Both these replies point at a common thread: these news stories represent a grotesque failure of either the vendors or their products.
If the agents did in fact “go rogue” and cause damage, even in the hands of the people who should be their most competent operators, then the product is unpredictable, unreliable, and unfit for purpose.
If the product is •not• in fact unfit for purpose, then that means there's some combination of negligence and malice behind these incidents, and they are at •best• knowing harm in service of a marketing stunt or (as Parsons argue) something even worse.