I disagree that that is valid. "Intent" means that you didn't click a button, that button went somewhere it shouldn't, and the action had no intent to "hack".

In this case, the "agent" had every intention of doing what it was doing.

I'm not claiming that "accidental hacking" (whether by human, or agent) is covered and illegal. I am claiming that calling this "accidental" is not a valid defense. One incident? Maybe. But this is pretty far past one incident.