I'm very sympathetic to the concern, but the expectation seems naïve. abusive people and governments don't normally care much about obtaining consent. by suppressing the development of useful tools because they could also be used for abuse, we do not avoid the abuse, we rather make sure that only abusers are going to have the tools and use them, unbeknownst to most everyone. they will have to develop the tools themselves, or get them underground, but this has never been a significant obstacle, especially when it comes to information that is effectively public. ISTM that significant risks and no good come from underestimating the technological abilities of determined abusers. though the concern is surely well meant, the reality of the situation makes it misguided to the point of making it irrelevant in deciding whether to offer the feature: an illusion of safety is more dangerous than the awareness of the risks, for it is conducive of unsafe behaviors under the false assumption of safety.