Yes, I can agree that an armed raid or the threat thereof is definitely an undue burden.
> it's clear all you're doing is running software. (Side note: I'm surprised how often attitudes on this site are at odds with the "hacker" part of "Hacker News".)
I do not view software as amoral. It's a tool, and like any tool it is an extension of myself. Software that I run is acting on my behalf, and what my software is designed to do is something that I should be held morally accountable for.
I'm not sure when the hacker ethos came to mean that "just running software" absolved you from having to account for the damage your software causes, but if that's what the hacker ethos is about then yes, you can count me out.
My point was that running any kind of software should not come with a presumption of guilt. But in the eyes of the establishment, it often does; see: Aaron Swartz, or how pressing F12 might be illegal[0], or many other such cases. A "hacker" should not have any sympathy for this kind of draconian knee-jerking.
Where is the presumption of guilt? A threat of violence was traced to their IP and they were served a subpoena to provide information that might lead to finding the threat actor before they actually hurt anyone. No one even accused OP of a crime, much less presumed their guilt.
> it's clear all you're doing is running software. (Side note: I'm surprised how often attitudes on this site are at odds with the "hacker" part of "Hacker News".)
I do not view software as amoral. It's a tool, and like any tool it is an extension of myself. Software that I run is acting on my behalf, and what my software is designed to do is something that I should be held morally accountable for.
I'm not sure when the hacker ethos came to mean that "just running software" absolved you from having to account for the damage your software causes, but if that's what the hacker ethos is about then yes, you can count me out.