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.
What do you think about Tor? Bittorrent? Bitcoin? How about things like IDA Pro? Many pretty amazing technologies have pretty destructive popular if not primary uses.
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.
Tor, Bittorrent, Bitcoin and IDA Pro are all fascinating technology. Guns are also fascinating technology. The world has gun control, but not software control. I agree with your parent comment that we need to stop letting dangerous knowledge and (even worse) ready-to-use tools be spread openly.
As far as I know, at least Hex-Rays screens customers very carefully before selling IDA Pro.
The world very much DOES have software control. There are whole sets of countries that cannot use certain versions of SSL and other popular encryption tools because of software export controls. Yes, the governments of these places can still get access, but they can also buy weapons ect on the black market.
Attempting to control such a thing would be even more frivolous than the War on Drugs, governments ability to control things is quite limited without taking extremely draconian measures. We don't need a War on Software.
Your stance against so called "dangerous knowledge" worries me - would you encourage banning books about cryptography and software development?
Your examples are technologies for decentralizing power. Those have very clear up and downsides (more freedom, but less enforcement).
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.
Tools are amoral, they can be used for moral or immoral purposes. Lock picks can be used by a burglar to harm people, or by a locksmith to help people. With a hammer, you can build an orphanage or hit orphans.
Tools some times have a clear (im)moral focus. If I make a tool to make fingernail extraction super painful to facilitate torture you're going to have a hard time spinning it is amoral. Now perhaps it doubles as a good drawing pin (aka thumbtack) extractor, but the tool has an immoral characteristic IMO because it was given it in the design and production stages.
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.
If you use or threaten to use such a torture device on somebody, that would be immoral. Your use of it immoral, not the device itself. If you create this torture device and put it on display as a novelty, then it's not being used for anything immoral. So yes, even your hypothetical torture device is amoral.
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.
AIUI the iron maiden was created solely as a novelty.
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.)
> Creating the improved capability for torture is itself immoral IMO.
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.
What good will come out of treating technology as a priori coloured as opposed to neutral? Which entity will get to decide what is neutral or not? How will it be prevented from abusing its position?
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.