You seem to be giving these companies a pass to sell software that can be used to create absolute surveillance states. If this sort of software is available, it

You seem to be giving these companies a pass to sell software that can be used to create absolute surveillance states. If this sort of software is available, it needs regulations. The people responsible for the regulation are the exact states that would love to acquire the software. Do you not see the conflict of interest here? (Yes, it's the same for other weapons sales. That's a quagmire of corruption and double standards as well.) Don't make the mistake of conflating North Korea with any other state. The people in charge of the intelligence organisations have very similar opinions on the efficacy of these tools no matter where they come from. It's been shown many times that the heads of the relevant agencies in the 5 eyes, let alone the rest of the international intelligence community, aren't very concerned about the legality of their activities. Two ways to prevent the misuse of this software are 1: ban it and convict those who peddle it, and 2: have independent oversight and transparency over every use of this software. Who it's sold to, who it's used on, what it's capabilities are. Unfortunately, I don't see either of these as realistic, so basically we're up shit creek without a paddle.