Making research/code open access has a political dimension to it. For me, it was always an expression of progressive ideas: liberating hard-/software/knowledge for all.

I recently discussed ethics/arms control with some fellow researchers.

Ironically, making everything accessible to everyone leads to everyone being able to build weapons (not necessarily for self defence).

In times where Ardupilot and a Raspberry Pi is weaponized, what does exports/arms control even look like?

#techethics

@gnurp This is a really good point, but I think it shows that exports/arms control was never the right solution.
There is a lot more that can be used as deadly weapons than only a drone with a raspberry pi. Cars, heavy machinery to even common household items like knifes. Legally sometimes even boots count as weapons.
And still we don't heavily restrict the access to these items. But we solve this problem with a societal contract that the application of violence is wrong.
The access to a raspberry pi and ardupilot isn't the problem here. It's people (sometimes with orange skin and small hands) normalizing violence as a means to achieve their goals.
@lagerfeuermetal
I can agree partially, but I am a bit unhappy with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing.
At the moment, our society classifies a handful of tech as "evil" or at least restricts the sales and production.
On the other hand, many components and systems are not restricted at all. If you add "market" and "profit" to the equation, things may get out of hand.

@gnurp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ2ZBxsJo6o

My point is not that there's no problem, it's just not a new problem. The same goes for markets and profits. And I'm sure that exports control is not a solution to the problem you stated but rather a method to secure profits and hierarchies.

Jon Lajoie - I Kill People

YouTube