Yep, just like I assume countries that enrich plutonium to weapons grade levels and stick it on the pointy end of an ICBM are threatening others with nuclear weapons, even if they're never launched.
If you think developing web spider software is akin to developing nuclear weapons, I think you might want to go have a talk with some larger, well-known companies who have not only half-developed not-yet-working software (like my activitypub spider, which doesn't even have a storage backend at the moment), but who have fully developed advanced web spiders that have actually downloaded and archived exabytes of data from the web, to be saved privately for all time. Frequently they even let anyone who wants search the full text of it, usually without authentication!
If you don't want second parties to have copies of your data, configure your webserver not to send it to them when they request it. You can't force someone to do something with an HTTP request.
Your first statement looks like it should be logical, but when read for soundness, the consequent ("[then] I think you might...") makes absolutely no sense following the antecedent ("if you think..."). I only mentioned nuclear weapons to try to really emphasize to you that a technology's existence is enough to cause fear in people and communities, which does have real world consequences. But I don't think you care about that.
Anyway, I work at one of those companies. You know what they have? Ways to let users opt out (ex: ROBOTS.txt), ways to ensure they're not DOSing people when scraping (which uses material resources: compute time, spindles, electricity, etc), ways to track the copyright of the source material (which belongs to the author, usually), and ways to respond to second-party requests (legal and non-legal notices) who want to know how much of their data has been scraped or exercise their rights over their material. These technological features are because this is what human societies have found to be a decent balance between scrapers' rights and internet users' rights. Your solution lacks this due consideration and gives internet users a giant middle finger.
In your last paragraph it is pretty clear you are doing this because of some ill-conceived "ethical" notion that "because HTTP responded with this payload, it is now mine with an 'ethical license' to do anything". There are other ways to point out security flaws in ActivityPub that are way more constructive and less asshole-ish, but it seems you're pretty keen to erase a lot of moral and legal nuance to prove "because I have a technological capability means I have the moral ought and the legal right". Sorry, but no: the world is a lot more complex than this.
Just because I have the technological capability to transmit the message "you're being a dick" from the comfort of my home doesn't automatically mean it would be ethical for me to, so of course I am not going to tell you "you're being a dick", and normally I wouldn't type this sentence at all but in this special case I am because it shouldn't be a problem with your ethical system since I'm not actually saying it despite having the technological capability, so it should have no impact on you (and if it did, it should give you pause to reconsider that maybe you need to do more self-reflection on discovering your actual reasons for doing this ill-advised project).
Because you have not cared to clarify your ethical view in the last 3 responses to me, nor in your ethics statement of your project.
Your system is designed to download and save information in an unaccountable manner on behalf of anyone, "unaccountable" literally is a doorway to "for any further purposes", so it's a very safe assumption.
The lack of clarity also comes from ignoring the bulk of my previous message. Ball is still in your court. I am inviting you to make this exact clarification (plus far more), when all you seem interested in doing is dodging, delaying. The worst action you could possibly take is accusing me for assuming in order to fill in the very deliberate blanks you are leaving behind.
> Your system is designed to download and save information in an unaccountable manner on behalf of anyone
I think perhaps you have confused some source code that I have released with a service that performs a function on behalf of a user. I operate no such service.
All I have done is produced a tool that allows a user who downloads and builds and runs that tool to download data from a website, much like a browser or any other HTTP client. There is no "on behalf of"—it's just a tool for a first party to use.
I am happy to let you keep showing off your circular reasoning to the world, and will happily repeat myself pointing out all my counterpoints you did not engage with and ignored.
For example:
- I claimed a technology's existence is enough to cause real world consequences. You ignored this point.
- I mentioned you are not including safeties to building a tool to protect its user[0] (the "first party" user of your tool) and its targets ("second party" people the tool-users are subjecting to your tool). That makes it legally/morally unappealing to use as a tool(puts self in danger), and morally unappealing to be subjected to. Why build a tool this way to be completely legally/morally unappealing, unless you want to cater to users specifically that do not have such legal/ethical concerns? You ignored this point.
- I have invited you to clarify your ethical view. You are circling back to a previous non-argument.
- You simply refuse to verbalize your implicit moral stance -- that your role as a "toolmaker" absolves you of all the moral consequences of its use[1]. If this is incorrect, I welcome clarification from you.
[1] This moral position has long been well-criticized and is not a sufficiently nuanced moral stance in this day and age. For an old example, consider Tom Lehrer's criticism of von Braun: "'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department', says Wernher von Braun." [2].
