I don't disagree. But my point was that it's not always clear what the implications are. Sometimes it's more obvious, sometime it's not. We also don't know what the "intended" use of this feature that was presented to the people who made it was. They could very well have been deceived as to it's true nature.
This could very easily have been presented and sold to a team in a way that does not make it immediately seem like something evil.
The bottom line is that developers and designers are not professionals, who would have to accept responsibility for their products. It is in the best interests of developers and designers not to be professionals and not to accept responsibility in cases like this.
A standard argument for this state of affairs is that it is in the best interest of society to allow developers and designers this freedom from responsibility, because of all the shiny new products. In which case you have to accept incidents like this---you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
This could very easily have been presented and sold to a team in a way that does not make it immediately seem like something evil.