My question is slightly different. Is it the writing of the software that is ethically at issue, or is it how the software is utilized?<p>Are the scientists that develop new drugs which have potential side affects, even death, murders, are they ethically challenged, morally corrupt? Some people died using their invention, some could have even have been intentionally killed or accidentally killed.  Rogue governments could use the drugs to hurt or abuse people.  I&#x27;d say no, the scientists (like engineers) aren&#x27;t the problem, they did something that served some valid purpose but their invention (creativity) can be abused or misused.<p>Stingray devices, while I totally disagree with how they are used, I can see that validity for their use for some specific law enforcement cases.  The problem to me isn&#x27;t the technology, but the lack of ethics and morales in the people using them.  Lying to the judges about the usage, lying about it&#x27;s capabilities etc.<p>Hacking Team&#x27;s surveillance software, having read just a little about it in the past.  It appeared again that the software was being used appropriately for a genuine and valid purpose, at least at first.  However, then it was sold to people who planned to mis-use it and to people who have a track record of abusing human rights.  So is it the software&#x27;s creation that is the problem or the assholes that sold it to dictators and abusers?<p>A syringe isn&#x27;t an evil device, it is necessary for the medical community to do its&#x27; job, but it is also a device that can be used to kill, commit suicide, overdose on drugs etc.  Is the person&#x2F;people who invented it morally corrupt&#x2F;ethically challenged, or does their invention just have a potential to be abused?