Who has? Surely not the person who wrote the tutorial.
Edit: I was mis-remembering, the current law is against possession or manufacture of eavesdropping or wiretapping devices, not hacking tools. The EU has been playing with laws against hacking tools, but apparently nothing in the US yet against it.
The law makes it illegal to distribute devices (incl. software) that the design of such [software] renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. Punishable by not more than 5 years and/or not more than $250,000. 18 U.S.C. 2512.
I don't think this blog post qualifies as an "interception" device,... however unauthorized retrieval and recording of another's voice mail messages constitutes an "interception" so who the hell knows. I'm sure you could find a US DA who would argue the falsified User-Agent meant the software is designed to "intercept" communication meant only for Google.
While §202a and §202b punish unauthorized access to or interception of data, §202c extends this threat to obtaining passwords or creating tools in preparation of such an act.
Note that this section has only existed for a few years. I am not aware if white-hat hackers have actually been prosecuted for creating hacker tools.
And by "may", I do mean "may". I don't know. But it's at least possible.
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic
in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a
technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under
this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that
person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively
controls access to a work protected under this title.
The wording reminds me of a similar section in the German Copyright Law which outlaws the circumvention of "effective" copy-protection schemes.
How an access control scheme can be effective and circumventable at the same time is completely beyond me. :)