> whenever you think “there aught to be a law...” there probably shouldn’t be
I actually totally agree (which is the reason for my edited response above, before your comment arrived)... but there must be limits, musn't there? We don't arbitarily allow murder, rape or theft.
Looking at the concept of "freedom" is a tricky thing, I've found. At what point does "doing whatever I want" become unacceptable to the very society that bred that behaviour? What should that society do to curtail behaviours that are actively destructive against it?
As an individual in society, shouldn't I make some stand (as feeble as it might be), against what I (personally) think as exceedingly disruptive and that goes against the "common good"?
By the downvotes I've received, it seems that my voice is very much unwanted - which seems to show how it "me" that is the outcast in this situation, and not this builder of spyware. To me this is ironic (but irrefutable), despite the honest question of the purpose of this device which has been popularised on a well known 'tinkering' site.
You've upset people because what you seem to be talking about is either highly specific prohibitions, or a general prohibition on unlicensed tinkering and innovation. The latter will go down like a ton of bricks here and would have prevented most of the computer technological developments of our lifetimes.
But the way out of this is actually to make the constraint more orientated on the harm. Several jurisdictions already ban the sale of spy devices. Many have rules about non-consensual recording. Or general privacy rules.
Don't try to ban buidling things unless the other approaches have been tried and failed. The solution to "upskirting" and other non-consensual intrusive photography has been bans on doing that, not a ban on smartphones. There are all sorts of things that you can legally build and tinker with but not market to the public.
(Security researchers are particularly salty about this because you can't get people to take a threat seriously without building a proof-of-concept, but that is in itself a weapon. Often you can't prove a system is insecure without breaking it.)
I don’t know how to reply without being too snarky. Is your position that we shouldn’t “allow” someone to build a wifi module hidden in a USB cable, because we don’t allow rape and murder?
I’ll let someone else see if they can help you out. But I think you need to take a BIG step back and ask yourself this “have I solved all the problems in my own life” and if the answer is no, stop thinking so much about what other people should be “allowed” to do. Worry about self. Take up the position that my right to swing my fiat ends at your nose.
I think I've inadvertantly pressed some buttons, which I do apologise for - whole heartedly! The written language is a very imperfect thing to get right. I'm not trying to bait anyone in words.
Ironically, I do try to "let it be" and to not be a hypocrite in my day to day life. However, we are imperfect beings, and we all make mistakes (well, at least I do!).
I recognise the engineering and technical expertise of this device... but all through it's design phase and it's production, was there ever a purpose other than spyware? Was it ever meant to be anything other than nefarious?
For it's when someone can say to me "Oh, it's a really good thing because x,y,z" then I'll have learnt something new about the rich tapestry of life -- and I ask this because I don't understand, & not because I'm trying to lord it over anyone.
I think the point of people doing this is to prove publically that it can be done, and therefore almost certainly has already been done before by someone with nefarious intent who kept it quiet.
I actually totally agree (which is the reason for my edited response above, before your comment arrived)... but there must be limits, musn't there? We don't arbitarily allow murder, rape or theft.
Looking at the concept of "freedom" is a tricky thing, I've found. At what point does "doing whatever I want" become unacceptable to the very society that bred that behaviour? What should that society do to curtail behaviours that are actively destructive against it?
As an individual in society, shouldn't I make some stand (as feeble as it might be), against what I (personally) think as exceedingly disruptive and that goes against the "common good"?
By the downvotes I've received, it seems that my voice is very much unwanted - which seems to show how it "me" that is the outcast in this situation, and not this builder of spyware. To me this is ironic (but irrefutable), despite the honest question of the purpose of this device which has been popularised on a well known 'tinkering' site.