> What people should be looking at is the crazy amount of Israeli presence in the so called cyber security sector.

Limiting the ability of nations to export this kind of capability as a product for other entities to use is precisely what "trade ban" would do.

You're right that a trade ban won't affect the ability of nations to develop and deploy their own spyware, but most of the targets in the Pegasus dump seem to be of people peripheral to smaller governments that don't have this kind of capability themselves (which is exactly why they buy it!).

You seem under the impression this software is being developed exclusively by big governments. It's mostly tiny shops in Israel, Bulgaria and such

Who would issue and enforce such a ban? The US?

For a start, yes. Also Israel, of course, and anywhere else countries host these kinds of malware companies. A trade ban would inevitably be best implemented via a treaty, but there's no reason unilateral action can't happen first.

I can't tell what your point is, exactly. You're just making a cynical point that this won't work so we shouldn't even try?

Nations that want to do this will do it, and trade bans won't stop them. Or even discourage them.

It's like banning arms sales to countries like Saudi Arabia. All it does is push them towards China or Russia.

Banning this stuff just leads to consolidated power blocs of nasty regimes.

> Nations that want to do this will do it, and trade bans won't stop them.

Again, that's experimentally false. Saudi and Mexico didn't develop their own home-grown spyware. They bought an Israeli product instead. This stuff is harder than you think.

I never said they would do it on their own. Your counterexample is not a counterexample, but an example of what I said would happen.

DPRK manages this shit, it's in the reach of any nation-state.

this stuff is vastly easier than traditional weapons development.

if you're in a precarious political position, a homegrown entity that produces these tools can quickly become a threat; the citizens you train/employ will have their own political ambitions, nationalistic tendencies, empathy for their fellow citizens, etc.

there are most certainly situations where it's safer to just outsource your natsec/tradecraft to an entity that only cares about their bottom line.

> this stuff is vastly easier than traditional weapons development.

Saudi and Mexico don't produce many homegrown weapons systems either. Again, non-proliferation is well-travelled territory. In fact most of these things are not something small governments will have access to if big governments don't give it to them. And treaties restricting trade in these things are known to work.