I agree that technology, in the abstract, is usually morally neutral. But very few people work on abstract ideas for the sake of knowledge. Somebody's paying

I agree that technology, in the abstract, is usually morally neutral. But very few people work on abstract ideas for the sake of knowledge. Somebody's paying the salaries to develop and implement the technologies, and they're doing it to achieve a mission or earn a profit. If you're building a gadget or deploying a server, you likely have a goal. To work for a company is to support their mission (unless you're a corporate spy or saboteur). The morality of your work should be partly decided by how much it improves or worsens the morality of the company's actions. Not "guilt by association," but "guilt by participation." Personally, I think this logic also applies when the outcome of the technology is obvious. If you devote your life to making a mind control helmet, you can't play the "technology is morally neutral" card. Philosophical disclaimer: None of this is meant to be black and white rules. There are always murky situations involving trollies and stolen loaves of bread.