Together, with political will and popular support behind them, change in these areas would empower the public to better respond to ratters—whether individuals or government agents—and improve the privacy of millions.* * *Electronic privacy law in the United States is guided by the overlap of the Federal Trade Commission, state law, criminal procedure, executive order, and federal statute.
In the last category, few statutes have more potential than the ECPA. Patrick Leahy noted in 2013 was "no longer suited" to contemporary threats—courts have turned to a technologically unwieldy metaphor of "flight" to determine which interceptions occur “contemporaneously” with a message’s transmission and thus are covered by the statute.
The intrusion, he told the The Byrds sued a number of parties associated with the incident, including the store and the manufacturer of the trojan. The same judge expressed skepticism that the messages and screenshots could have been “intercepted,” either, but still allowed debate of the issue in the case.
The litigation is still underway, but for now, the court's unwillingness to treat webcam snooping as protected under ECPA is a troubling but easily correctable deficiency in the law.
Online, at places like Hack Forums.net, individuals, often men, trade and sell access to strangers' computers, often women, gained via RAT.
RATs are widely used in a variety of contexts, some benign, others not. It’s hard to know how many RATs are out there because of their covert nature.
Anyone with or near a computer and its webcam is potentially at risk.