> I have no problem believing that Israel "sponsors" them, but your justifications are baseless. Ex-intelligence officers are not government officials, they are civilians. And government contracts don't imply "sponsorship" in the usual sense, e.g. a landscaping company would not be said to be "state-sponsored" just because they are contracted to work around a government property.
I am no longer sure what we're arguing about. Is it the meaning of the word "sponsor"? That's not my word choice, that was just what the OP used and I mirrored it.
I think the bigger point is that states (no matter WHICH state) are funding private companies to surveil citizens in a way that genuinely threatens what few civil rights they have left.
Secondarily, are we arguing about the degree of connection between NSO, the company, and the State of Israel? If so, I used "sponsorship" in the revolving door sense, as in intimate relationships between the staff and government officials, not entirely unlike the US and Blackwater/Xe/Academi or Halliburton or Diebold/Premier. The discomfort there is not just in the amount of dollars exchanged, but in the offloading of legal and criminal responsibility to what is essentially a front company used to do the dirty work of the state. Outsourced oppression.
> GPS devices of almost any kind are subject to ITAR/EAR in the USA. It is extremely easy to run afoul of weapons export controls and there is quite a large market for ITAR-free products. It means extraordinarily little if a product is subject to these type of controls.
OK, without looking this up, I'll take your word for it and I stand corrected. Sorry for the mistake about GPS. But that's really a technicality. Surveillance tech of this sort IS a weapon, capable of suppressing not just external enemies but internal citizens, especially if it falls into the hands of nations participating in "Five Eyes"-style surveillance exchanges of each other's citizens. And this in particular is a lot more dangerous than a GPS receiver. And unlike GPS, it has no real "benevolent" civilian purpose. Its primary (only?) customers are oppressive states.
Sorry if this wasn't clear -- I thought it was implied -- but the worry behind the state-private connection here is that this company is getting the kind of resources (and thus effectiveness) that only states can provide, thus making it a dangerous tool. Another implied fear is that the NSO group can also get special extrajudicial treatment because of their usefulness and close connections to the Israeli state, and thus risk breaking checks and balances in a way that a landscaping company would simply not.
I feel like we're running circles around semantics here. Am I fundamentally misunderstanding your argument?