Re: Dumb 'Follower' learns life lesson ....... yet again !!!???
"The law is blind and does not generally care about ..... 'I was only ...' type excuses.:
IANAL and all that.
For some things the law does care quite a lot about intent. The difference between murder and manslaughter, or for the left pondians difference between murder one and murder two as an example. Same applies for consent, if you voluntarily engage in a boxing match then you punching the other chap isn't assault. Punch the same chap out of the ring and it is. Cutting someone's ripcage open then chopping out and replacing parts of their heart is GBH/attempted murder, unless it's being done by a surgeon on a patient that has agreed to the procedure (and the risks involved).
As noted in the article, the Computer Misuse Act doesn't contain an automatic exemption for intent.
But thanks to the wonder that is Common law, a judge could choose to exercise their judgement to rule that in a specific case a crime was committed, but that it was part of an action that justified the crime. The example often given is seeing a house on fire with a person trapped in it, then breaking down the door and getting them out. It's breaking and entering, but since the intent was clearly to help someone and not nick their stuff, and the person would probably have wanted you to do so, then it would be highly unlikely you'd be prosecuted.
Since open ports on home devices are probably not a matter of life and death, I wouldn't expect these guys (I'm assuming they are male...) to have sort of cover from that.
I'm not familiar enough with code Napoleon systems to say if there is an equivalent, but intent often matters a great deal legally.