That’s a legal disclaimer, not a moral one.
We're software developers, not kindergarten teachers.
How do you feel about Sqlite's code of conduct? Because if you don't like that, then you shouldn't be making moral statements in your own repositories.
This is also true of almost every other area of human effort, whether implicit or explicit. As a catch-all baseline, we have the various legal systems.
The fact that a significant proportion of the tech industry refuses point-blank to even discuss the idea of ethics is not a sign of superiority but immaturity.
My only point was: you can disclaim anything you want, but that won't stop people from suing you if they feel like it (this can happen anyway, even if you disclaim any and all responsibility) and creating something that can very easily be abused and then thrown out into the public even though it is standard practice in the security community may well end up being a boomerang.
There is some precedent for the creators of such software being sued:
https://knowtechie.com/a-company-that-makes-iphone-hacking-s...
So I would not be too quick to dismiss that this could happen to smaller entities or even open source creators of such tools.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-famil...
That’s not remotely the same thing as holding a creator liable for the misuse of his work by unrelated third-parties.
Frankly, the illiberal push towards “ban everything that could be misused” is disheartening, especially when we see it applied to a speech-based tool like this one.
Also: note that the degree to which everything is labeled 'speech' is fairly uniquely American.
(Rightfully) labeling code as speech is what allowed us to break down that barrier.
Would you also be questioning the ethics of djb in 1995? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_...
Because once created something will have a life of its own. The question is only meaningful prior to creating it. This goes for the atomic bomb, the invention of gunpowder, strong cryptography and any other tool.
But if you don't care about ethics then it is obvious why you would not ask that question to begin with and I think that technology without ethics is no better than your average arms manufacturer. Only there at least we have - in some cases - some control over the uses, whereas software multiplies at a speed that politics can not catch up with. This may be a good thing, or it may be a terrible thing, and if it is the latter you will only find out when it is too late if you don't spend some cycles thinking about it beforehand.
I liked the internet a lot better before I had to think about the security implications of every move I made, and the difference between 'bad actors' that are incapable of wrecking everything and 'bad actors' that are empowered by the brain children of the good actors far more than the good actors are (due to the asymmetry between destruction and creation) may be more than we can deal with.
Individual empowerment enables incredible creativity, engenders individual and societal resilience, and leaves space for those who do not fit the norm to contribute their talents in ways we might not otherwise anticipate.
The second — prior restraint to enforce “trust and safety” - requires exerting authoritarian or paternalistic control over others to achieve its aims. In the process, it gives those who prioritize power over others the tools they need to undeservedly secure it, and invariably leads to individual, social, and institutional ossification.
Having things go wrong is a good and necessary thing; a perfect world is a fantastically dull and oppressive one.
These views did not arise from a lack of ethical consideration; they were a very considered ethical foundation on which the internet was originally built. In many respects, it was originally built to stand in opposition (or at least offer an alternative) to the staid and oppressive institutions that prioritize trust and safety.
The main purpose as far as I have it down was to create a method for (government) researchers to communicate and to have a reliable communications network in wartime.
https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtm...
Feel free to rewrite history any way you want it though. Perhaps you were confusing the world-wide-web and the internet?
Gopher, Usenet, and IRC. Eventually, the web.
Yes, the internet grew out of government projects, but it was rooted in the openness of academic networks.
The “trust and safety” ethos is merely the staid hall monitors of the status quo doing their best to co-opt something that was only possible to create outside their influence.
Its healthy for them to lose, sometimes. Maybe even most of the time.
Opposing the “trust and safety” hall monitors is an ethical position, just one that’s (seemingly) entirely contrary to your own.
This logically does not compute.
I guess you mean in situations where guns are currently used, other strategies could be employed?
Since the goal of a firearm is to hurl a chunk of metal through the air at high speed, I can't really think of alternatives. Besides air rifles, we just have traditional powder guns filling that niche.
The usefulness of firearms extends beyond killing people, and I don't think "guns are literally designed for killing people" is very accurate. I think the majority of guns are not designed for killing people. I think the Ruger 10/22 is the best-selling gun of all time, and it's .22 caliber, which is definitely not what you'd choose if the goal of your design was to kill people.
Guns are universally classed as 'weapons' not as 'metal object throwers'.
Not really, not for the vast majority of them. For hunting or sport shooting a bolt action makes sense, but a 9mm pistol is a tool specifically designed to kill people, just like an automatic rifle is.