When I die, my assets should go to the people I named as my beneficiaries. If someone else comes along to try and take ownership of my assets, they should definitely be denied. Also, just because I’m dead doesn’t mean anyone should have access to my devices, especially if password locked. So I would answer both questions with yes.
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.
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?
When I die, my assets should go to the people I named as my beneficiaries. If someone else comes along to try and take ownership of my assets, they should definitely be denied. Also, just because I’m dead doesn’t mean anyone should have access to my devices, especially if password locked. So I would answer both questions with yes.
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