I sent a kindly worded mailer back to the EFF stating my long-standing support and how I was concerned about their chosen tactic and abuse of the facts. I made it clear that my donation and public support was at stake. They blew me off and I haven't given them money since.
Every time they send me something asking for money, I send a kindly worded email back summarizing the situation, which they also do not respond to, but still ask me for money.
Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I'm not surprised.
This does undermine the current authority of the Library of Congress.
EDIT: Adding reference to H.R.1695 which passed the House, but stalled in Senate.
The house judiciary clarified this point saying how it removes presidential authority to replace the librarian of congress at whim.
Metasploit targets security researchers over channels where there is no overtly illegal activity, and would likely refuse to support people if it is obvious that it is being used for something illegal.
His software isn't targeting stalking women. You can use Facebook to abuse women too if you want.
edit: according to this thread, the EFF is indeed full of shit. Sad.
He had to clarify his position stating which governments he sold exploits to and why (basically only Five Eyes).
TBH, the infosec industry is full of (vipers) people posturing, trying to protect their secret knowledge and exert control over who has what capabilities (just like traditional government spies do). The author's mistake was open sourcing his RAT and putting it on GitHub.
There is a tweet a few down in the linked thread of the author asking where he said that with no response.
Yes Sr's. In "Hack me if you can" "Hackeame si puedes"
Documentary @DarkCoderSc says that he think Darkcomet can
used for script kiddies (hackers) for spy friends and
GIRLFRIENDS for fun and not for cyberwarfare or spy.
* formatting the quote correctly
He asked "where did you saw / heard me saying “I knew DarkComet would be used for spying on girlfriends and that’s fine”?"
Does he say "an that's fine" (or equivalent) in the documentary? Or just aknowledge that it's possible?
I haven't watched the linked video but that's the answer to the question.
It is worse. Oxygen, a chemical substance, is used by highly immoral human beings, such as Kim Jong-un, to breathe, and continue living and causing havoc on the oppressed North Koreans. These immoral human beings are also eating and drinking. Cars are used to kill people as well. iFixit toolsets could also be used for this purpose. CPUs and other hardware are being used to exploit Chinese citizens via GFW and cameras. Meanwhile, evil girlfriends can abuse RATs to spy on their boyfriends as well.
Instead of these ridiculous narratives we need to look at
1) The main purpose of a tool.
2) The relative abuse of the tool, or collateral damage, and the impact of such abuse and damage.
Which is why the above examples, and OpenSSH Server as well, are each bad examples.
It is a lot more difficult, to be nuanced. I'd like to learn more about the exact software, and where it was advertised back in the days (2012 apparently). Was it legitimately used?
Oh wait, they can be used to abuse anyone.
Oh wait, everyone has a set of knives.
I'm torn in many ways; I don't believe constraining what people can build in their own time or for personal use is just, or grounds for moral censure as long as the process of doing so causes no substantial harm.
What I have issue with is applications of a tool with intent to harm. I can get behind some censure if the guy is providing support for users one can reasonably suspect of employing the tool to cause harm, like the Syria use case.
I don't buy that his production of a R.A.T. fundamentally makes him a horrible person just because he made it. Then again, I'm also in a way excusing the people who made industrial scale production of poison gas possible; but, as of late, I'm learning more and more that truly standing up for one's ideals, and everyone else's freedoms/Liberty often makes for rather uncomfortable bed mates.
So I guess in the end, I'm willing to accept that no matter what is made, there are people who will find ways to use something to cause harm; demonizing the maker as if that will "unmake" what you disagree with only serves to chain the development of humankind in very real ways. Sometimes, we have to face horrible things to develop the cultural mores to cope with a world in which a thing is possible.
So in conclusion, I suppose I'm throwing up my hands and saying it'll be what it's going to be, and there but for the Grace of God go I.
They do important work, and they're human.