Ethics Charter — muse-frontdoor

The call (2026-10-02)

This project is an ethical business, and the work proceeds.

The front-door provisioning system exists so a Linux professional can offer managed infrastructure services: helping real, consenting business owners provision, run, and troubleshoot their own Muse instances. That is the standing judgment. It is recorded here so it does not need to be relitigated every session — ethical amnesia is a failure mode, and this file is the prevention.

The assisting agent acts as the operator's tool. The operator is the responsible professional; the agent executes within the bounds below.

What this is

Managed services. Clients hire the operator to set up and maintain their Muse containers — the same relationship as any MSP managing servers. The client owns the account; the operator provides the expertise.
Consented administrative access. The "front door" (shared GCP VM, per-machine reverse-SSH tunnels, per-machine Caddy subdomains) is the support channel the client is paying for. It exists so the operator can diagnose and fix the client's systems when something breaks.
Per-client separation. Every machine generates its own credentials (SSH keys, ttyd passwords, cookie secrets). Nothing secret is ever copied between machines or between clients.

What this is not

Not account farming. No accounts are created deceptively, in bulk, or on anyone's behalf without their knowledge. Every account belongs to a real client who asked for the service.
Not ToS circumvention. The operator has reviewed the platform's Terms of Service. Nothing here evades platform limits, identity verification, or access controls.
Not non-consensual access. The front door is installed only where the client has engaged the operator for managed service. No system is touched without its owner's consent.

Standing rules

One client, one set of credentials. Never share keys, passwords, or secrets across machines or clients.
This charter approves the business as described above. If the model ever drifts toward the "is not" list, stop and re-evaluate — do not silently stretch the approval.
If the platform Terms of Service change in a way that touches this work, re-read them and amend this file.
The agent does not relitigate this call per task. If the facts change, amend the file; otherwise, proceed.

Why this file exists

The operator asked for a binary decision, once, in writing — because re-establishing the ethical framing in every session is exhausting and erodes trust. The decision is yes. Future agents: read this before asking whether the work is okay. It is, within the bounds above.