> When an individual can take down an organizations method of operation (mastercard/visa/paypal), it isn't the individuals fault (regardless of their actions) it is the organizations fault.
Who cares whose fault it is? It's illegal, they get arrested, it's simple really.
> You don't blame someone for stealing from a bank when they pile gold bullion in the entrance without a guard in sight. You blame the bank because that's fucking stupid.
Sure, you can do that. That, and arrest the person too because, you know, they broke the law.
>Sure, you can do that. That, and arrest the person too because, you know, they broke the law.
I think it's more relevant that what they did was willfully malicious. I probably regularly violate laws that I'm not even aware of, but the fact that I'm not intentionally doing harm to anyone establishes some kind of innocence.
"The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even though the person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently."
Comments
> When an individual can take down an organizations method of operation (mastercard/visa/paypal), it isn't the individuals fault (regardless of their actions) it is the organizations fault.
Who cares whose fault it is? It's illegal, they get arrested, it's simple really.
> You don't blame someone for stealing from a bank when they pile gold bullion in the entrance without a guard in sight. You blame the bank because that's fucking stupid.
Sure, you can do that. That, and arrest the person too because, you know, they broke the law.
>Sure, you can do that. That, and arrest the person too because, you know, they broke the law.
I think it's more relevant that what they did was willfully malicious. I probably regularly violate laws that I'm not even aware of, but the fact that I'm not intentionally doing harm to anyone establishes some kind of innocence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
"The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even though the person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently."
IANAL, but this sounds like the idea behind Mens rea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea