On page 315, Singh writes that Zimmerman, through a friend, “simply installed [PGP] on an American computer, which happened to be connected to the Internet. After that, a hostile regime may or may not have downloaded it.” Although Zimmerman's actions possibly enabled criminals to gain access to better encryption, he should not be held accountable for what they do with it. For one, his intention when releasing PGP to the public was simply to provide average citizens the ability to exercise their right to privacy. He did not upload it with the goal of helping criminals and terrorists, so there is no reason he should be held accountable if such groups choose to abuse the software.
Singh brings up an important point in this debate when he compares the release of PGP to the sale of gloves. The purpose of gloves is to protect your hands from hazardous environments, and that is what most people use them for. However, they can also be used by criminals to cover up their fingerprints. Therefore, gloves can hinder a police investigation of a case when they are abused by a criminal, yet you don't hear people saying that the inventor of gloves should be held accountable for this. The same concept applies to PGP. The creator of the program is not to blame for its misuse by a select few. The only person who should be held accountable for a crime is the person who committed it.