They are no worse than locksmiths advertising the ability to crack safes.
It's more like a locksmith advertising the ability to break anyone's safe that contains details on every place you've ever been, purchase you've ever made, and person you've ever communicated with. Phones are far more ubiquitous and contain far more information than any family safe. Not a fair comparison.
#3 is the real treasure trove.
Is it acceptable for this company to sell it to Saudi Arabian police where it's a crime for a woman to run away from home?
https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-imei-track-runa...
Or how about Australia raiding journalists for whistleblowing on abuses conducted by their arm forces in war: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48522729
Perhaps you agree or perhaps you don't. But the issue is more complex than saying that "everyone should help the police"
Yes, a lot of the effect is harmful, including in helping police do harm. But an argument that no-one should help the police is basically an argument the police shouldn't exist.
I'd argue that nobody should help the police as they exist in many modern implementations, because the police as they exist now are often bad actors. But it's not hard to imagine a police force that's held to a higher standard such that they actually are trustworthy. The argument doesn't have to be "police shouldn't exist"--it could be "police should be better".
My previous post was responding to your claim "But an argument that no-one should help the police is basically an argument the police shouldn't exist", which is incorrect. The two are very different arguments.
I take "not helping" to mean not just not developing specialized products that only police can legally use, but also not calling the police in case of crime, not helping them with investigations as witnesses. Where the law permits, not selling them generic products and services (eg food). And where personal circumstances permit, not working for a company that does business with them, deplatforming them, etc.
Many reasonable people do indeed take the position that the recent development of a paramilitary force, professionally tasked with keeping domestic peace, has been a bad way to achieve law and order.
So sure, I'll make an argument that today's police - and the private companies who enable them to perform end-arounds on quintessential rights - are contrary to the western common-law tradition and that society will be better when we end this short experiment and move on to a different approach.
No, as I said, it's the flaunting it that surprises me.