Then I think Cisco, Microsoft, and all the other NSL, backdoor inserting, government roll-over companies count in this category too. Do you not see how slippery the slope is you are arguing for?
I'm all for holding people accountable for bad actions but I don't think that writing code is enough of to show intent to harm.
If you're talking about different bills then your analogy obviously doesn't apply.
> Owning prop money in itself is not a crime. But it's a crime if people try to pass the prop bills off as real money, said Capt. Jim Duering of the Grand Island Police Department.
Seems like the same principle would apply if you were selling it for the purpose of enabling fraud.
From the article: "Essentially what this law says is that bills must be either 75% smaller than or 150% larger than the size of a real bill and one color, one side."
So printing fake money could be a crime even if you don't attempt to pass it as real.
ex. See people using cars or knives or guns as weapons to commit crimes, we don't throw in Toyota or H&K executives in jail. Just because an item was used by someone, the inanimate object by itself do not display intent, intent is something that can only be held in the minds of a person.
It's a very different thing to write code with good intentions, only to have it repurposed by others for nefarious intent.
It's obviously not a black and white matter, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. The important thing to remember, though, is intent. What was that code or feature originally intended to do? If it was intended to be malicious, then why write the code?
I actually do not believe this is really a legal issue, and is instead a moral and ethical issue on a personal level. It is only becoming a legal issue because we have no other way to deal with it, since not every person operates on the same moral code. If more software developers went out of their way to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard, maybe fraud wouldn't be as prevalent as it is today, and we wouldn't need to have this discussion in the first place.
a gun by itself doesn't show intent to commit assassinations. only when it's taken by a revolutionary and aimed at the heart of capitalist pigs will the intent be realized.
the gun maker cannot be held responsible for creating a device that intended to kill someone important.
Congratulations. You've just publicly stated you should remove your game from Steam and anyone else who distributes DRM rootkits. Rootkits are re-purposable into malware too.
Will you? No?
Color me surprised. /s
Like... a HUGE gap.
wtf.
If you use it, you are just as "guilty" as the logic used in the OP.