And to think, all we ask in return is that the United States cease doing computer-based signals intelligence, while the rest of the world continues to do it. A small price to pay for making it slightly harder for criminals to commit crime!
Here in Sweden it is a very hard sell. About 1/3 of the yearly government revenue from state own companies come from selling weapon. About 85% is sold directly to countries with ongoing wars, mostly in the middle east. If they didn't buy ours they would just go elsewhere.
If we must present it as an all of nothing, then yes. Making it slightly harder is a goal worth while. If we can get nuanced about it then a priority goal is to reduce the risk of bad actors getting their hands on weapon we produce. This can be achieved by stricter regulation, which for computer-based signals intelligence means greater funding to protect the existing weapons and using them less as each use involve risk. This would go against the cost of fewer and more costly computer-based signals intelligence operations.
Since we keep hearing about US developed exploits being used by bad actors it means that the US is not spending enough funding on protecting their weapons or use them so regularly that they end up in the wrong hands anyway. A small price to pay is to adjust those numbers, and having a political discussion about what those numbers should look like.
US politicians and citizens are right to ask whether the current strategy is the right one.
Saying that you can either have this sigint or no sigint is obviously a false dilemma.
In fact your whole original reply is some bizarre technical justification for what is obviously a military strategy which has harmed the US and other countries and that can be changed by the US.
We lead the arms race, in all categories.
Whenever an adversarial Nation buys new kit, missiles or heavy metal, it's to keep up, or keep out, the US.
China's rise in offensive technological process was undoubtedly in response to its knowledge (retrieved through hacking) of the extensive measures on US side.
We can set the pace. And that pace needs to slow down.