occasions (in 2017 and 2019) to add limited exceptions for so-called &quot;active cyber defense,&quot; but neither the 2017 version nor the 2019 version ever went anywhere.
I spent 26 years in Law Enforcement (two years in Fraud, Identity Theft, and Embezzlement) and here is the answer I would often give other people in this situation: By law, recipients are not required to do anything. It can be deleted without a second thought. There is no specific law requiring someone to report this as it doesn't rise to the level of a crime. Contacting the sender or intended recipient can be risky because the other person is unknown. Return addresses online may be masked by redirects or other traps. What is displayed may not be the full picture of the site where they want someone to go. Having information about someone, although private, is not a crime unless there is a specific intent to use that information for a crime: fraud, identity theft, theft, etc. Doctors, banks, and numerous other businesses have access to personal identifying information about people. Unless they were to use it illegally, just having the information is not a crime. Phishing attempts: As far as sending the information on to the intended recipient, that would be very noble; but there is no requirement to do so. This type of transaction is likened to having a stranger call looking for someone else. There are people around the world just hoping to get people to click on their site so they can download everything on the victim's computer. I once taught a class in Internet Safety to senior citizens. The message was simple: Don't put any information on-line that you wouldn't post on your front door. Advances on computer security have made it possible to securely handle more information but still be on-guard; Phishing still happens. Most reputable companies won't send you e-mails asking for personal information, passwords, or account numbers. Hackers, thieves, and criminals have access to personal information regularly. In today's society, it's just a part of life in a digital world. How does one protect themselves? Be diligent about all transactions. For instance: Check bank accounts, credit card purchases, and credit reports regularly. A TV show, Adam Ruins Everything - Adam Ruins Security, clearly outlines a lot of these facts. (Season 1, Episode 2 - First aired October 6, 2015) To recap: 1) Do nothing. 2) Stay vigilant. 3) Be wary. Common idiom - If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
Using Tor is not illegal. Nor is hiding your IP address, which is - among other things - what Tor does. Going to .onion links is not illegal. What you find and interact with at those .onion sites may be illegal. See Law StackExchange Is it legal to host a directory of .onion urls? Running a Tor Relay is not illegal. That could change. Running an Exit Relay could expose your IP address as the Relay, so that could lead investigators of illegal activity to you. Read https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en As always, check your state laws http://statelaws.findlaw.com/criminal-laws/computer-crimes.html And do your own research with the links above and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network) and at https://www.torproject.org/
Unless the Youtube Video shows them committing a crime, then no, they couldn't be arrested and tried for a crime. Them saying it, not under oath, is just hearsay that has no evidentiary value unless there is already other evidence they have committed a crime. In that case, its an admission. But there must be other, either circumstantial, or actual physical evidence of a crime. Past intoxication is not a crime, either. Possession of drugs, if caught with them is. But saying you got high is not. People have walked into police stations and confessed to murders. But with no evidence, no body, no name of a missing person, they can't even be held after the holding period for investigatory purposes expires. If the video shows them committing assault, or breaking and entering (there actually are idiots who post this stuff), the video is actual evidence of a crime and it is often used against them. The statements can be used to begin an investigation, but people don't usually confess to anything worth pursuing even an investigation. The fact that someone says they used to do something criminal is not enough. For all you ( meaning anyone ) knows, the statute of limitations has expired because they "pirated games" 10 years ago. Your comment is right on.
Does criticizing public figures constitute libel especially in a private group? It depends on the specifics, but a priori your description suggests that the defense of honest opinion would be applicable. This is regardless of whether the subject is a public figure and regardless of whether the statements were in private --albeit non-privileged-- communications. Case law surely provides guidelines or precedents on how the details and circumstances of the events would fare on the parties' legal position, but I am not knowledgeable of UK/English law. Does X have a counterclaim for illegally accessing the data? The matter seemingly depends on how the religious leader had or gained access to the data. Even if he gained access by stealing or hacking a device or account, X would not have standing to [counter-]sue unless the device or account belongs to X. Be mindful of the possibility that third party might have made the disclosure to the religious leader. In that case, actionability (if any) of the disclosure only encompasses the third party, not the religious leader. X's intent that his statements stay only among the participants does not necessarily imply that participants' disclosure elsewhere is unlawful.
First of all, the definition of hacking and cheating is murky: There is no such thing as a legal definition of cheating. But there is one for hacking. Hacking is usually defined in the law ​as unauthorized access to a computer or files, be it directly (then often coupled with some sort of trespass) or via the internet. Cheat codes generally allow modifying the game on the fly. Those were expected input that then resulted in widely unbalanced effects. For example, Age of Empires had E=mc2 trooper that could be sent via the normal text chat. That resulting unit was entirely expected bahavior and in no way unauthorized access to the computer. Related to them are console commands such as opening the developer menu and then typing TGM in any Bethesda game since Morrowind. These are likewise expected behavior and not unauthorized access. Because these two are generally already expected by the very design of the game, providing a manual on how to use these functions is nothing else but to provide a documentation of the software. Now, it gets more tricky with modifying the game with external means that are not provided by the publisher or maker of the game. For example, one might have agreed to not use external software to modify the game in the End User Licensing Agreement, and so far no court has ruled anywhere that a prohibition to modify the game or of the RAM would be an unconscionable clause and void. Few courts have tested these, but under the theory of tortious interference and with a proper EULA clause, cases like the Fortnight Lawsuit from 2017 (settled in 2021) have been brought. In that case, in a wave of trying to get a particular multiplayer cheat software go away, among others a minor was sued for violating the EULA and advertizing this software, which was claimed to violate copyright law. However, the case settled and was mostly hinging on DMCA issues. Conclusion It's murky, you need to hash out your business idea better. Also, you have really strong competition: sites like dlh.net have accrued literally millions of cheat codes over more than 3 decades. I even remember when DirtyLittleHelper was provided as software on a GameStar CD that then would update the database of cheats for games I never even heard of in the late 1990s and early 2000s - there were already hundreds of thousands of entries there then.
Illegal to write? No. Notwithstanding the First Amendment which would almost certainly make a law prohibiting it illegal, writing such things is an essential part of an IT security professional’s toolkit. You can’t protect against worms if you don’t know how they work. Illegal to distribute on an unauthorised computer? Absolutely. This would be a clear breach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
I think the officer is probably lying, not just mistaken, but they are not required to always be truthful. In addition to the law against possessing ID with intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime, it is also against the law to be knowingly in possession of a stolen credit card, or any other property. An example of a strict-liability possession crime, which the officer knows of, is that it is a crime to possess heroin, period. I am skeptical that the officer actually believes that there is a law making it a crime to be in possession of a credit card with permission, and suspect that he thinks it is stolen.