&quot;Penetration testing&quot; of laws In computer security, there is a process called pentest. People who do this are usually hired by a company to simulate cyberattack and find vulnerabilities which hackers could abuse. After they do this, they send a report to the company, and the company will be able to fix the vulnerabilities. I wonder, are there jobs for something similar except the vulnerabilities are to be found in the constitution, laws, etc.? Is there a term for it?
are there jobs for something similar except the vulnerabilities are to be found in the constitution, laws, etc.? Yes, but they (1) take forms that are more subtle than straight-forward labels such as pentesting, and (2) usually are intended for taking advantage of detected loopholes rather than reporting them for a fix. Fiscal engineering is a good example of vulnerability search. Short of incurring tax fraud, the task of financial engineering entails advanced knowledge of tax law so as to take advantage of the loopholes therein and thus minimize the amount that has to be paid to the tax authority. Unlike computer pentesting, though, legislation very often requires or at least makes room for discretion on the part of the agent (whether it is a prosecutor, a judge, an analyst, and so forth) provided that the agent's decision is consistent with the legislative intent behind the statute(s) at issue. Accordingly, the matter of statutory loopholes is not as definite as the question of whether a computer system or program has bugs in it.
Intent would greatly factor into the case. As mentioned, possession of child pornography is illegal. There was a case, where a man had inadvertently downloaded such images. In the case, it was shown that there was sufficient evidence that it was accidental and without his knowledge. Presumably, if you by happenstance created an identical code through encryption/compiling, there would be a lack of evidence of intent or evidence of your intended use. For example, your stored password manager file happens to store data identical to an illegal image. The password manager output is provable and repeatable to show that it was simply circumstantial. If you have hundreds of such outputs that all "just happen to be illicit images" you would probably fall on the wrong side of reasonable doubt. As to whether you can keep the data, the programmers for the password manager would probably update their system to modify the output to avoid bad press. The general idea is that the "illegal number" is so incredibly specific that accidental cases are very unlikely to occur, and if it did, that there would be forensic evidence indicating intent and use.
That is a very broad clause, broader than the default US rule for copyright, for example. (I know the question asked about the UK, I just happen to know the US copyright rule.) It would seem on the face of it to include independent research on a subject totally unrelated to the person's employment, done off the company's premises and not during normal work hours, but while the person was an employee.. Indeed it would arguably include the copyright to a novel written off premises and during off hours. Use of "course of employment" (instead of "term") would improve the provision. so would "as a part of his or her employment" or "closely related to the subject of his or her employment". Another possible restriction would be "Using the Company's facilities and/or equipment, or during normal working hours". However, my experience is that an employer will have drafted whatever language it uses through its company lawyer, and will be quite unwilling to alter it in any way. A prospective employee will probably be faced with a take-it-or-leave-it choice unless that person is a nearly indispensable figure to the company. One could send the company a certified letter saying, "When i signed the contract agreeing to {company language} I did not intend to include any developments made off company premises, not using company equipment, and unrelated to the subject or scope of my employment. I retain full rights to any such developments." Such a letter would help establish that there was no meeting of the minds to assign such non-employment-related developments or IP to the Company. How much weight it would have if the rights to such developments were the subject of a court case I am not sure.
First, I will make a distinction of terminology. A computer is hardware, like, a calculator. Hardware doesn't make choices or decisions. Its response to any input or occurrence is dictated by the code it is running (barring misfunction). It's behavior to a given input is generally static or in set in a pre-specified pattern (e.g. press a button, show 1+the last number shown). However, it often responds to an input by giving inputs to a program, and then following its instructions (like a car, responding to a driver's input of pressing the accelerator peddle by speeding up). A program is software. Software and its behavior can be edited, and can even alter its own behavior (see the topics of &quot;machine learning&quot; and &quot;artificial intelligence&quot;, and note that in real life they are actually quite different from how they are commonly portrayed in fiction, much like law). With regards to a computer, technically it could be targeted directly by legal action today under the rule &quot;civil asset forfeiture&quot;. However, in general a computer is a merely a location where programs are stored and run, and so are unlikely to be indictable in the traditional sense, in the same way that one would usually not be able to indict a field or building. Potentially, a program could be indicted, if a law was passed indicating that programs or classes of programs are legally considered persons. Note that either this only apply to programs that can pass some series of thresholds or would have massive additional effects because programs would then be full persons, under the law; so you wouldn't be able to buy, sell or license property (due to slavery laws), nor shut down computers (because doing so would &quot;kill&quot; the programs that are stored there (in the same way one can't burn down a building where people are living), nor alter programs without their consent (analogous to medical procedures).
