Is one liable if illegal material is found on one&#39;s own server? This question was prompted by a news article I read earlier today, in which a person described the dilemma they faced on discovering illegal material had been stored by an unidentified third party on their computer system: He called the police, who told him to print it out and bring it to them. However it is illegal to possess images of child abuse, digitally or in print. The crime is based on knowing possession, so once a person knows their computer contains such content, and decides not to delete it (or not delete it yet), they probably fall within the law. So this made me think. If someone does find illegal material, what can they do? Even to keep it long enough for police to be notified and attend would still be keeping/possessing it. Knowing it's been stored in various backups might mean having to destroy important backups, as some of the most widely used backup and snapshotting systems don't have selective delete capability, you can only keep or delete the entire backup. (ZFS especially, widely used in many file servers for its utter reliability, is designed this way to preserve snapshot integrity: you can delete snapshots but not specific files in them). Copying to a device such as a USB stick, even by or with police, may be a concern since in law, this creates a copy on the PC in order to copy it from server to USB stick. I'm in the UK but interested in other jurisdictions as well. Clearly if you do something like any of these under direction of the police, who you promptly notified, it's not likely you'll be prosecuted, but it would make me (and perhaps many people) very uneasy even so, because it is against the law and there isn't any legal exception created for good cause or &quot;because police told me to&quot;. Also I can imagine in a worst case scenario, a bad file could have been there for months before coming to light, so copies may exist on effectively all data backups that exist - every company backup, and all of them immutable and critical. So... What exactly is the position, and the appropriate action, and what is the position with critical backups that can't be modified by their nature?
So far as I am aware, all jurisdictions provide some kind of defence to the offence of possessing child pornography (or, for that matter, other illegal items like drugs and weapons) for legal purposes. This is necessary at least for police and others involved in the criminal justice system – if not, it would be difficult to seize the material and admit it in evidence if the defendant pleads not guilty. In the United Kingdom, it is a defence to prove that you possessed the material for a ‘legitimate reason,’ which is not defined. Note that this is a legal burden, meaning that the defendant must affirmatively prove the existence of a legitimate reason on the balance of probabilities, rather than merely raising reasonable doubt. See the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance on Indecent and Prohibited Images of Children, under the ‘Statutory Defences’ section: The defence is made out if the defendant proves that he had a legitimate reason for the conduct in question. This is a legal rather than an evidential burden (R v Collier [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 9). “Legitimate reason” is not defined in either Act. In Atkins v DPP; Goodland v DPP [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. 248 it was held that it is a pure question of fact in each case. In cases where it was maintained that the conduct was part of legitimate research, the central question will be whether the defendant was essentially a person with an unhealthy interest in indecent images acting under the pretence of undertaking research or, on the other hand, was a genuine researcher who had no alternative but to have such unpleasant material in his possession. The judgment continued to say that the courts “are plainly entitled to bring a measure of scepticism to bear upon such an enquiry; they should not too readily accept that the defence is made out.” Relevant statutory provisions The ‘legitimate reason’ defence is set out in s 1(4)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and s 160(2)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The relevant provision depends on which Act the offence was charged under; the CPS guidance has a section on ‘Which Offence Should be Charged’ for more on this. In response to the comment below, s 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 creates a separate offence of possession of extreme pornographic images. Like the child pornography offences, there is a ‘legitimate reason’ defence – see s 65(2)(a) of the Act. Commentary is available in the CPS guidance on Possession of Extreme Pornographic Images.
united-states Facts are not copyrightable. Assuming Scrapehero collected these facts in a legal manner and assuming the source of these facts does not contain copyrighted (protected) material, then selling such a collection may be legal. Of particular relevance is Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.. Here, Feist Publications copied Rural's phone directory into Feist's own phone directory. The supreme court found that Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and thus not protected. Of course, this cuts both ways. Assuming Scrapehero did not inject creativity into the data, nothing stops a recipient of such data from distributing it themselves. In practice, this probably isn't a concern for Scrapehero. This answer is US-specific. Some countries recognize Database Rights, which may prevent such activity.
The law in every country where your service is available prevails. That means that if your servers are in Estonia, your file storage is in Lithuania, your company is in Switzerland, you are in France, you hold Thai citizenship, your users are in the USA and the signal transits through the U.K., Belgium, Germany, Canada and Poland then you are subject to the laws of each and every one of them. In addition, if China has reason to believe that the stored files contain matters relating to their citizens then they can take an interest. And so on and so forth ... A country has jurisdiction wherever it wants to have jurisdiction subject to the limits of and its ability to actually enforce its laws. What you are proposing is certainly illegal in many countries and you need to seek professional legal advice - not rely on strangers on the internet.
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.
There is not necessarily a contradiction. Information that they may keep may be: Account information Subscriber information Information on breaches of the Terms of Service or Agreement So yes, they might certainly not keep any logs &ndash; although that claim is doubtful, since they almost certainly keep at least error-level logs of their services &ndash; but that doesn't mean that they have no information to disclose to law enforcement. It's also questionable what "logs" refers to &ndash; would aggregate statistics be considered a log, by law? Would your last known IP address be considered a log, provided they don't keep any other history?
