2 ms·

Re-read user jeisc's comment. There are 200 or so nations on our planet. How many of those nations have governments which believe that their own army, air for

Re-read user jeisc's comment. There are 200 or so nations on our planet. How many of those nations have governments which believe that their own army, air force, & navy should be unable to buy (say) guns, bombs, and torpedoes? Vs. having to hire engineers to design them, then build weapon factories, then build all of their own weapons. My assertion is that zero-ish of those governments want such legal restrictions. (And obviously, actual legal restrictions on the sale of spyware might be similarly unpopular, with the people who actually write the our world's laws.)

palata 2y ago
Oh right, I see what you mean. Still, I believe there is a difference. First, it feels like anyone willing to pay enough will convince NSO to "help" them. It's not the same with firearms (in 99% countries in the world): you can't just pay a private company to go rob a bank with firearms. Then for the police and the military, it's usually restricted to professionals. In my country, if a police officer gets their gun out (I'm not talking about firing), an investigation follows. If they fire their gun, a bigger investigation follows, they make the news, and the officer may lose their job (or be affected to a desk job for the rest of their career). It seems a lot easier to get access to NSO than to actually fire a gun, and to me that's a good thing. I don't want a police like in the US. To the point where I do believe that it should be as hard to access NSO as it is to use firearms.