If a user account from a social network that the original user didn't use for a long time gets hacked, and then used to post illegal content (e.g. terrorist material, sexually explicit material, etc.), is the original user of the account liable for posting the illegal content? Or it is just the hacker of the account?
17
-
1Wouldn't it depend if they could prove they got hacked and they didn't have anything to do with helping the hack?– Joe WCommented Aug 15 at 15:16
-
2E.g. there's no law against having an easily guessed password.– BarmarCommented Aug 15 at 16:23
-
1@Barmar If someone is going to get prosecuted for posting illegal content on a social media site the prosecution is likely going to focus on the fact that the accused owns the account and in control of that account. It is up to the accused to show that the account was hacked and not under their control and it is up to the prosecution to show that it wasn't the case. Overall the prosecution will be working on proving that the account belongs to the accused not that it wasn't hacked unless the accused brings it up as a defense.– Joe WCommented Aug 15 at 17:23
-
1@JoeW If I were the defendant I might say something like "I created that account a decade ago and haven't used it in years." It's hard to prove a negative, although I'd offer to provide my browser history. I might subpoena the site's logs to show that the IP addresses used to access the site weren't my address.– BarmarCommented Aug 15 at 17:28
-
1@Barmar Actually that should be pretty easy to prove by getting the activity records from the social media platform that shows when it was accessed and where it was accessed from. If we are at a point where someone is getting charged with a crime over a social media post most of that information should already requested and one would hope that the information about the post would indicate that it was the accused that made it and not from some other random spot in the world.– Joe WCommented Aug 15 at 17:31
|
Show 12 more comments
1 Answer
The hacker is liable and the owner of the account is not liable without fault. But, proving that the content was posted by a hacker and not by the owner could, as a practical matter, be difficult.
At a minimum, ownership of the account would probably be sufficient to support probable cause for an arrest, or a factual basis for a civil lawsuit, even if the owner of the account later proved that a hacker was at fault and not the owner of the account.