Of course I'm not supposing that software developers are utterly disconnected from the use of their software. But what matters is the designed purpose of the software, not the (even reasonably foreseeable) motivations of any particular client.
The code described at the beginning of the story locates objects, which are presumed to be in the vicinity of a person, whom the military might then kill, after presumably having used that location software without the victim's consent. By this standard, we should hold Tim Cook responsible for every case of stalking involving the use of an AirTag.
What it sounds like you're opposed to is even the consideration that your work can be used for purposes outside of what they're created for.
And um, yeah, the AirTag release was bad enough for obvious reasons and Apple had to make significant privacy changes. Almost as if they forgot to consider that their work could be used for purposes outside of what it was created for. Could've been safer from the beginning.
Edit: turns out Apple is being sued for Air Tags' uses in stalking [0]. So I'm pretty confused by your point since would presumably Cook care about Apple being sued. Will he personally be criminally liable? Doubt it. But it's not like he's blameless or ignorant to the situation.
Can I ask -- what do you do for work? My gut tells me that you're younger and still trying to figure out whether your means of living is good or justified. And you haven't exactly found that answer yet.
The code described at the beginning of the story locates objects, which are presumed to be in the vicinity of a person, whom the military might then kill, after presumably having used that location software without the victim's consent. By this standard, we should hold Tim Cook responsible for every case of stalking involving the use of an AirTag.