This is going to depend on what you think or know is on the phone, why you want to keep it undisclosed, and why the officer says s/he wants it. If one knows or has good reason to think that there is evidence of a crime on the phone, then destroying or hiding that evidence may be criminal. If one gets a court order, such as a warrant or subpoena, to turn over evidence, destroying the evidence or otherwise failing to comply may well be criminal contempt of court, or another criminal offense. In most circumstances an officer must have probable cause, and usually a warrant, to conduct a lawful search. But border searches are different. That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration. United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977) (sustaining search of incoming mail). See also Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (1983) (opening by customs inspector of locked container shipped from abroad). The Congressional Research Service wrote: in the March 2021 report &quot;Searches and Seizures at the Border and the Fourth Amendment&quot; (pdf): The Supreme Court has recognized that searches at the border are “qualitatively different” from those occurring in the interior of the United States, because persons entering the country have less robust expectations of privacy, given the federal government’s broad power to safeguard the nation by examining persons seeking to enter its territory. While law enforcement searches and seizures within the interior of the United States typically require a judicial warrant supported by probable cause, federal officers may conduct routine inspections and searches of persons attempting to cross the international border without a warrant or any particularized suspicion of unlawful activity. But a border search that extends beyond a routine search and inspection may require at least reasonable suspicion. ... Recent years have seen legal challenges to border searches of electronic devices such as cell phones and computers, which often contain more personal and sensitive information than other items frequently searched at the border, such as a wallet or briefcase. The Supreme Court has not yet addressed this issue. Lower courts have generally held that government officers may conduct relatively limited, manual searches of such devices without a warrant or any particularized suspicion. The courts, however, are split over whether more intrusive, forensic searches require at least reasonable suspicion. ... Federal statutes and implementing regulations confer designated law enforcement officers with broad authority to conduct searches and seizures at the border and surrounding areas without a warrant. These searches commonly occur at designated ports of entry along the border, such as border crossing points.[1] But searches may also occur in other places along or near the border.[2] To enforce U.S. customs laws, federal law enforcement officers may inspect and search individuals, merchandise, vehicles, and vessels arriving at the border, as well as further into the interior of the United States and within U.S. waters. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1496, a customs officer may examine “the baggage of any person arriving in the United States in order to ascertain what articles are contained therein” and whether those items are subject to taxes or otherwise prohibited. Similarly, 19 U.S.C. §1467 allows customs officers to inspect and search the persons, baggage, and merchandise arriving by vessel from a foreign port (including U.S. territories). If there is nothing that could be evidence on a phone, erasing it should not be criminal destruction of evidence, but this will be hard to prove after the fact, and border officials have authority to insist on a search with no warrant or particular suspicion. Notes [1]: See United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952, 961–62 (9th Cir. 2013) (describing a “border search” as one that occurs at ports of entry where there is an actual or attempted border crossing);see also U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Border Security: At Ports of Entry (last modified Apr. 2, 2018), https://www.cbp.gov/bordersecurity/ports-entry (describing U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s functions at ports of entry). [2]: See United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579, 593 (1983) (recognizing the government’s interest in patrolling inland or coastal waters “where the need to deter or apprehend smugglers is great”); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 268 (1973) (noting that the Border Patrol conducts inland surveillance activities “all in the asserted interest of detecting the illegal importation of aliens.”); See also U.S. Customs &amp; Border Prot., &quot;Border Security: Along U.S. Borders&quot; (Jan. 17, 2018), https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders (describing the Border Patrol’s responsibilities along the border
Is something considered stolen if it possibly could have been lost? Something is considered stolen if it was stolen. You don't have your passport + Someone entered the room where it was ≠ They stole it Can this be brought to small claims court? What damage did you suffer that could be remedied by a monetary settlement? Sure, the landlord entering your room without your permission is probably unlawful but it's not clear that it did you any damage. No damage; no case. Should the police or some other government agency care? Here is a ranking of government cares: Getting reelected National security Economic Management ... 42,567. Murder ... 421,762. Passport Fraud ... 7,656,232. Passport theft ... 58,432,546. Passports that might have been stolen but probably weren't
It's illegal. 18 USC 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, makes it illegal to, for instance, &quot;intentionally access a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, cause damage and loss.&quot; A &quot;protected computer&quot; is defined to include any computer &quot;which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication&quot;. This effectively includes every computer in the world that's connected to the Internet (see US v. Trotter, 478 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2007). To the best of my knowledge, Congress has not added any exceptions for Russia or any other specific country. It's also likely to be forbidden by the laws of your state. You did not specify a state, but taking Colorado as an example, the following are crimes under C.R.S. 18-5.5-102: (a) Accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof without authorization; exceeds authorized access to a computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof; or uses a computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof without authorization or in excess of authorized access; or [...] (e) Without authorization or in excess of authorized access alters, damages, interrupts, or causes the interruption or impairment of the proper functioning of, or causes any damage to, any computer, computer network, computer system, computer software, program, application, documentation, or data contained in such computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof; or (f) Causes the transmission of a computer program, software, information, code, data, or command by means of a computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof with the intent to cause damage to or to cause the interruption or impairment of the proper functioning of or that actually causes damage to or the interruption or impairment of the proper functioning of any computer, computer network, computer system, or part thereof [...] Note that this applies to any target computer, and the prosecution would not have to prove that the computer was used in, or affected, interstate or foreign commerce or communication. Other states most likely have similar laws.