"unethical" <> "illegal". And even if he did violate some bogus statutory bullshit posing as "law", hackers (of all stripes) should be supporting him because of the precedent setting effect, and the chilling effect, of holding software makers liable for the actions of downstream users of that software. This is not a path we want to start down.
I want people who make software designed to do harm to be held accountable. Since he promoted and supported it in a place focused on harmful hacking, his intent was very clear. Him being held accountable is a good precedent to set.
I want people who make software designed to do harm to be held accountable
I don't. I want people who cause harm to be held accountable. I might barely buy your position IF the software had ONLY "non legitimate" uses, but that's clearly not the case here.
