4 ms·

It's not clear exactly what happened here, but hypothetically... If the state/public office did _not_ agree to it in contract, but if the individuals doing the

It's not clear exactly what happened here, but hypothetically... If the state/public office did _not_ agree to it in contract, but if the individuals doing the breaking in a) do it for a living, and b) were operating under the knowledge that they had a contract enabling them to do so legally... what happens to them? In this case they committed a crime, to them everything including past experience led them to believe it was explicitly not a crime. Obviously the contracting company would be ultimately at fault (at least morally so), but the person messing up the contract isn't going to go to prison for burglary. How would this likely be resolved? Would the burglary case be dropped and it be turned into a criminal negligence case against the company? If not, how do we effectively protect physical penetration testers like this?

golergka 7y ago
IANAL, especially in American law, but mens rea is usually a neccessary element for criminal liability.
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  Hadnt heard of the term before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    It's okay, there are a number of people in this thread who haven't. The interesting part is, legally, how there are two separate parts: intent (I intended to do this action, why car accidents are not murder) and knowledge (I knew, or should have known, this was a crime). In this case, they could not form mens rea because, to their knowledge, they had permission to "break into" the building. Like when you lock yourself out of your house and hire a locksmith to "break in". The locksmith has intent, but no "criminal knowledge" because you gave them permission.
    - danpalmer 7y ago
      I guess the "or should have known" is a key part here. In most cases where the person didn't know, they should have. The difference here being that they _did_ know that they _weren't_, and they had probably taken reasonable steps to ensure that they weren't breaking the law.
      - Ensorceled 7y ago
        Right, "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but in this case they had an exemption.

golergka 7y ago

IANAL, especially in American law, but mens rea is usually a neccessary element for criminal liability.

giancarlostoro 7y ago
Hadnt heard of the term before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  It's okay, there are a number of people in this thread who haven't. The interesting part is, legally, how there are two separate parts: intent (I intended to do this action, why car accidents are not murder) and knowledge (I knew, or should have known, this was a crime). In this case, they could not form mens rea because, to their knowledge, they had permission to "break into" the building. Like when you lock yourself out of your house and hire a locksmith to "break in". The locksmith has intent, but no "criminal knowledge" because you gave them permission.
  - danpalmer 7y ago
    I guess the "or should have known" is a key part here. In most cases where the person didn't know, they should have. The difference here being that they _did_ know that they _weren't_, and they had probably taken reasonable steps to ensure that they weren't breaking the law.
    - Ensorceled 7y ago
      Right, "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but in this case they had an exemption.