If given the choice between (1) increasing their personal wealth by 1% + tech that will violate billions of people's rights and result in the death of millions, or (2) no increase in wealth + no surveillance tech, then I'm afraid a disheartening large percentage will pick option 1 and find a naive and shortsighted way to justify their decision.

Pretty easily actually. I'm ethically responsible for my own actions, not for the actions of law enforcement or anyone else who uses or misuses Amazon's technology. Amazon on the other hand has a moral responsibility to its shareholders to pursue their interests, not to go tilting at windmills on social justice crusades whose only possible outcome is merely betraying those who chose to allocate some of their savings to the company's equity.

You can't. Hyper unregulated capitalism in an increasing dog eat dog world leads to a lack of ethics or morals for a quick buck.

You're not legally required to, so you don't have to.

My government actively engages in different military operations around the world, even if I may disagree. For "ethical" reason the bank managing my pension fund refuse to invest in companies supplying the military my government use for missions I disagree with. So I have mixed feelings about mixing ethics and business.