|We don't bite newbies here... much|
Let's compare this philosophy to a guiding principle of mine.
Those with more information are better equipped than those with less information.
You seem to disagree, as if somehow some books should not be published, or should not be available to the public, and that if you had other options than them, you would use them instead, avoid said books. Okay -- you're saying that you'd intentionally remove information that you could use, because you have some sort of ethical problem with...what? Reading it? Other people knowing it?
There's no way for you to control the latter.
Regardless, let's move to another guiding principle of mine.
People, on the whole, left to their own devices, will choose to do constructive things rather than destructive things.You seem to believe otherwise. You seem to think that one destructive act somehow outweighes thousands of constructive ones. I honestly don't think humankind could get anywhere without creating and producing being a better choice than destroying and nonproduction. We'd be living in caves. We'd be afraid of our shadows, and everyone else.
Which, I suppose, we are to a degree -- but the degree to which we, as a whole, produce and create is greater.
Believing these two things convinces me that there should be books about hackers, books with the word 'hackers' on the cover, etc., just as there should be books about terrorists, books about terrorism, etc. Not because of some notional concept of "harm" or "protection" or because I wish to see society fall -- it's because "harm" is irrelevant, the harm of not being informed is greater than any harm anyone can do me -- it's because "protection" is something I grant a nonsentient being, and I am sentient, and I don't need to be coddled -- it's because society requires information to proceed.
You say this is harmful, and you are, by everything I've ever believed in, wrong. That would be my well-informed opinion, in terms of being well-informed about what I believe.
Information causes action. Action, on the whole, is positive. Tell me why I should want to prevent X good things for less-than-X bad things.