The real question is: if someone makes a product that deliberately makes it easier to break the law, is he guilty in breaking the law, or complicit? Deliberate

The real question is: if someone makes a product that deliberately makes it easier to break the law, is he guilty in breaking the law, or complicit? Deliberate is the key word in this case. Complicity depends on knowledge of what they're doing. I think perhaps criminal negligence is all he could be charged with, but I don't know. Sounds like he wasn't an angel, but not totally dubious either, based on how he advertised the product and what it actually did. Makes me wonder though, the software developed by pen-testers could be stolen and used for nefarious purposes. Do the pen-testers get held responsible for everything they do? Or are we judging based on this individual's spirit? He wanted to make money, so he enabled bad people to do bad things, advertising on bad sites. Even though this article is framing it like he was an angel because SJWs need fake news to feel like heroes?