Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edward Snowden calls for spyware trade ban amid Pegasus revelations

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: Edward Snowden calls for spyware trade ban amid Pegasus revelations

#61

Post by SequoiaHope »

blfr wrote: post #41
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the efficiency of the free market. Where companies with deep pockets get kids hooked on their product early so they can abuse them for the rest of their lives. In these cases I think administrative oversight of broad and long term benefits to society is important, rather than the more narrow decision of "this choice will benefit next year's budget". Early offers by Microsoft were in a way a trap that kept sch…

Ah yes, the efficiency of the free market. Schools in California are government-run, zoned, and compulsory. A complete opposite of the free market.

I suppose I specifically mean free-market thinking applied to government services. This would be a symptom of neoliberalism. [1] Allowing discounts from private corporations to influence government policy, instead of looking at what would be best from a broader perspective.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Re: Edward Snowden calls for spyware trade ban amid Pegasus revelations

#62

Post by Talanes »

SantalBlush wrote: post #40
blooalien wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have an example of someone who holds that belief? Which belief? The belief that corporate spyware devices and software are infinitely superior to anything in the F/L/OSS world? I literally can't escape 'em. Especially in "gamer" circles, I get endlessly hassled by Windows users tryin'a convince me with decades old Steve Ballmer FUD that Linux is inferior junk and a cancer on the software industry, and that I…

>Sadly, you name a stereotype, and I promise you there's people out there that'll do their best to prove that stereotype true. The point is that it takes more than just a few people to validate a stereotype; otherwise, I could make up any stereotype I want, and by your admission, it would be valid. But that isn't how sterotypes work.

>The point is that it takes more than just a few people to validate a stereotype; otherwise, I could make up any stereotype I want, and by your admission, it would be valid. But that isn't how sterotypes work.

The point wasn't to have a discussion of the semantic definitions of what makes something a stereotype, GP was merely asserting that such people might not actually exist and asking for an example. An example was provided.

Re: Edward Snowden calls for spyware trade ban amid Pegasus revelations

#63

Post by kube-system »

throwawayboise wrote: post #60
xbar wrote: post #22

Classifying such technology as military weapons would begin to address a number of international and national concerns with for-sale-malware (aka spyware). The use of such military weapons by civilians (or civilian police) against civilians become more obviously ban-able.

Calling it a weapon means it falls under 2nd Amendment. Pretty hard sell that it's a "military" weapon when you can carry it around on a thumb drive.

Calling something a weapon does not satisfy the applicability standards outlined in SCOTUS case law.

SCOTUS says that the 2nd applies to weapons which are “bearable”, i.e:

> "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.”

Re: Edward Snowden calls for spyware trade ban amid Pegasus revelations

#64

Post by mike_d »

ttctciyf wrote: post #28
ozymandias12 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NSO gets the mic because its the biggest commercial name, there are several other companies that fly under the radar with similar technologies. I like what some other user proposed here: military grade classification. Tada. Now sanctions apply to both sellers and users of this crap.

I think there is a licensing procedure in the UK and Germany (Gamma Group) and Israel (NSO), and lip-service to the idea that it's forbidden to sell to repressive regimes, already. The big deal with the NSO story is the 50K target names, I think, and it is a big deal, but you'd expect in a supposedly oppositional paper like the Grauniad, that there'd be some mention of the current UK government's spotty record in thi…

Countries have very little interest in regulating these groups because of the value of fourth-party collection.

If Israel for example provides software to Morocco that is used to spy on Algeria, Israel gets free intelligence on Algeria. It is even more valuable than directly spying on Algeria because it is absolutely deniable and may target foreign spies or terrorists that might not have been on Israel's radar to start with.

While spying on journalists and NGOs is horrific from a human rights perspective, it is sadly of little significance to how the intelligence game is played.

Re: Edward Snowden calls for spyware trade ban amid Pegasus revelations

#65

Post by brokenmachine »

tsimionescu wrote: post #56
brokenmachine wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like chemical weapons?

