When defending a client accused of illegally obtaining confidential data, the following aspects can be used to explain that their actions are actually intended to evaluate the soundness of the company's protection measures for sensitive information. However, it should be noted that the legal details of specific cases are complex and changeable. The following content is for reference only. It is recommended to seek professional legal advice in actual situations. 1. **Good Faith Intent**: - **Purpose to improve security**: The client's actions may be based on concern for the company's security measures and hope to discover potential vulnerabilities through simulated attacks or data access, thereby prompting the company to improve its data protection strategy. - **No malicious motive**: The client does not intend to steal, abuse or leak information, but hopes to ensure the security of information through actual testing. 2. **Similar to "white hat" hacking**: - **Ethical Hacking**: This behavior is similar to authorized security testing conducted by white hat hackers, which aims to identify and fix security vulnerabilities and protect systems from malicious attacks. - **Intentional disclosure of vulnerabilities**: After discovering vulnerabilities, some white hat hackers will feedback this information to the relevant company without destroying the system to promote security improvements. 3. **Lack of Legal Authorization**: - **No formal authorization**: Although the customer's intentions may be good, its actions may still constitute illegal access if it does not have the company's formal permission. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasize this point in the defense and explore whether there is a misunderstanding or miscommunication. - **Possibility of promoting formal security testing**: The customer's actions may reflect the company's shortcomings in security testing, and the company can use this to demonstrate its willingness to improve security measures. 4. **Defensive Action**: - **Responding to security threats**: The customer may believe that there is a potential security threat and verify the system's defense capabilities through actual testing to prevent future attacks. - **Protecting own interests**: If the customer is also a partner or stakeholder of the company, its actions may be based on the consideration of protecting common interests. 5. **Fuzziness of the boundary between legal and illegal**: - **Gray area**: In some cases, there may be a gray area in defining the legality of behavior, especially in the field of network security and data protection. Whether the customer's actions actually violate the law requires specific analysis of relevant regulations. 6. **Case References**: - **Judgments of Similar Cases**: Citing the court’s judgments on “good faith” testing in other similar cases may help support the client’s defense. - **Industry Practice**: If unauthorized security testing is common in the industry and is considered to promote security rather than violate the law in most cases, it can also be used as a basis for defense. 7. **Active Cooperation and Remedial Measures**: - **Proactive Cooperation with the Company**: Whether the client proactively reports the vulnerability after being discovered and assists the company in patching it. This cooperative attitude helps demonstrate its goodwill. - **Remedial Measures**: Whether the client takes measures to avoid similar incidents in the future, such as conducting security testing after obtaining formal authorization. **Important Note**: The above views are only general discussions. Specific cases are complex and the laws and regulations involved vary from region to region. In order to ensure legitimate rights and interests, it is recommended that clients seek the help of professional legal advisors as soon as possible when facing such allegations to obtain targeted legal advice and defense strategies.