I think there's a lot of daylight between "made a text editor that in turn was used to make software, and that software in turn enabled killing machines" and "t

I think there's a lot of daylight between "made a text editor that in turn was used to make software, and that software in turn enabled killing machines" and "the core functionality of this software is to facilitate the killing of specific people by finding their cell phones". In the former case, the lethal (and indeed, military) application is pretty disconnected from any of the design decisions that lead to its creation. In the latter, failing to recognize that the lethal application drove all design requirements ultimately hampered the delivery of the product. To an extent, I'm with you. Is a brick maker responsible if someone uses one of his bricks to commit a murder? Obviously not. On the other hand, if you work on, say, proximity triggers on missiles and never stop to wonder who your missiles will be used on, I'd say you've abdicated a core ethical responsibility. I don't have a good answer on where the line is, and I've thought about it a lot.