Regardless it would then be a bad law since almost all criminal law looks at intent and reasonable expectations of how a citizen should act.
We don’t need to keep replaying the vilification of security researcher game just because it involves the flawed gov systems imposed on technology itself instead of just technology. The end goal is the same, the privacy and security of end users.
I’d never trust a jury for any highly technical matter such as this. Prosecutors have shown they can be highly effectively at spinning even the most basic security research into sounding like serious criminal behaviour (like punishing someone with serious jail time for incrementing the id number in a URL and finding other users personal profiles completely unprotected).
You only gamble on juries for stuff like murder trials and similar basic crimes.
>A jury verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. However, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the law.
We don’t need to keep replaying the vilification of security researcher game just because it involves the flawed gov systems imposed on technology itself instead of just technology. The end goal is the same, the privacy and security of end users.