If I hire you to shoot someone I am complicit. So I don't see how a government hiring someone to hack someone else is not complicit. Unless if that government

If I hire you to shoot someone I am complicit. So I don't see how a government hiring someone to hack someone else is not complicit. Unless if that government branch had the legal right to execute that hack. Because if they were legally able to, but were unable to themselves, it makes sense to hire someone to do the job for them (if that is legal?) I am quite in awe how for example exploit brokers like Zerodium and Thaddeus Grugq are allowed to sell their services to oppressive regimes, and getting away with it (a clear case of morally bankrupt). They are powerful weapons, and should be treated as such (export controlled etc).