The offences found in the Computer Misuse Act 1990 are criminal offences. The Limitations Act 1980 deals with civil offences and is thus not relevant. Apparently, there is no general statute of limitations for criminal offences in the UK (though for summary proceedings, the limit is in general 6 months).
In the United Kingdom it is illegal under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
In other jurisdictions there may not be a law directly aimed at computer crime but if you sell it knowing that a crime is going to be committed with it that makes you an accomplice.
Most computer crime is prosecuted under laws not directly aimed at computer misuse.
For the USA, the FCC has a few words to say on the subject:
“Generally, “jammers” — which are also commonly called signal blockers, GPS jammers, cell phone jammers, text blockers, etc. — are illegal radio frequency transmitters that are designed to block, jam, or otherwise interfere with authorized radio communications.”
Eugene Volokh categorizes this as "crime-facilitating speech" in his articles, "The Freedom of Speech
and Bad Purposes", and "Crime-Facilitating Speech".
He characterizes the situation like this:
Some chemistry textbooks discuss how explosives are made, some
posts to computer security discussion groups discuss security bugs in a leading
Data, as it happens in law, can also be owned. That's why we have a discipline called "Intellectual Property". It is a "thing" - like other properties like cars, houses etc., someone owns it.
Now, does the transfer of a computer also includes a transfer of data ownership stored inside the computer? Practically speaking, this clause is very unlikely to be ...
The legislation in question is section 3A of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (this section was added to the original text of the CMA by section 37 of the Police and Justice Act 2006):
3A Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence under section 1 or 3
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or
offers to supply ...
This would be unauthorized access to a computer. The offence is found in Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
Note that this is a criminal offence, approaching the police about it might be the best way of handling the situation (if you want to go that route, and also, I'm not a lawyer).
Would any offence be committed for:
Having this on your person?
Buying or selling this?
Leaving it around for people to plug in to a computer?
In the abstract, I don't think that this conduct would violate either Section 36 of the U.K. law or U.S. law, although, obviously, purposefully destroying a computer itself (i.e. actually using the ...
In the United States -
Flying within Class G airspace (max 400 ft.) over private property without permission is trespassing (min 500 ft.)
A 107 certified pilot is not restricted to 400 ft., and may have a BVLOS waiver. (It can be difficult to assess whether a drone is above 500 feet.)
In the US, it is a violation of federal criminal law to instigate any ...
With regards to rights above land, we know from Bernstein v Skyviews and General Ltd  QB 479 that a person owns: "the airspace above his land to such height as was necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it"
Though this wouldn't allow you to sue someone for flying a helicopter or airplane ...
It may be useful to consult the opinion in this civil suit. The relevant portion is the state computer law claims, starting p. 22, which in the Nevada and California versions involves a law making unauthorized access a crime. These laws also provide a cause of action in case of damage caused by illegal access (that is, you can sue the person who broke into ...
if we as a company have a DNS record we did not update and we're now
pointing to an IP address we don't own, if an attacker used our DNS
record to access the web application and then used the Remote Code
Execution vulnerability are we in any way legally responsible for
this? Bearing in mind that the server is regardless accessible to the
world and ...
Most products can be used for illegal purposes, so just selling something that is used for illegal activities can't incur such liability in general. There are exceptions, of course. If a product is clearly made for illegal activities and has little or no legal use, the supplier is likely to be liable. If a supplier produces something and markets it for ...
If you suspect or should reasonably suspect that the customer will violate the license agreement to do something illegal, then the license will not protect you.
Use common sense. If Walmart hires you to write software to check the security of their 100,000 cash registers, you can do that, and if one rogue employee uses the software to commit a crime, that'...
By analogy, if you sell contract killings 'only if the buyer accepts terms and conditions like" he will be solely responsible for blah blah"' then you won't go to jail? Think again, my friend.
Here are the legal issues:
Bypassing copy protection is unlawful access of a computer system - a crime in most parts of the world.
Selling something to someone which ...
Your liability would be analogous to your liability for publicizing any other dangerous fact. The source code for numerous viruses has been made public e.g. on Github for exactly this purpose, though the examples which I found were viruses for which there are cures, such as the CIH virus. Publicizing a system weakness that enables a virus to be promulgated, ...
Are there any U.S. or U.K. laws that prevent academic research papers
or journals from being published?
Yes. Certain kinds of mathematical research pertaining to cryptography are classified for national defense purposes by the NSA. I suspect that other kinds of research that disclose classified defense technology could also be classified and prevented ...
If there is a law which outlaws the behavior and potentially an addition to the state’s penal code defining the punitive measures to be taken when one violates the law, then it could subject one to criminal charges.
Similarly, if the actions taken in this case satisfy the elements of an existing crime, for example, depending on the gamer’s actions and ...
"Public" DNS servers are public in the sense that they are available for the public to use by the adminstrator of each server. But each DNS server is run by either a government entity (or semi-government, such as a university or a government run corporation) or a private telecom company. And as such, each entity that runs a DNS server will have TOS (terms of ...
Alternatively, since you are under 18, you can void the contract. Which means you would have no right to a year's hosting, and he would have no right to the domain name, and if he uses it, you can take him to court.
BTW. If he hasn't "made a contract for a $7 domain" then he hasn't got a right to that domain name anyway. No contract, no rights.
In almost all jurisdictions unauthorised access to a computer is against the law. In most of these the definition of "computer" is sufficiently broad to encompass anything with WiFi access and unauthorised means without the owner's permission.
Using a default password is similar to using a default code on a combination door lock - it's really foolish but it'...
Is there any mechanism for determining whether access is "authorised" or "unauthorised"?
From the Computer Misuse Act s17:
(5) Access of any kind by any person to any program or data held in a computer is unauthorised if—
(a) he is not himself entitled to control access of the kind in question to the program or data; and
(b) he does not have consent ...
If the unauthorized access constitutes a crime, then typically it is the state (i.e., a public prosecutor) who initiates prosecution of the crime.
Anybody who claims damages can start a civil legal proceeding.
This is an unanswerable question. The closest thing that can be given as an example is yahoo vs Union of Jewish Students and the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism, where yahoo (a US based company) was selling Nazi memorabilia in france which is illegal. The French court threatened yahoo with fines and yahoo said we are not in your ...