FlexiSpy specifically marketed itself as a tool for spying on your spouse. Their front page used to include "read your partner's sms" https://web.archive.org/web/20060402200643/http://flexispy.c...

>I asked a FlexiSpy salesperson a simple question: If I wanted to, could I use their spyware to snoop on my wife's cellphone without her knowing? The answer each time was yes. When asked if it was legal, they responded with a canned disclaimer explaining it was necessary to get the permission of the target. But what if I didn't want my wife to know? They could help me anyway.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/02/22/flexi...

my point was that it isn't just marketing, this use-case was a huge part of their thinking while designing the software and offering support to customers. [repeating my comment almost verbatim]

If a clone came along that wasn't designed so that it can be totally hidden while installed, then privacy advocates would be less angry.

There's a difference between a gun company that markets their products as protection and sports, and one that markets them for revenge. In both cases, the usage of the gun is up to me, but in one case it looks like the company might be willing to assist me, or point me towards helpful information that assists me, in circumventing safeguards put in place on the purchase of weapons.

This series by VICE articulates the sometimes subtle distinctions between legitimate monitoring software built for enterprises and parents vs this particular software (which they deem "stalkerware").

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/inside-stalkerwar...

Pretty much zero of the companies on HackerOne are part of any social responsibility index, shariah compliant index, or trendy b-corporation index. And even in the non-zero rebuttal, the vast majority can have entire dissertations written about weighing the ethical considerations for doing any business with them.

So why even make a stance at all?

The time it takes for the arbitrary nature of your ethical decisions to become apparent is simply longer than it will take for your runway to deplete.

Did you include that just to question the objective nature of morality?

Standard & Poors operates shariah compliant funds right over in Toronto and is also very popular in many markets.

Maybe it doesn't mean what you think it means, maybe you'll learn

Shariah compliant investing follows specifically and explicitly from a religious moral basis.

SRI seems much more concerned with issues of Social Justice and human welfare, in ways not always inline with Sharia principles.

If you say they are similar, the burden is on you to demonstrate.

Thats the demonstration. Shouldn't bother you that much.

The truth is: because a H1 rep went on Risky Business and did not deliver a very good performance.

Patrick, who is absolutely okay with H1 having FiveEye clients like the US DoD, has a very serious problem with them also servicing an obscure spyware application provider. Because, I suppose, being murder-droned by a panopticon hegemony is much better than getting yelled at by an angry spouse?

To protect the elites as the other commenter said. Start with the claims of a person who led a bunch of wars after getting Medal of Honor:

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

The same patterns kept happening over and over from there. The politicians got to play politics. The big, war contractors made billions. Their CEO's millions. After the drafts, the eventual "volunteer" army of mostly poor or working class kept dying for their BS about protecting "freedom" and "democracy." Look up Operation Ajax and compare to how that event is treated today to know plenty about what DOD does in the world. ;)

In the second, the legal line is not crossed. It may be crossed at some point by an adult person that can bear responsibility for his actions.

I would not work with both; I can understand how can one not be a hypocrite by choosing to work with the latter and not the former, but not the other way around.

Is it the right moral choice to protect the privacy of a cheater? Maybe, I don't know, I'm struggling to answer that to myself, let alone judge others.

Is this spyware used to find out if someone is cheating? If so, it means you'd install it, and violate their privacy, without knowing if they are a cheater, so the point is moot.

My point is that privacy in a relationship is a relationship thing, and the moral choice for me would be to not interfere in other peoples relationships. This includes not judging you if you use spyware on your wife.

I'm not sure this is true. There are often clear boundaries, like secretly observing them in public versus accessing their private phones.

> privacy in a relationship is a relationship thing

but it's also a privacy thing. Is domestic abuse a relationship thing? That would also interfere with a relationship.

They do this because they recognise that decisions often have competing trade-offs, nuances, ambiguity. There is, unfortunately, almost no recognition of this fact in public these days. You're expected to pick a side, defend it, and attack others, using whatever rhetorical tool is available.

Among those tools of destructive debate: reducing any ambiguity in your favour, i. e. "They are banning Z, and I don't know Z, so I'll argue that Z is like A and banning A would be wrong". Or, equally bad, the slippery slope: "Z may be bad, but you can't give me an algorithm that unambiguously distinguishes Z and Y, nor Y and X, or, by transitivity, Z and A. Therefore, you can't ban Z without also eventually banning A, and that would be bad".

The problem is spying. Enabling people to more reliably spy on others is a problem.