[TeMPOraL]

Creating a tool that can theoretically be abused to break laws? No.

Selling a tool with a law-breaking feature, in full knowledge that its main selling point is that feature, that your customers are buying it specifically to break the law? That ought to raise some ethical concerns. You can say that it depends on the particular laws being broken - but here we're not talking about ethical minutiae of censorship or surveillance. We're talking the usual defrauding of the commons through tax evasion.

Creators of VPN software definitely need to consider ethics when deciding who to sell to, what uses to tolerate, what information to store, and how to navigate local laws. Such a business has to deal directly with conflicting needs of citizens, criminals and governments, and thus whatever it does, it's making an ethics choice one way or another.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

> We're talking the usual defrauding of the commons through tax evasion.

Giving ‘The Government’ less money is seen by some as a moral duty.

Governments do a whole lot of giving other people other people’s money. I’m sure there’s people who would argue this can be problematic.

[TeMPOraL]

There's plenty of such people. Most that I met are simultaneously unhappy about giving their government the money, and very happy to use all the services provided by the government from that money[0]. I would appreciate their views more if their argument involved pointing out that nobody asked them to sign the social contract, and that they have no meaningful way to opt out. But very few of such people I talked to raised that point. The argument seems to always boil down to "me getting service good, me paying for it bad".

(I've also seen people argue that they pay for more than they're using, but somehow the concept of derisking and variance reduction doesn't escape these people when it comes to buying insurance.)

--

[0] - Ranging from healthcare and schooling to laws, defense and ensuring a safe and stable environment in which everyone can conduct their business.

[mantas]

If you do pay (even if unhappily), it makes sense to use the service that you had to pay for.

It'd be kinda dumb to pay up and refuse service on principle.

[spottybanana]

On the other hand there are lots of people happily receiving all their money from government, and also using all the public services as well. For example those having a job* at government or receiving benefits from government.

Note that it is still pretty much impossible to run a business without paying any taxes, in the end you have to pay some but you might be able to evade some. In the end it is just endless debate about what level of taxes is felt fair. Changes from individual to other. When people don't feel their taxes are fair, they start to evade those. They might be also just greedy bastards, but I don't think that's necessarily commonly the case.

(* Having a job doesn't necessarily mean doing beneficial work, just receiving the salary.)

[distances]

> When people don't feel their taxes are fair, they start to evade those. They might be also just greedy bastards, but I don't think that's necessarily commonly the case.

No, normal people do not. Tax evasion is a serious crime. People don't start doing criminal acts when they just feel something "isn't fair".

[michaelt]

> Giving ‘The Government’ less money is seen by some as a moral duty.

Right, but when you add a feature that does that and has no other major use, you move beyond 'seen by some' on to 'seen by me'