If a hacker is infected as a result of their actions, is the victim liable? If a hacker gained unauthorized access to a computer network, downloaded a virus that was on a computer and infected their own system, would the victim of the hacker be liable for damages? Does it make a difference if the victim is the one who developed the virus, or if the victim is aware that the virus exists (whether it be active or not) on their system? Would the victim be obligated to mark viruses as such, even if there is no intention of distributing them in any way? If possible, please point out if there are differences in the law in areas, i.e. if something applies only in USA, or only in Europe, Australia, Russia etc. Thanks.
In common law jurisdictions like the United States, this would probably be controlled under normal tort principles, which would mean that the answer turns on the hacking victim's state of mind. If the victim is unaware of the virus or unaware of the hacker, she probably has no duty to the hacker, and therefore cannot be held liable for any injury he suffers as a result of her failure to address the virus. But if this a case of a victim laying a trap for a potential hacker, then you have a variation on the old &quot;spring gun&quot; cases. The classic example is Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971). In that case, a man owned an house -- abandoned for about a decade -- that kept attracting burglars and vandals, even after he boarded it up and posted &quot;no trespassing signs.&quot; So Briney rigged up a shotgun to fire at anyone who entered the bedroom. About a month later, two antique collectors went into the house looking for old bottles and jars. One of them, Katko, opened the door to the bedroom, and the gun basically blew off one of his legs. Although he was convicted of breaking into the house, Katko sued Briney for negligence. The jury awarded Katko $20,000 for medical expenses and the like, as well as $10,000 in punitive damages. Consistent with the approach of most courts, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the verdict: The value of human life and limb, not only to the individual concerned but also to society, so outweighs the interest of a possessor of land in excluding from it those whom he is not willing to admit thereto that a possessor of land has ... no privilege to use force intended or likely to cause death or serious harm against another whom the possessor sees about to enter his premises or meddle with his chattel, unless the intrusion threatens death or serious bodily harm to the occupiers or users of the premises. So I'd argue that a person who leaves a virus lying around his computer, hoping to infect a hacker, is like Briney, intentionally laying a trap to injure someone who he could probably just defend himself against instead, and therefore liable to the hacker for injuries. But I could also argue it the other way: Briney's trap was designed to inflict bodily harm or even death against a person who posed no real threat, given that the property was abandoned, while a computer virus merely disables the hacker's weapon, and is used against someone who is attacking property that has greater value than an abandoned house, given the quantity and often extremely sensitive nature of contents on a personal computer. So the answer, as always, is that it could go either way.
There is a legal concept of de minimis: the idea that some offenses, civil or criminal, are too small to be worth prosecuting. For example, a photograph of a city scene that incidentally captured part of a copyrighted billboard in one corner of the image infringes the copyright on that billboard. But if the copyright holder were to sue, it's virtually certain the suit would be thrown out due to the minimal nature of the infringement. Technically speaking, yes, what you describe is a crime. But any prosecutor who tried to bring charges to that effect is likely to be chewed out by the judge for wasting everyone's time. (Incidentally, assuming the reporter and property owner are US citizens, the crime is failure to cross at a designated crossing point (19 USC 1459, a customs offense) rather than improper entry (8 USC 1325, an immigration offense).)
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.
If you used some creative work of mine without my permission (I'm the copyright holder, and you have no license giving you permission) then I can sue you to make you stop using my work, to get payment for damages, and to get payment for statutory damages. If you used my work because someone else told you wrongly that you had a license, that's very unfortunate for you, but is no reason why I wouldn't or shouldn't sue you. Obviously in this situation that third party did something badly wrong. I can sue both of you together to make sure that I get payment from whoever has deeper pockets. You can also sue that third party if you think that their lying, or being mistaken, about a non-existing license caused you damages, or if there is a contract or something that makes them responsible.
