united-states hacking eula
Is a Hacking EULA legal?
<p>So I often watch my web server traffic. At least a quarter of the time, it's someone attempting to break in. Either by ssh or by attacking my directories and login panel. </p>

<p>My question is, if I present a EULA to the user PRIOR to them being able to access my login page, that specifically states </p>

<p><em>"If you load the login page, you agree to all me to access your machine remotely including all of the files on it"</em> </p>

<p>Then I proceed to access it after they attempt to login.</p>

<p>Would this hold up in court or would it still violate the computer fraud and abuse act? </p>

<p>EDIT:</p>

<p>The exact flow of events would be...</p>

<ol>
<li>Person attempts to navigate to my website login page on a server that I own, control and operate.</li>
<li>Prior to being able to access the login they're forced to accept a EULA</li>
<li>They accept EULA and proceed to the login page</li>
<li>I have a payload that then deploys on their machine which gives me partial control over it</li>
<li>[I go to jail] OR [I don't go to jail]</li>
</ol>

<p>Hacking involves accessing someones device without their permission. </p>

<p>So an EULA which permits hacking doesnt really make sense. Since agreeing to such an EULA means its not longer hacking, but giving consensual access to your computer. </p>

<p>So it may seem that the computer fraud and abuse act isnt engaged. (It applies to when there is no permission given) </p>

<p>However such an EULA would likely be found unenforceable in court. This is because it is offerred on a "take it or leave it" basis, and generally the more honerous a clause in an agreement is, the more clear it has to be made to the user. Meaning a court might only ever beleive that users agreed to such an EULA if it was shown clearly to them that it would give the site a right to download a payload onto their computer. And they would need to explicitly accept this. A single click on an accept button probably wouldn't be enough. </p>

<p>So that would mean most likely the EULA doesnt turn the hacking into a consensual act, ans so the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act would indeed be engaged. And the site would be in deep trouble</p>
