Is there any case-law where having or not having a legal notice (example here) in the login banner of a system of nay kind made a difference in prosecution? The question is in consideration both of "hacking" - "you must not access without authorization" and privacy - "everything is monited, no privacy expectations".

  • Im not a lawyer but when I went to uni my networking teacher said not to put welcoming MOTDs on routers/switches, as that will be used in court, if some guy gets into it and your software tells him welcome & have fun that's what he'll do Commented Jun 8, 2014 at 8:58
  • 1
    Not sure, if a doormat says "welcome", it doesn't mean you can break in. No judge would go for that.
    – ndrix
    Commented Jun 8, 2014 at 9:00

1 Answer 1


You should check out "Offensive Countermeasures: The Art of Active Defense" by John Strand / Paul Asadoorian.

There is an entire chapter early in the book that covers the importance of login banners, including case law.

These are a few of the examples included.

  • 4
    Hello, very interesting. Having briefly researched all three examples, I can't find that login banners played a crucial or any role in either of them. In cases 1 and 3 from what I gather there is a question of reasonable expectation of privacy vs "special needs" and the bargain part doesn't really come up. In (3), the case is settled so I'm not sure if any case-law has been established.
    – Konrads
    Commented Jun 9, 2014 at 2:26
  • 1
    Also, I can't find any eHippie vs WTO case-law or even court proceedings.
    – Konrads
    Commented Jun 9, 2014 at 3:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .