Re: BoringGreen Destroyed @Matt Bryant
Matt:to your 2nd point. You backed this up with a reference, which is good. It's difficult for me to evaluate the quality of this as the term terrorist simply means the use of force to oppose an established government. This may be due to there not being an alternative: "In 2011, Bahrain was criticised for its crackdown on the Arab spring uprising. In September, a government appointed commission confirmed reports of grave human rights violations including systematic torture" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain#Human_rights>).
If a govt can inflict 'systematic torture' on its people and there is no way for those people to effectively change it then they may see violence as the only way, and correctly they would then be termed terrorists. Whether this is bad is another matter - " Of all groups active in recent times, the ANC perhaps represents best the traditional dichotomous view of armed struggle. Once regarded by western governments as a terrorist group, it now forms the legitimate, elected government of South Africa, with Nelson Mandela one of the world's genuinely iconic figures" (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4255106.stm>). Should so many of the blacks have put up with their oppression, or not? If not, what legal remedy was there for them?
Should the bahrainis accept 'systematic torture' else be labelled terrorists merely because they don't like their government? Is this ok?
As my time on the reg is nearing an end, I will tell you something you haven't realised. I'm partly middle eastern, part of a traditionally oppressed group. Those moslems you hate and fear? Just some relatives to me. Peaceful, decent people. And some of them have been arrested only for speaking out, put in terrible prisons and tortured. Yes, amnestly has files on at least one of them. People I've actually met. What is an acceptable abstraction for you is a sickening reality for me.
But mainly to your first point, then: "Yes, because those actions [blackmail and imprisonment of human rights activists] are not FinFishers but those of the end use customers. "
Here we differ. I've always believed I'm responsible for my actions and the (reasonably predictable) consequences thereby arising. It's affected my employment prospects. That's a tradeoff I've always chosen to make and I've never regretted it. An axe has multiple uses and I know this because I know how to use an axe. As to FinFisher, in the balance I'd be aware of how easy it was to abuse and therefore how likely, so I would choose not to involve myself in it.
I have been called stupid, to my face, for turning down work in an industry closely linked to weapons development. That's my choice. If it's not what you'd do, perhaps because you see others as solely responsible for the misuse of your work, then there fundamentally is where we depart. In that we cannot be reconciled. Goodbye and best of luck.