Is wiki vandalism illegal?
<p>Is it legal to vandalize wikis if the vandal doesn't use hacked accounts? Could the vandal either be prosecuted or sued?</p>

<p>There are some problems with this kind of vandalism, one of them clearly that the internet is international and vandalism can be performed from everywhere on servers everywhere in the world. And so it may be (both technically and legally) difficult to get hold of the vandal. Therefore, most wikis primarily focus on blocking offending accounts or their IPs and hope that this helps at least for a while. Only if it doesn't and the vandalism continues for extended time periods, legal measures are considered.</p>
<p>Legally speaking though, vandalism is prohibited by many jurisdictions and of course by the terms of use of the wiki operators.</p>
<p>For instance, the <a href="https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Swiss criminal code</a> Art 147 explicitly puts &quot;abusing of data processing equipment&quot; under penalty and hence gives website operators a legal backup for setting up rules for the use of their services.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Computer fraud
Art. 147</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>1 Any person who with a view to his own or another's unlawful gain, by the incorrect, incomplete or unauthorised use of data, or in a similar way, influences the electronic or similar processing or transmission of data and as a result causes the transfer of financial assets, thus occasioning loss to another, or immediately thereafter conceals such a transfer shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>2 If the offender acts for commercial gain, he shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding ten years or to a monetary penalty of not less than 90 daily penalty units.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Technically, the law even requires prosecution <em>ex officio</em>, even though without a hint from the operator, the police won't start an investigation. I'm sure the US has a similar law. The problem is, as with all internet crimes, it's practical application, particularly because often website operator and offender are not living in the same country.</p>
<p><strong>Edit</strong>
After reading the exact text again (it was unavailable yesterday) Art 147 is mostly about fraud performed by computers (classical &quot;hacking&quot;) but it shouldn't be difficult to argue that fighting and reverting vandalism requires significant (technical and personal) effort and hence the operator looses money. Additionally, there's Art 144<sup>bis</sup> which matches even better for the scenario here:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Damage to data
Art. 144bis</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>Any person who without authority alters, deletes or renders unusable data that is stored or transmitted electronically or in some other similar way shall be liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>If the offender has caused major damage, a custodial sentence of from one to five years may be imposed. The offence is prosecuted ex officio.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ol start="2">
<li>Any person who manufactures, imports, markets, advertises, offers or otherwise makes accessible programs that he knows or must assume will be used for the purposes described in paragraph 1 above, or provides instructions on the manufacture of such programs shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>If the offender acts for commercial gain, a custodial sentence of from one to five years may be imposed.</p>
</blockquote>

united-states internet is-x-legal spam