JakeGould did a great job of framing this in practical terms and avoiding the "moral" angle. So I'll just add a little about the "moral" angle. The Stack Exchange has wrestled with the grey line virtually since its inception. At the extreme, there is a limited policy. We don't answer questions that enable blatantly illegal activity. That includes things like software piracy and circumventing protection against theft of services. The SE is also pretty vigilant about protecting and honoring copyrights. The grey line runs through terms of service and user agreements. Half of the members believe it is unethical to facilitate violation of such contracts between a publisher/provider and the user. The other half believe it isn't our role to police such contracts and we should share technical information regardless of how it might be used. Hackintosh is the biggest example, and the SE made an administrative decision to not support those. Any other questions of this type stand a 50/50 chance of being answered or closed, depending on who sees them (assuming they're otherwise good questions). Many users (particularly those who don't create software or web sites for a living, or work in IT), don't think in terms of intellectual property; that someone invested time to create it, and relies on it for their livelihood. Or they may be aware of it but consider certain big corporations to be undeserving of all of the revenue from their products. So we get questions about circumventing protections on intellectual property. This may seem different from piracy when the question is about information on a public web site. Our user base with the knowledge to answer is generally pretty good at closing those, or at least challenging the OP for a legitimate justification. But there are often users in the knowledge-sharing camp who see no problem with answering. Controls by repressive governments tend to be on the other side of the grey line. Many/most users view answering how to circumvent these as the morally correct side. But it's a slippery slope deciding what's repressive and what's legitimate. For example, not long ago, there was a question about getting a laptop onto a plane past the TSA inspection. Yes, the TSA rules tend to be ridiculous, but do you really want to potentially help a terrorist get a bomb on a plane? Questions are public, so regardless of the merits of the OP's needs, they aren't the only ones with access to the answers. People will apply their own moral compass. Hopefully, vigilant users will notice questions or answers that are ethically suspect or potentially dangerous. They can comment on the post to educate and warn, raise the issue here or on the Ask a Super User Moderator chat, or flag or vote to close or delete, depending on rep.