&gt; Do you think that&#x27;s an appropriate response?<p>No because it is not going to make much difference.<p>&gt; Sorry, but I still see this as kneejerk reactions to spectacularly unlikely scenarios of &quot;bad things happening&quot; being proposed and regulated by people who don&#x27;t care about reducing other people&#x27;s freedom because it won&#x27;t affect them personally.<p>Fully agreed on that one.<p>&gt; I&#x27;m still unsure what you&#x27;re suggesting &quot;shouldn&#x27;t be allowed&quot; here?<p>This software has a ton of bad use possibilities, I just threw out the first one that I could think of, there are a whole raft of others.<p>&gt; Open sourcing computer vision projects? Publishing on github?<p>No, it&#x27;s inevitable. But there is currently no framework on how to deal with these things. Just because you can doesn&#x27;t always mean that you should. There are a ton of things I <i>could</i> do that are legal but that does not mean that all those things have a net-positive effect on the society we live in and I think that the ability to build these systems comes with some responsibility.<p>&gt; Me? I&#x27;m 100% for publishing this(and similar) projects - because the tech is already out there and being used. Pretty much every towtruck and repo man has had this tech running for 5+ years, and almost nobody knows.<p>Yes, but they are limited in quantity and enough of a quantitative change <i>is</i> a qualitative change.<p>&gt; (I know, lets ban _ideas!_... (Sorry, that&#x27;s way snarkier than intended...))<p>I think I beat you to that:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;jmattheij&#x2F;status&#x2F;670367390828535808" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;jmattheij&#x2F;status&#x2F;670367390828535808</a>