There's 3 ways to assign blame, to the maker of the tool, to the user of the tool, and to the target of the tool.
I think we can all agree that if the tool isn't designed to cause trouble we shouldn't blame the maker. I think blaming the target really depends on the situation - for example, when HP themselves decided to make ink cartridges use a chip and didn't sufficiently isolate the chip causing a security vulnerability, that's on HP. If the manufacturer could easily prevent or patch the vulnerability, that's on them. Tow trucks are something the manufacturer can't prevent.
But regardless, if you use it for malice I agree that you're the one who should be liable.
There's 3 ways to assign blame, to the maker of the tool, to the user of the tool, and to the target of the tool.
I think we can all agree that if the tool isn't designed to cause trouble we shouldn't blame the maker. I think blaming the target really depends on the situation - for example, when HP themselves decided to make ink cartridges use a chip and didn't sufficiently isolate the chip causing a security vulnerability, that's on HP. If the manufacturer could easily prevent or patch the vulnerability, that's on them. Tow trucks are something the manufacturer can't prevent.
But regardless, if you use it for malice I agree that you're the one who should be liable.