[agitator]

If anything, by making devices like this accessible to the public, the end result is safer devices for everyone.

Without products like this you have criminals, a small amount of enthusiasts/researchers, and government sponsored actors exploiting vulnerabilities. If you put it out in the open, much like open source software, everyone can do it, but there's more pressure to fix blatant vulnerabilities.

[jtsiskin]

As a simple example, the “trust this computer?” prompt standard on most phones. If devices like this were only known by states governments, this feature likely would have taken longer to become standard

[AYBABTME]

Isn't that the same argument people use in support of gun ownership?

[ViViDboarder]

No. I’ve never once seen someone say that making guns more available means that the general public gets better bullet proof technology.

It, for example, hasn’t resulted in accessible bulletproof vehicles for all.

In technology, vulnerabilities found push companies to develop and deploy protections for them.

[mszcz]

I don’t think that it is. As I understand it the argument in favor of guns is that they would supposedly protect you against someone else with a gun.

I can’t protect myself from someone with a RubberDucky with a RubberDucky of my own. However, knowing that these tools exist and how easy they are to acquire and the ability to try one out for yourself might actually make you think twice about plugging that random cable or USB drive into your box.

[hashkb]

The guns you can buy don't compare in any way to the guns the bad actors have. Apples and oranges.

[Zpalmtree]

What are you talking about?