That’s still not hacking. It’s “unauthorized access” like you said, or “gaining access”. Hacking requires bypassing some security measure or obtaining access through some technological or social engineering means.
First sentence. You don’t have to have stolen the password, if you login to another account, and someone proves you did, you can be charged if they want to pursue it.
In a legal context, hacking is a term for utilizing an unconventional or illicit means to gain unauthorized access to a digital device, computer system, or network.
We can rule out “illicit” because the FBI published the data publicly. Now the heavy lifting has to be done by “unconventional”, which I don’t think qualifies here. A government agency published the credentials, which means no one had to do social engineering, sneak into an office, reverse engineer anything, or even guess a person’s birthday.
Now if this somehow went to court, a judge might rule that this qualifies as hacking, but my opinion is that it doesn’t.
that’s still hacking. hacking is gaining unauthorized access to a system through:
social engineering
cypher breaking
brute force
of the three the first is BY FAR the most common and efficient. it’s also the least sexy so they don’t make movies about it and the public perception is that it’s something else
It’s two different things being argued about: the legal term “hacking” vs the every day language term, which I believe implies something more specific than “unauthorized access”, something where technical or social skills were used to gain that access.
That’s the parallel I was trying to draw by mentioning the word “hotwiring” instead of “stealing”. It would be like if the legal term for stealing a car was “hotwiring”.
That said, I did see that the OP of this tangent is actually trying to argue the “this isn’t illegal” angle rather than the difference between legal terms and broader language terms.
I agree this falls under the legal definition of hacking, but I also agree with those basically saying that this falls outside of the way they think the term should be used. It waters down its meaning.
Look, I’m not arguing about whether this is illegal or not. I’m arguing about the literal definition of the term “hacking”.
It’s just like walking into a strangers house without permission where the door is wide open is technically illegal, but it can’t qualify as “breaking and entering”.
Richard Trenton Chase was an American serial killer, cannibal and necrophile known as the Vampire of Sacramento, the Dracula Killer and the Vampire Killer, who killed six people between December 1977 and January 1978 in Sacramento, California. All of Chase’s victims were chosen at random. Wikipedia
Doesn’t matter if a person has a computer with no password at all. If you are on their computer and you are not authorized to use their computer that is a crime.
So your claim is that if I sit down at a computer that isn’t mine and has no security measures in place, and then open a file, that I have legally “hacked” the computer?
The minimal definition you can fall back to is “unauthorized access”. But now you have to establish and argue that an unsecured computer/system is off limits to everyone except the owner. Which then opens up a big can of worms with network connected devices, and demonstrates that such basic and literal verbatim interpretation doesn’t work in reality.
You can call it hacking or whatever. The legal term is: unauthorized access to a computer system.
Think about it in any other way? So I’m just walking down the street… I see a house… I go open a door… I open the fridge. Make myself a sandwich. Then go to a bedroom that’s not mine. Put on some underwear that isn’t mine and leave some stains on the sheets…
Why don’t you just go rape somebody? And clearly you have authorization to access that vagina or that butthole or mouth or however your fetish desires???
Just tell me you’ve been on Epstein’s Island… Jfc? Wtf is wrong with you, CeeBee_Eh?
The legal term is: unauthorized access to a computer system.
No, the legal definition is this:
In a legal context, hacking is a term for utilizing an unconventional or illicit means to gain unauthorized access to a digital device, computer system, or network.
So this wasn’t illicit, because the FBI publicly published the data. So the argument has to be made with “unconventional”. This is what I disagree on.
Think about it in any other way? So I’m just walking down the street… I see a house… I go open a door… I open the fridge. Make myself a sandwich. Then go to a bedroom that’s not mine. Put on some underwear that isn’t mine and leave some stains on the sheets…
That’s illegal. There’s a law for that. There are also laws that protect digital assets in a similar way, and they fall under Cybercrime.
Why don’t you just go rape somebody? And clearly you have authorization to access that vagina or that butthole or mouth or however your fetish desires???
