> For better or worse, NSO's product is a weapon. How is it any different from an M-16? Where is the outrage towards the people who used this weapon against the State Department?
It is highly unlikely that NSO group actually gives out their exploits, based on what we know about previous exploitations that have become known. It's more like they offer an interface to execute their exploits on a given target. The fact that they can block entities from using their service, after having had access to it (like they supposedly did in this case), very strongly supports this hypothesis. Hence they're offering a service, to use weapons for (or rather, in the name of) some (government) entity that pays them money to do so.
Imagine bombing-as-a-service, as an instance. That's much more like it, and your argument doesn't hold in that case.
It is highly unlikely that NSO group actually gives out their exploits, based on what we know about previous exploitations that have become known. It's more like they offer an interface to execute their exploits on a given target. The fact that they can block entities from using their service, after having had access to it (like they supposedly did in this case), very strongly supports this hypothesis. Hence they're offering a service, to use weapons for (or rather, in the name of) some (government) entity that pays them money to do so.
Imagine bombing-as-a-service, as an instance. That's much more like it, and your argument doesn't hold in that case.