> The bottom line is in the past the US government has acquired weapons/tech with deals like "it will never be used for X purpose". However, as far as my research has shown, it has never accepted deal where said weapons or tech has self-policing features.

Some examples of past US govt use of tech with self-policing features:

* DJI drones have historically had geofencing around restricted areas (e.g. airports, DC). Back when the US govt used DJI drones, govt users had to get unlock licenses from DJI to be able to operate in those areas: https://support.dji.com/help/content?customId=en-us034000067...

* cloud computing features like Assured Workloads place firm guardrails on e.g. what regions services can be spun up in: https://cloud.google.com/security/products/assured-workloads

* for ITAR compliance, software sold to the government will often have IP-based geofencing and lock down if it's run outside an authorized area

* I'm pretty sure the US govt uses software that has licensing enforcement

* This is sort of the opposite, but military technology exported by the US to other countries quite frequently has self-policing built in, e.g. geo-blocking of missiles and aircraft

Aren't all of your examples exactly the opposite of what I said?