>It would be one thing to do this in the natsec context, where such an approach is understandable, but it is another for a private company to surveil and intimi

>It would be one thing to do this in the natsec context, where such an approach is understandable, but it is another for a private company to surveil and intimidate someone who has legally purchased hardware. Could we consider why it is appropriate for a state actor to it? If we were to break down why we consider it okay for the state to do (does it depend upon their intention, on some citizen mandate, does it factor in potential abuse or past abuse) and build up a consistent framework, I'm not so certain the distinction between these two things would be so clear cut. I personally suspect the outcome would find that state actors doing this thing is in the same realm of bad as company actors.