[WaitWaitWha]

Yes, penetration testers, red teams, blue teams, auditors, and a myriad of other security conscious roles take advantage of these tools.

> What prevents a malicious actor from buying and using these tools?

Nothing.

What prevents any actor from buying <insert any items here> and using it maliciously? A significantly deeper question. I rather promote this.

[seaman1921]

exactly, what prevents anyone from doing anything, really? haha!

[zarq]

"motivation" is usually the answer. Motivation can be (gaining) money, power, politics, etc.

[WaitWaitWha]

Which begs the question, how do we raise future generations to have motivation which decreases malfeasance?

I do not think there is a simple answer, but there is one out there...

[lrvick]

I for one teach kids to hack and lockpick every chance I get.

When you can pick every lock around you it changes your worldview forever.

Kids should not avoid something wrong because they are physically stopped by a lock.

They should avoid it because it is wrong.

Better they learn these skills from someone that will teach the ethics to go with them.

[pwillia7]

I think this is a big problem for liberalism in the future. When we have 20 billion people and technology is more powerful and ubiquitous, big consequences could happen from individual bad actors remotely. Even if only the tiniest fraction of people wanted to do bad things, there would still be quite a few of them and they'll have more access as everything is more networked together.

[teknico]

There will never be 10 billion people alive at the same time, let alone 20.

[pwillia7]

What's the certainty there? Could you expand?

[_RPL5_]

Well, for one, the US government prevents private actors from buying all sorts of things. I am surprised that selling tools which potentially "enable cyber crime" hasn't triggered some overzealous regulator in DC yet. It seems like low-hanging fruit.

[epinephrinios]

What prevents a criminal buying a chef's knife and committing a crime with it?

I am surprised that selling tools which potentially "enable murder" hasn't triggered some overzealous regulator in DC yet. It seems like low-hanging fruit. /s

Pro-authoritarian sentiment keeps going strong. Why is it so normalized these days?

[chii]

while i do agree with the general sentiment, the technology has moved faster than the societal legislative process.

If you asked a reasonable person off the streets why bioweapons (like anthrax) should not be easily purchasable, they would completely agree and hence the legislature has made such things illegal.

But if you asked that same reasonable person off the street about miniature computers and electronic devices, they would probably not imagine that such uses are possible, nor would they deem it dangerous. They might even consider it useful! So legislation on such things cannot be set by societal expectations.