Technology is not inherently neutral, and it’s time our industry collectively grows up and stops treating it as such. I hope this is a harbinger of that.
I feel these tools are worth having on their own and it seems widely accepted at this point that the tools themselves aren't at fault for their user's actions, even if those actions are the most popular use of the tools.
Personally I'm much more concerned about the ethical actions of internet advertisers and social media giants - those who are making direct ethical decisions that impact their users privacy and access to information.
As far as I know, at least Hex-Rays screens customers very carefully before selling IDA Pro.
Your stance against so called "dangerous knowledge" worries me - would you encourage banning books about cryptography and software development?
These technologies are to the detriment of enforcement. Because enforcement is far from a universal good, these technologies are far from a universal bad. Contrast this with faceswapping, where the upside is far less clear. Same goes for e.g. Stuxnet. It is a beautiful piece of technology, but not really a force for good given that it is widely available.
A bio-weapon delivery vessel might be a great essential oil diffuser, but I'd argue that the tool still has an essential immoral quality by virtue of its specialised design.
Does that apply here? I don't think so, I don't think this tech was created for the purpose of fomenting unrest and committing frauds, but maybe I'll be corrected on that.
In fact, it's not so hypothetical. The vast majority of iron maidens ever created have only ever been used as novelties, not for torture.
Creating the improved capability for torture is itself immoral IMO.
Worth noting here that a torture device works not only by physical application, but working on the mind as a possibility - just the presence of such a device, or awareness of such a device can create palpable fear. (Like brandishing a weapon, which is often illegal, is still effective, the weapon didn't have to be fired to be used.)
I can agree with that. Creating is an act and acts can have morality, hence brandishing at somebody is immoral as well. The inanimate object you create is still amoral though. I might put you on trial for war crimes for advancing the state of the art of torture, then go on to use your torture device in a moral way, by putting it on display to serve as a warning to future generations.
To bring this discussion back to the topic of software, distribution of software is an act and can be judged as immoral or moral. Depending on the nature of your software, it may be immoral to distribute it indiscriminately to the general public. Some people will probably find that contentious, but I think the possibility is definitely there. On the other hand, depending again on the nature of your creation, it might be immoral to not give it to the general public. Imagine if Alexander Fleming was a misanthrope and took the secret of penicillin to the grave.
It seems like an extremely bad idea to me.
Clearly it is a dangerous tool that must be restricted to select users.
The morality and behavior come from the humans that use it.
It doesn't refer to who's actually physically using the tech.