Over the past few days the Impact Team hacker squad has uploaded AshleyMadison.com users' email addresses, credit card data, addresses and other account information onto the Dark Web, unleashing a torrent of previously private details about 36 million people's private lives.

The release of the Ashley Madison information – often referred to as a data dump – has since emerged from the off-the-radar corners of Tor and is now available to anyone with an Internet connection and access to the popular The Pirate Bay torrent site.

The easy availability of the files has made it very tempting for Ashley Madison users, folks who suspect their spouses have been unfaithful, reporters and others to download the data dump onto their computers so they can do their own digging into its contents.
But many people harbor concerns that simply downloading the files could land them behind bars on any number of federal charges. And lawyers are split on the issue, with some saying that court precedent shows that one cannot be held liable for obtaining stolen files, while others say anyone who does so could be in breach of federal law.

Jonathan Steinsapir, a partner at the entertainment law firm Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert in Santa Monica, California, with experience in cyber law, told AL.com Friday that people who download the files are likely in the clear. He even went so far as to say that journalists who publish relevant, newsworthy reportage on public figures based on information obtained via the dump should not be held in violation of any laws, though their consciences are another matter.

"Are there moral issues with it? Sure, but legally you are good. Based on what the precedent is today, if the information is newsworthy and relevant, and you had nothing to do with the acquiring of it – you just knew it was up there – you should be good," he said.

"I think the law is pretty clear that using that database is ok as long as you weren't involved in acquiring it or inducing it in the first place, [because] then you'd be committing a crime."

Former federal prosecutor Orin Kerr agreed with that reading in a different but similar case, the news website Fusion reported in regards to the materials hackers took from Sony Pictures Entertainment last year.

"There's no liability for a journalist who has been given illegally obtained information," Kerr, who is now a law professor at George Washington University, said.

The precedent for that interpretation of the legal environment surrounding illegally obtained files hinges largely on the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court case Bartnicki v. Cooper, in which a person played a recording that was of public concern on the radio despite the fact that it was taped illegally, Steinsapir noted.

The Supreme Court ruled that the right to play the recording was protected under the First Amendment because it was concerned a matter of public concern and the radio personality did not personally play a part in its initial acquisition.

"We are firmly convinced that the disclosures made by respondents in this suit are protected by the First Amendment," the court's decision reads.

The case established clear legal precedent for situations like the Ashley Madison and Sony Pictures hacks, according to Steinsapir.

"The Supreme Court said the First Amendment said they are protected as long as they were not involved in stealing it or inducing someone to steal it. If after the fact someone says, 'Hey I bugged the governor of Alabama's house and gives it to you, you can publish it, you have the right to publish it," Steinsapir said.

"Private individuals might have more rights, say if you were to do an expose and reveal everyone in Birmingham who was on [AshleyMadison.com], that might create issues, but if you stick to public figures you should be ok."

But not all attorneys agree with Steinsapir's reading of the law and legal precedent. Joseph Fitzpatrick, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago, told the Chicago Tribune that simply downloading illegally obtained files is potentially illegal. He even believes that sharing the knowledge of how to obtain the hacked data could be a crime.

"It certainly could be a crime to receive or possess stolen property," he told the newspaper. "Once you download or distribute hacked information without specific permission or a fair use license, you've exposed yourself to potential criminal liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. An individual who retweets or forwards a link to a website containing hacked information could potentially be viewed as an accessory to the hack after the fact."�

In other words, the legal community is split on the issue of whether someone could be charged and convicted of crimes for downloading illegally obtained files such as those contained in the Ashley Madison data dump could be charged and convicted of crimes. Proceed at your own risk.