[Dah00n]

To clarify, are you arguing that NSO Group have had a bigger impact on innocent people, suppression of speech, etc. than the NSA?

If so, I'm not sure I buy what you seem to be arguing, that "NSO case in India" and "It can be used to plant evidence" makes it anywhere near as bad as what the NSA has done/does. In my opinion this is exactly how a "poor-man's NSA" would look: What your money can buy from greedy corporations protected by nasty governments.

>legitimate opposition

Who decides what is legitimate though? It sounds like weasel words to me, just like "terrorists" (that get defined by those in power and then maybe later becomes revolutionists and heroes if they actually win). Going after Snowden, torture in Guantanamo, and using three letter agencies for industrial espionage is also "legitimate".

[Spooky23]

> arguing that NSO Group have had a bigger impact on innocent people, suppression of speech, etc. than the NSA?

I'm not the OP, but maybe a way to put it is that impacts are more variable or chaotic?

Generally speaking, the "impact" of a US government entity is reasonably predictable based on US policy and interests. Something like NSO, where tools are sold on the market to many entities are probably less predictable and thus more impactful. I'd expect a lower level of operational discipline from <random mideast state> than from the US military.

The other factor is who are NSO Group's masters, and what do they know? If <random mideast state 1> compromises <random mideast state 2>, does <third party> get intel?

[manquer]

The people decide what is legitimate opposition by elections.

NSO was used to tap the democratically elected leader of opposition in India. Doesn't get any clearer than that. [1]

I don't know how to compare between hot pan and the fire on who is worse

[1] with Watergate and more recent (unproven) accusations on wiretapping of politicians, the US is no stranger do this type of monitoring either