Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it seems strange where we imagine that tools are neutral. But they aren't, necessarily, and especially if the organization/developers knew they were building something to be used unlawfully, it's reasonable to hold them accountable. Taxi rides are generally neutral, too, but if someone hops into your taxi, asks you to drive to the bank and wait, and tells you outright that they're going to rob the place, that…
But did they make it for an unlawful purpose? Most countries have legal provisions to allow police or foreign intelligence to hack into phones. Could they have been selling these tools for those purposes and someone misused them?
Israeli firm linked to WhatsApp spyware attack faces lawsuit
21–24 of 24 posts
Re: Israeli firm linked to WhatsApp spyware attack faces lawsuit
#22Suing the company which developed a tool rather than the organization which used the tool seems strange.
Re: Israeli firm linked to WhatsApp spyware attack faces lawsuit
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the track record of Amnesty International against Israel?
Seriously I had not even paid much or any attention on the "Israeli" part in the headline before reading your post. And even now, my takeaway is closer to "Israel is one of those tech startup hubs" than "the Israeli government is involved in a privacy scandal".
> "Download Valley is a cluster of software companies in Israel, producing and delivering adware to be installed alongside downloads of other software.[1] The primary purpose is to monetize shareware and downloads. These software items are commonly browser toolbars, adware, browser hijackers, spyware, and malware. Another group of products are download managers, possibly designed to induce or trick the user to install adware, when downloading a piece of desired software or mobile app from a certain source. "
Re: Israeli firm linked to WhatsApp spyware attack faces lawsuit
#24In most of the countries involved in this, and plenty of others: hacking or arresting HRAs is lawful.
In some, slavery is lawful.
In general saying “we aren’t violating human rights because we’re not violating the law”, is not a meaningful arguments:
* slavery was (and in some places is) legal
* the holocaust was legal
* Japanese interment camps were legal
* the walk of tears (I think that was the name?) was legal
* the destruction of parihaka was legal
* gender discrimination: legal
* race discrimination: legal
Etc, etc
Legal does not mean “right”, and hiding behind that when your product is clearly being used against HRAs is a deliberate attempt to hide responsibility.