[Debug_Overload]

Tools like this also make me uncomfortable and I said as much last time an issue like this was discussed [1].

But I don't think the "it can be abused" argument is compelling. Most of the tools we have today can and have been abused. As you point out, we know bad actors use infosec tools and run the same POCs that researchers produce when they find new exploits and vulnerabilities (after disclosure); they check the same CVEs and read the same papers. But this information has to be released and these tools have to be out in the open. Security through obscurity is a disaster.

Besides the other intended goals of these tools, I am hoping they will raise awareness and get many people to realize how easy it is to identify and deanonymize them online.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26082504

[riedel]

I somehow agree that there is no good strategy against "dual use" . However, why not simply put usage terms in the licence. The copyright owner chooses actively what uses they allow. IMHO it would be an ethically good thing to at least try to at least legally disallow "abuse": Authors of software need to claim more responsibilty and at least actively reflect on potential uses of their software.

[girvo]

What would that achieve, in terms of actually stopping bad actors? Genuine question: I’m guessing the ability for the copyright holder to sue a stalker? But why would they, and that remedy wouldn’t really work, if my guess is right. I must be missing something