Edward Snowden calls for spyware trade ban amid Pegasus revelations • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by tinus_hn » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

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…

Chemical weapons are banned but I doubt most governments do not have access to them, ‘in case someone else uses them’

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

#82

Post by curryst » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 7:48 PM UTC

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.

I don't think it's that hard of a sell. The size of the weapon doesn't really matter; there are firearms that aren't much larger than a thumbdrive (i.e. pen guns). On the other hand, there's a longstanding tradition of military technology that is designed to destroy the enemy's infrastructure rather than to directly kill enemy combatants.

The closest parallel is probably an EMP strike. They're designed to inflict 0 casualties, but they cripple the enemy. That mirrors the usage of offensive software; they don't inflict any casualties directly, but they can ruin supply chains, remove communication capabilities from the enemy, etc.

They probably deserve to be classified as weapons, and banned by a subsequent law. I think the government has a compelling case that would almost certainly pass strict scrutiny. It seems a logical place to put them, because they are dangerous, and the strict scrutiny puts an onus on the government to use the least restrictive means possible to legislate them. I fear the alternative is that they aren't classed as weapons, and we get some overly broad CFAA type legislature that threatens to penalize security researchers.

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

#83

Post by FriedrichN » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 7:05 AM UTC

This is somewhat of a tangent but I think hoarding zerodays should be illegal for an individual, company, or state. It would be seen as highly irresponsible if someone held back critical information about a vulnerability in a dam, I don't see how a zeroday is any different.

What is especially stupid is that the US does this as well, while they're the ones who are the most vulnerable. Just look at the debacle with WannaCry. These attacks come from countries who have a lot less to lose than the US, yet the US insists on throwing stones from their glass house.

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

#84

Post by revscat » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

blooalien wrote: post #78

revscat wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An example wasn’t provided. A claim was made. That is not proof. I’m talking about a blog post, a Twitter thread, or something other than mere “trust me they exist” levels of proof.

Yeah, I'm not going to go do your research for you when literally ten seconds of Google search (yes, I do know what "literally" means, and no, I still won't waste the ten seconds doing your search for you if you can't be bothered to put forth even that much effort to support your assertion that I've never come in contact with these stereotypical FUD-spewing corporate product fanbois) can find you countless examples o…

The burden of proof is upon you, the person made the original claim. As you are unwilling or unable to provide such then the only reasonable conclusion to make is that your claim is false.

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

#85

Post by anothernewdude » Sun, Aug 01, 2021, 7:40 AM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #20

anothernewdude wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nations that want to do this will do it, and trade bans won't stop them. Or even discourage them. It's like banning arms sales to countries like Saudi Arabia. All it does is push them towards China or Russia. Banning this stuff just leads to consolidated power blocs of nasty regimes.

> Nations that want to do this will do it, and trade bans won't stop them. Again, that's experimentally false. Saudi and Mexico didn't develop their own home-grown spyware. They bought an Israeli product instead. This stuff is harder than you think.

I never said they would do it on their own. Your counterexample is not a counterexample, but an example of what I said would happen.

DPRK manages this shit, it's in the reach of any nation-state.