As mentioned, there is a problem with characterizing a question as "evil". I saw a question about "Monitoring Internet Usage in my small office". The asker was downvoted to oblivion, as were the answers (myself included). Over time the votes have been removed/canceled out by upvotes, but this person's technical question was downvoted because of the community being angry about being "spied on".
Later I read a second question by a different person about "monitoring internet traffic through a particular router" and, because this person phrased the question differently, they got HUGE upvotes, even though the question was essentially the same.
We, therefore, have to split questions into two aspects:
- How technically can X be done?
- What ethical implication are there?
Stack Overflow is fundamentally about the first question. It is a technical "question and answer" site. If the hackers get better (and they will) then the security teams will also get better. If the "way to hack" is published on SO, then the security guys will use that to learn "ways to protect". As Bruce Schneier says on his blog all the time, "Secrecy is not security".
If a question bothers you, don't answer it. But if I can, I still will, because it's not my job to go visiting their intentions. And if it is a technically interesting question, I'll upvote it too.