Will a court order be taken out for this? Could the FBI get involved in something like this? I had 3 gmail accounts (where I had the same generic random first name and other words and random letters that I was made to put in to get them). None of them contained no personal information of mine. I was logging onto one of them 2 weeks ago when I accidentally made a typo and a message came up that said “there’s something unusual about the way your signing in..... we’re going to disable prompts” I then realised this was someone else’s account and pressed back without entering a password. (By this time I had realised I couldn’t remember the username of my account so I had lost access to it) Then I created the second account to email the stranger whose email I typed in to apologise for the mistake of accidentally logging on and tell them there was no malicious intent behind it but I simply done it because we had a similar email address. I also offered to email google if it caused them any problems. I then created a 3rd email address to replace the one I had lost access to using the same generic name as the first however on second glance I also realised this was quite similar to the strangers email (it was one letter away). I received no response from the first email I sent so a few stressful hours later I wrote another email this time I went on an apology rampage reiterating that it was simply a mistake and even told them I would delete both accounts (the 2nd and 3rd as I lost access to the first) because I didn’t realise how similar they were to theirs. I received no response again so I decided to go on the gmail support forum and give a proper explanation of what happened, that support forum reassured me by telling me it was a non issue and then I deleted my account. Then I reactivated when I realised that I didn’t give a proper explanation to the stranger and instead went on a stressed out, apology filled rant so I emailed the link of the support forum question to them and apologised for overreacting and worrying the both of us. I then deleted my account permanently. Then I started scrolling through the support forum and saw the person whose email I accidentally typed in ask a question about how to identify the person whose been sending them emails (although the date of the question indicated that they asked that days before this whole fiasco took place) the response said the only way to do that would be to get a court order. The worst thing is the person whose email I accidentally typed in was using a personal name which was 1 letter apart from the generic random name I had as my email address. What’s going to happen to me? Can that person take a court order out to compel google to reveal my identity over something like this? Someone on a different forum told me that I will end up sounding like a scammer because I sent those emails apologising, Despite me stating over and over again that there was no malicious intent and that it was a simple mistake. The FBI have a tip line dedicated to online scams. Will I get in trouble with the FBI for something like this?
It is not a crime or a tort to accidentally sign in to an email provider with an incorrect email address, even if that address is actually held by some other person. Not attempting to enter a password or repeat the attempt makes it clear there was no intent to obtain unauthorized access, and the emails make that even more clear.
Assuming that the police have a warrant to seize your cell phone, the scope of what can be seized is specified in the warrant. It is not automatic that seizing a phone entails seizure of some or all online accounts (e.g. automatic backups, collections of passwords in a Google account) and it does not automatically &quot;freeze&quot; or block a person's access to their accounts including phone accounts. It's not that it is impossible to seize an account, it's that it is not automatic: it has to be in the scope of the warrant. Here is a collection of petition templates, asking the court to allow the seizure of various things for various reasons (mostly electronic), including access to bank accounts. If the police suspect that information might be available online after it has been deleted from a phone, they would need to include online accounts in the scope of the petition(s). There is even a template for &quot;give me everything&quot;, called &quot;Frankenstein&quot;.
In most jurisdictions a message sent by email is now legally the same as one sent on paper by, say, postal mail, and a name typed at the end, or other indication of source is the legal equivalent of a physical signature. You are probably in the same legal position yu would have been in if you had written, signed, and sent by post a letter of acceptance.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer or even living in US. I try to write the answer under US law. Other countries law may differ. Make sure you consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction. Here is my understanding of the individual examples: You don't need permission legally, because you are only accessing your own account and your own information. You are the only one damaged by the intrusion and therefore, nobody can really file a lawsuit against you. This is often used by security researchers when the subjects are uncooperative. That being said, if it is an actual pentesting client, you may want to refrain from it regardless. You don't need a permission to modify hardware you own. This is completely legal and not considered an attack. It would qualify as an upgrade, such as replacing a component in your laptop. You are allowed to do that. You should have a permission here. This is an intentional penetration test and you should have permission to do this. The same as 3. This is an intentional penetration test and you should get a permission. Though if you logout immediately and don't mess with the interface, it may not be illegal on the basis that you did not cause any damage or steal any information, or it may be illegal under some circumstances. It may also be impossible to prove that you did not do anything while there.
Online conversations are generally allowed evidence. However, EVERYTHING in the chat should be considered, as well as any later actions. Were there later conversations that said something different? Did the lease you signed have different terms? One line in a WhatsApp does not make your case a &quot;slam dunk&quot;. It may only be one piece of evidence in a much larger context.
Residents agree that the receipt of mail by any individual not listed as a Resident or Occupant in this Agreement at the Leased Premises shall be proof of occupancy of that individual and a violation of this Agreement. I assume that the lease states that only the listed individuals can reside in the unit. Maybe they think that this says that receipt of mail by an unlisted person is a further violation of the lease, I don't think that is clearly enough stated that the courts would agree that receiving mail is itself a violation of the lease. Instead, it seems to be intended to say something about an existing clause – you can't have other people living there. The courts would look at the requirements of the lease, and ask "did you comply"? The question of whether you did a certain thing is a question of fact that has to be resolved in court. However, the revised lease language does not state that all mail must be addressed to Johnny Johnson – it only addresses receipt by a person not on the lease. You are (apparently) on the lease, so you may receive mail there. Nothing in the lease controls how such mail can be addressed. If you receive mail addressed to Tommy Thompson, your defense is that you received the mail, and you are on the lease, so you will not have violated the new clause.
Generally they don't. If the conversation was made while there was a third person present, the person can be a witness at trial. Unless the witness is impeached, the witness's statement may be sufficient for you to meet your burden of proof to show the statement was made, because the burden is just a preponderance of evidence in most civil cases. Note that, the existence of a statement is not sufficient to prove breach of privacy. The context surrounding the statement is important. If you intend to record communications from the landlord in the future, please check with your jurisdiction's laws regarding recording of communications. Many jurisdictions (such as California) only permit a private communication to be recorded when all parties give consent. Not only an illegally recorded conversation is inadmissible as evidence (with the exception to rebut a witness), it is also a crime to do so. Some other jurisdictions in USA allows one party to record the conversation without obtaining consent from the other party.
No, they did not. Yes, you can sue them but you won’t win You agreed that they could do this in clause 8.3 of your contract: If Google becomes aware and determines in its sole discretion that a Product or any portion thereof (a) violates any applicable law; (b) violates this Agreement, applicable policies, or other terms of service, as may be updated by Google from time to time; (c) violates terms of distribution agreements with device manufacturers and Authorized Providers; or (d) creates potential liability for, or may have an adverse impact on, Google or Authorized Providers (for example, if a Product has an adverse economic, reputational or security-related impact); then Google may reject, remove, suspend, limit the visibility of a Product on Google Play, or reclassify the Product from Google Play or from Devices. The power to determine if your app does this lies solely with Google. &quot;Sole discretion&quot; is a term of art which is no obligation on Google to act reasonably. Indeed, they may act arbitrarily - that is, they do not have to treat you the same as anyone else nor do they have to offer you procedural fairness/natural justice/due process. It also removes any obligation on Google to act in good faith. However, they may not act in bad faith - that is, they cannot act maliciously. So, unless they are deliberately persecuting you, then if they decide you broke the rules then you broke the rules.