There are some problems with this kind of vandalism, one of them clearly that the internet is international and vandalism can be performed from everywhere on servers everywhere in the world. And so it may be (both technically and legally) difficult to get hold of the vandal. Therefore, most wikis primarily focus on blocking offending accounts or their IPs and hope that this helps at least for a while. Only if it doesn't and the vandalism continues for extended time periods, legal measures are considered. Legally speaking though, vandalism is prohibited by many jurisdictions and of course by the terms of use of the wiki operators. For instance, the Swiss criminal code Art 147 explicitly puts &quot;abusing of data processing equipment&quot; under penalty and hence gives website operators a legal backup for setting up rules for the use of their services. Computer fraud Art. 147 1 Any person who with a view to his own or another's unlawful gain, by the incorrect, incomplete or unauthorised use of data, or in a similar way, influences the electronic or similar processing or transmission of data and as a result causes the transfer of financial assets, thus occasioning loss to another, or immediately thereafter conceals such a transfer shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty. 2 If the offender acts for commercial gain, he shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding ten years or to a monetary penalty of not less than 90 daily penalty units. Technically, the law even requires prosecution ex officio, even though without a hint from the operator, the police won't start an investigation. I'm sure the US has a similar law. The problem is, as with all internet crimes, it's practical application, particularly because often website operator and offender are not living in the same country. Edit After reading the exact text again (it was unavailable yesterday) Art 147 is mostly about fraud performed by computers (classical &quot;hacking&quot;) but it shouldn't be difficult to argue that fighting and reverting vandalism requires significant (technical and personal) effort and hence the operator looses money. Additionally, there's Art 144bis which matches even better for the scenario here: Damage to data Art. 144bis Any person who without authority alters, deletes or renders unusable data that is stored or transmitted electronically or in some other similar way shall be liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty. If the offender has caused major damage, a custodial sentence of from one to five years may be imposed. The offence is prosecuted ex officio. Any person who manufactures, imports, markets, advertises, offers or otherwise makes accessible programs that he knows or must assume will be used for the purposes described in paragraph 1 above, or provides instructions on the manufacture of such programs shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty. If the offender acts for commercial gain, a custodial sentence of from one to five years may be imposed.
My friend should have taken his property with him, but presumably the host can't just keep it, especially after reaching out to them? Correct. However, the host does not have to do anything to facilitate its return i.e. they don’t have to post it to you. So long as they keep it for your friend to collect and don’t appropriate it for their own use, they are not breaking the law. If they do appropriate it, that is called theft or its tort equivalent, conversion. As my contract was with Airbnb and the host works from them, is there any responsibility on their part, e.g. Could I hypothetically open a small claims case against them? Or would any small claims case be directly against the host themselves? This is not true. You and the host each have a contract with Airbnb for the use of the platform. The contract for the accommodation is between you two and doesn’t involve Airbnb at all. In any event, there is no contractural issue here.
united-states - cfaa The last person to have control of the AI executed the code in a knowing manner about the risk that the self-replicating program could get itself unauthorised access to computers and disk space that this person has no authorisation to use. Because of how it spread, it is more likely classified as malware. &quot;Creating a botnet&quot; is typically violating the authorisation to use the computers that are part of the botnet. As the last user is responsible for letting his malware free, his act breached these provisions: (a) Whoever— (5) (B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or (C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss. He intentionally let his program free knowing very well that it will spread to computers that are classified as protected. As a result, he will be treated just the same as if he had written and released... ILOVEYOU - however in contrast to that case, the gap of non-applicable laws has been closed more than 20 years ago. Private PCs are off limits for the AI because of that stipulation, but even Webspace can't be gained to save itself to: The problem lies in the fact that authorization to space can only be gained in some sort of agreement between legal entities (companies and humans) - which is a contract. An AI however isn't a legal entity, it is classified as a widget. Widgets are not able to sign contracts on their own, and to gain access to webspace, one usually has to agree to a contract. The contracts the AI tries to sign would thus be void ab initio and have no force. As a result, because the contract for the webspace is void, the access to the webspace is by definition without the required authorization - the contract granting it never existed, so the access is unauthorized. The AI now fills disk space and uses resources in an unauthorized manner, which is damage. As a result, the one who knowingly set the AI free is fully responsible and criminally liable for his AI, should it spread. How far can it legally spread? If the AI is programmed to only act in ways inside the law, it won't leave the owner's system and won't proliferate, as it can't gain access to new space in a legal manner.
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.