Chemical weapons were easily banned because they are almost entirely useless as long as you have access to conventional weapons. They are expensive to store, very inefficient for actually killing the opposition, easy to guard against, have a higher chance of turning back on you, and will slow your advance if you use them in an attack. They are at best a tool for terror or desperation. Think about the Tokyo metro atta…

Good points. I do wonder about next-gen chemical/genetic weapons that advanced countries could create with the motivation though.

Like some crazy airborne virus but only the good guys™ have the antidote/vaccine.

>how many more lives would have been lost if they had detonated similar quantities of explosives

Wasn't it just a few guys with suitcases, and I think one of them didn't even puncture the container? With conventional weapons there might be more deaths but maybe not.

Re: Edward Snowden calls for spyware trade ban amid Pegasus revelations

#66

Post by ezoe »

Prohibiting certain software doesn't solve any problem. Did US prohibiting the export of strong cryptography solve any problem?

Instead, we should rather harden the security of our computer. I consider all smartphones are insecure. Anybody who own or relies on smartphones are just trading security for the convenience.

I will never want to own or relies on smartphone... or phone at all.

Re: Edward Snowden calls for spyware trade ban amid Pegasus revelations

#67

Post by artificial »

kube-system wrote: post #63
throwawayboise wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it a weapon means it falls under 2nd Amendment. Pretty hard sell that it's a "military" weapon when you can carry it around on a thumb drive.

Calling something a weapon does not satisfy the applicability standards outlined in SCOTUS case law. SCOTUS says that the 2nd applies to weapons which are “bearable”, i.e: > "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.”

One can own a cannon. https://www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/black-powder-subject-regul...

Re: Edward Snowden calls for spyware trade ban amid Pegasus revelations

#68

Post by kube-system »

artificial wrote: post #67
kube-system wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling something a weapon does not satisfy the applicability standards outlined in SCOTUS case law. SCOTUS says that the 2nd applies to weapons which are “bearable”, i.e: > "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.”

One can own a cannon. https://www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/black-powder-subject-regul...

Which meets the above definition a 1000x better than software. Not that it matters, the 2nd amendment does not restrict congressional ability to legalize anything. It only prohibits restrictions.

Re: Edward Snowden calls for spyware trade ban amid Pegasus revelations

#69

Post by golemiprague »

ttctciyf wrote: post #21

It continues to strike me as a little odd that (AFAIK) there's no mention in The Guardian's reporting of this story of the parallel technology[1] sold by Gamma Group[2] and licensed for export by UK to several suspect regimes[3]. Extensive (40G) information on this was leaked via reddit in August 2014[4], and the leaker noted[5]: > I assumed the hacking would be the hard part and once I got the data it would just kin…

Because Israel, the Guardian is racist and discriminatory against Israel and will jump on any chance to write an article against this country. For the UK they have other standards.

Re: Edward Snowden calls for spyware trade ban amid Pegasus revelations

#70

Post by tsimionescu »

brokenmachine wrote: post #65
tsimionescu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chemical weapons were easily banned because they are almost entirely useless as long as you have access to conventional weapons. They are expensive to store, very inefficient for actually killing the opposition, easy to guard against, have a higher chance of turning back on you, and will slow your advance if you use them in an attack. They are at best a tool for terror or desperation. Think about the Tokyo metro atta…

Good points. I do wonder about next-gen chemical/genetic weapons that advanced countries could create with the motivation though. Like some crazy airborne virus but only the good guys™ have the antidote/vaccine. >how many more lives would have been lost if they had detonated similar quantities of explosives Wasn't it just a few guys with suitcases, and I think one of them didn't even puncture the container? With conv…

It's possible, but still unlikely to be as effective or safe as bombing your target to the ground.

> Wasn't it just a few guys with suitcases, and I think one of them didn't even puncture the container? With conventional weapons there might be more deaths but maybe not.

They had several liters of sarin gas, most of which was splashed on the ground entirely. If they had had some way to spread it as an aerosol the death toll would have been much greater, but still sarin is apparently the most volatile nerve agent, so even in liquid form it evaporates relatively quickly.

Even so, if they had started a fire with a few liters of fuel, even without an explosion, they would have probably killed more than 14 people. If they had pulled out guns, or detonated bombs, the death toll would certainly have been worse.

Post reply on HN