a gutter cleaner drops a leaflet with phone number, and as my gutters needed to be cleaned I called him, we met and I gave him a deposit for the work in cash. The gutter cleaner put everything in writing at the back of the leaflet and signed it. In other words, you have a written contract which you fulfilled but the other party did not fulfill, so they now either owe you a service or your money back. This is a civil law matter which you can bring to a county court. You have a telephone number, so it should be possible to identify the other party. lure him into a trap. But then- how do I turn him into the police and keep everything legal? Was thinking of using pepper spray, but I live in Newcastle, and it's illegal to use it in the UK. Any ideas? This is a very bad idea! Apprehending suspects is the job of the police, not yours. Well, there is the concept of a citizen's arrest, but this is only an option in a very limited number of cases, specifically when you catch a criminal in the act and need to prevent the suspect from getting away before the police arrives. And even then you are on very shaky legal ground if the suspect claims you used more force than necessary or if the court doubts that a citizen's arrest was necessary in this particular case. And in this case a court probably won't believe that a citizen's arrest is justified, because the gutter cleaner probably didn't even commit a crime. They just violated a contract. That's a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It might be a criminal matter if they never intended to fulfill the contract (fraud), but you don't know that. If you use violence on a person just because they owe you money, you are very likely committing a crime yourself.
Well ... the crime of fraud and the tort of deception. If you say you will do X and enter a contract on that basis knowing that you won't then that is fraud and it carries gaol time. Your bank could also revoke your contract and sue for damages.
Expungement rules and effects vary greatly by state. Good reading on the question can be had here, with notable exceptions to expungement here. Of particular relevance to this question: In some states, individuals who want to work as public school teachers, corrections guards, or police officers should expect that their employers will have access to expunged records. Agencies reviewing applications for professional licenses, including law, pharmacy, or medicine, may also have access. Even in the most favorable circumstances an expungement can't destroy or seal non-government records. For example, if a newspaper reported on a charge or conviction there is no way to eliminate that public record. The mechanics of expungement can also break down. For example, in Pennsylvania it's up to the applicant for expungement to list all the government agencies and entities on which the Order for Expungement should be served. If they forget or aren't aware of some agency that has records covered by the expungement then those records won't be destroyed. (Though if they are later discovered the Order can be served on them and they are still required to comply.)
In a legal sense, if you are posing as a journalist, you can ask anything of anyone, and it's up to them to answer your questions or provide you with photos or documents. If they provide you with photos or documents against the regulations of their employer (or state or federal law), that's their prerogative and their legal risk. They can be protected by whistle-blower laws, depending on jurisdictions, and/or their identities protected by the journalist, depending on jurisdictions, as well as Shield laws and the legitimacy of the journalist and publication. But you can't ethically promise them to protect them as journalistic sources when it is questionable if you can be considered a legitimate journalist, and as a result, legally protect your sources through what is called reporters' privilege (Electronic Frontier Foundation). Some bloggers can be considered journalists; that is something that a court often decides. New Jersey does have a Shield law. And read New Jersey blogger considered a journalist under state Shield Law | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and N.J. Supreme Court says blogger not protected from revealing her sources | NJ.com. You ask if you can be protected and promise protection to your sources. Could you be considered a real, working journalist? Can you sincerely and legally protect your sources? Could you be a case that is tested in court? I'd ask a lawyer.