[logfromblammo]

It's impossible to say without knowing more about the alternative courses of action available to the individuals involved.

You can't fault someone for making a morally wrong choice if they never had a morally right option to choose.

They might also genuinely believe--perhaps due to misinformation--that they are doing good rather than evil.

Besides that, I believe that it is acceptable to perform an action for the benefit of a mutually loyal relationship at the expense of anonymous strangers.

It may be that someone who has a moral objection to IMSI catchers would, instead of endangering himself for the sake of strangers, anonymously pass a tip to a defense attorney containing a suggestion for discovery. Would that person then be condemned as unethical for supporting the technology, or expiated by peeling away one of the veils of secrecy? There is never any shortage of skilled workers who can be psychologically manipulated into acting against their own interests, after all. If the morally conflicted person never worked there, the secrecy may have remained intact longer, creating a larger window for potential abuse.

It's very difficult to condemn someone for trying to collect a regular wage. "I was only following orders" is not exculpatory, but if the alternative to following the order is sufficiently dire, it is sufficient to discourage me from adding moral condemnation to any of the other consequences that may result.