Calm down there, Epstein.
Just tell me you’ve been on Epstein’s Island… Jfc? Wtf is wrong with you, CeeBee_Eh?
You suck at rage baiting. I’m advocating for exposing more of the emails and not letting people refer to it as “hacking”, and you’re so enraged by someone disagreeing with you that you literally call that person “Epstein”. I know mental health care isn’t much of a thing in the US, but please find some help. For all our sakes.
You didn’t break the law, just violated a contract. The user you gave your credentials to violated the law, because the contract you signed stipulated that permission for them to access your account was not yours to give. That means they accessed your account in an unauthorized manner, which meets the definition of hacking.
I am not trying to argue the merits of what does and doesn’t constitute hacking, but these terms have objective, legal definitions in the jurisdictions they’re taking place. We don’t have to like or agree with those things, but it doesn’t change the current situation that has them set up this way.
The base legal definition of “hacking” is “unauthorized access”. Then the trick becomes establishing “unauthorized”. The reason this matters is if a website is publicly accessible, then it’s assumed to be authorized even though it’s not explicitly stated by anyone. However, you are accessing information on a computer system you do not own and were not given explicit permission to access.
Now let’s say in the HTML or JS there’s an endpoint to a backend server that’s not directly exposed via online searches or page links. And through that link you are able to expose sensitive data that’s not shown on the webpage.
Now, how is the definition of “unauthorized access” or “hacking” applied here?
Edit: yes this is splitting atoms, but that’s the world of legal definitions
That’s still not hacking. It’s “unauthorized access” like you said, or “gaining access”. Hacking requires bypassing some security measure or obtaining access through some technological or social engineering means.
Or having the FBI leak your password and you using it without authorization. Legally it 100% falls under hacking in the USA.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hacking
First sentence. You don’t have to have stolen the password, if you login to another account, and someone proves you did, you can be charged if they want to pursue it.
We can rule out “illicit” because the FBI published the data publicly. Now the heavy lifting has to be done by “unconventional”, which I don’t think qualifies here. A government agency published the credentials, which means no one had to do social engineering, sneak into an office, reverse engineer anything, or even guess a person’s birthday.
Now if this somehow went to court, a judge might rule that this qualifies as hacking, but my opinion is that it doesn’t.
that’s still hacking. hacking is gaining unauthorized access to a system through:
of the three the first is BY FAR the most common and efficient. it’s also the least sexy so they don’t make movies about it and the public perception is that it’s something else
I agree with what you said. This also wasn’t social engineering. The password was just there and available.
Also, the excellent and amazing movie Hackers features plenty of social engineering.
Also, I didn’t say “excellent” and “amazing” sarcastically. It really is an under rated movie.
It was there, doesn’t mean it was for you. If you found a car with the keys in it, would you steal it or realize you shouldn’t do that?
Yeah but if I did, no one would say I hotwired the car.
Its still grand theft, hotwired or keys. That’s the whole point 😅
It’s two different things being argued about: the legal term “hacking” vs the every day language term, which I believe implies something more specific than “unauthorized access”, something where technical or social skills were used to gain that access.
That’s the parallel I was trying to draw by mentioning the word “hotwiring” instead of “stealing”. It would be like if the legal term for stealing a car was “hotwiring”.
That said, I did see that the OP of this tangent is actually trying to argue the “this isn’t illegal” angle rather than the difference between legal terms and broader language terms.
I agree this falls under the legal definition of hacking, but I also agree with those basically saying that this falls outside of the way they think the term should be used. It waters down its meaning.
Look, I’m not arguing about whether this is illegal or not. I’m arguing about the literal definition of the term “hacking”.
It’s just like walking into a strangers house without permission where the door is wide open is technically illegal, but it can’t qualify as “breaking and entering”.
Is it a nice car?
The door was unlocked, officer!
Richard chase vibes
Well yes. It would be “unlawful entry” (or whatever it’s called) versus “breaking and entering”.
you’re taking this splitting hairs to the moon today aren’t you, little troll.
Talk about a hard derail to burry the lead.
The thing everyone wants to see to dethrone this racist pile of shite and you’re over here like “it’s pronounced potato, not potato.”
Troll? Where the hell are you coming from?
So you have an issue with me arguing that people gaining access to this information are not breaking the law?
Unauthorized access is hacking.
Doesn’t matter if a person has a computer with no password at all. If you are on their computer and you are not authorized to use their computer that is a crime.
So your claim is that if I sit down at a computer that isn’t mine and has no security measures in place, and then open a file, that I have legally “hacked” the computer?
The minimal definition you can fall back to is “unauthorized access”. But now you have to establish and argue that an unsecured computer/system is off limits to everyone except the owner. Which then opens up a big can of worms with network connected devices, and demonstrates that such basic and literal verbatim interpretation doesn’t work in reality.
That’s not ‘my claim.’ That’s the law.
You can call it hacking or whatever. The legal term is: unauthorized access to a computer system.
Think about it in any other way? So I’m just walking down the street… I see a house… I go open a door… I open the fridge. Make myself a sandwich. Then go to a bedroom that’s not mine. Put on some underwear that isn’t mine and leave some stains on the sheets…
Why don’t you just go rape somebody? And clearly you have authorization to access that vagina or that butthole or mouth or however your fetish desires???
Just tell me you’ve been on Epstein’s Island… Jfc? Wtf is wrong with you, CeeBee_Eh?
No, the legal definition is this:
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hacking
So this wasn’t illicit, because the FBI publicly published the data. So the argument has to be made with “unconventional”. This is what I disagree on.
That’s illegal. There’s a law for that. There are also laws that protect digital assets in a similar way, and they fall under Cybercrime.
Calm down there, Epstein.
You suck at rage baiting. I’m advocating for exposing more of the emails and not letting people refer to it as “hacking”, and you’re so enraged by someone disagreeing with you that you literally call that person “Epstein”. I know mental health care isn’t much of a thing in the US, but please find some help. For all our sakes.
If i give someone my bank details and passwords and they empty my account, can I claim I’ve been hacked?
No.
What part of “unauthorized access” is so difficult for people to understand?
How is authorization determined?
Probably by giving out your account details.
So, Epstein has given out his account details by putting them in an email.
Were those details only used by the people he directly sent them to?
Can dead men either provide or deny authorisation?
Can dead men get hacked?
You can. You violated the TOS by sharing the details, making it exceptionally easy for them to hack you, then they did.
A TOS violation is not the same as breaking the law. If that were the case then every single person on the face on the planet would be a criminal.
You didn’t break the law, just violated a contract. The user you gave your credentials to violated the law, because the contract you signed stipulated that permission for them to access your account was not yours to give. That means they accessed your account in an unauthorized manner, which meets the definition of hacking.
I am not trying to argue the merits of what does and doesn’t constitute hacking, but these terms have objective, legal definitions in the jurisdictions they’re taking place. We don’t have to like or agree with those things, but it doesn’t change the current situation that has them set up this way.
Removed by mod
Legally it’s called hacking.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hacking
The base legal definition of “hacking” is “unauthorized access”. Then the trick becomes establishing “unauthorized”. The reason this matters is if a website is publicly accessible, then it’s assumed to be authorized even though it’s not explicitly stated by anyone. However, you are accessing information on a computer system you do not own and were not given explicit permission to access.
Now let’s say in the HTML or JS there’s an endpoint to a backend server that’s not directly exposed via online searches or page links. And through that link you are able to expose sensitive data that’s not shown on the webpage.
Now, how is the definition of “unauthorized access” or “hacking” applied here?
Edit: yes this is splitting atoms, but that’s the world of legal definitions
Bro, stfu and move on. Its “hacking” in every legal definition.
Don’t like being wrong, eh?
@FBI this guy has illegal shit on their computer. Probably child porn.