121–130 of 477 posts
What does state-sponsor mean here exactly? Is NSO supported by Israel intelligence? And if charges are laid against NSO, will its sponsors be charged/sanctioned too (for sponsoring terrorism)? If this was a company in another country, the reaction would have been totally different (in some cases calls for bombing would have been made, and continued for decades).
Ellsworth is a personal hero of mine - incredibly smart, wildly talented and has a real vision for this space. All that being said, it's a nightmare of a space which is why I don't think there's been a big funding event for Tilt5. "Meta View" was an AR company that raised $75mil, had a star studded list of VR/AR technology folks, only ever shipped a couple thousand units and now is defunct. Magic Leap raised $3.5 Bil…
Edit: I guess it is for Tilt-5 Was Magical [1], I copied your reply over there.
It is great to see this happen. It's also fascinating that the crux of the Apple's case against NSO hinges on NSO engineers that accepted iCloud's terms and conditions. From related NYT article: > The sample of Pegasus gave Apple a forensic understanding of how Pegasus worked. The company found that NSO’s engineers had created more than 100 fake Apple IDs to carry out their attacks. In the process of creating those a…
Is it great? The lawsuit is Apple trying to enforce the iCloud EULA to stop reverse engineering. While NSO Group created hacking tools, and then did some questionable things with them, do we really want those inane licenses no one reads, and everyone scrolls down to hit [agree]; do we really want them to legally binding? Put another way, if it was someone HN liked , would we still say this is actually good? Because c…
It is great to see this happen. It's also fascinating that the crux of the Apple's case against NSO hinges on NSO engineers that accepted iCloud's terms and conditions. From related NYT article: > The sample of Pegasus gave Apple a forensic understanding of how Pegasus worked. The company found that NSO’s engineers had created more than 100 fake Apple IDs to carry out their attacks. In the process of creating those a…
I will just add, the author of the NYT piece has a book out on this subject. The book is decent, has some cringe worthy descriptions of technical things if you are a technical person, but overall I learned a huge amount reading it. A lot of the commentary, accusations, and opinions in the comments here would be addressed or better colored if you're interested enough to read her book ( https://www.amazon.com/This-They…
Par for the course when trying to explain things to non-technical people.
People joke but you can see the thought process in explaining to a politician that the internet is a "series of tubes" for example.
It is great to see this happen. It's also fascinating that the crux of the Apple's case against NSO hinges on NSO engineers that accepted iCloud's terms and conditions. From related NYT article: > The sample of Pegasus gave Apple a forensic understanding of how Pegasus worked. The company found that NSO’s engineers had created more than 100 fake Apple IDs to carry out their attacks. In the process of creating those a…
I was the victim of a state-sponsored attack. I took it to court. I tried to subpoena the contents of the government agents' iPhones but Apple came and filed a Joinder in Motion and sent expensive lawyers to lie to the judge about the judge's power to subpoena digital evidence. The lawyer specifically told me all he does is go around the country and lie to judges to get them to cancel subpoenas. We introduced the T+C…
You're being unreasonable here since it is a very grey area.
If Apple is compelled for example to hand over encryption keys to a judge (which often means a bunch of junior lawyers) then that would infringe everybody's right to have their information be secure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it great? The lawsuit is Apple trying to enforce the iCloud EULA to stop reverse engineering. While NSO Group created hacking tools, and then did some questionable things with them, do we really want those inane licenses no one reads, and everyone scrolls down to hit [agree]; do we really want them to legally binding? Put another way, if it was someone HN liked , would we still say this is actually good? Because c…
> do we really want those inane licenses no one reads, and everyone scrolls down to hit [agree]; do we really want them to legally binding? for commercial interactions in particular between two businesses? Yes, absolutely. How else are two entities supposed to come to legally binding terms without a contract? I'm all for a little bit of lenience when an end user didn't read the terms but you think NSO group doesn't h…
Why? How are you the wronged party in this case? You are combining two separate things.
What if the little used your software as designed, but to sell to dictators and war criminals?
what if they hacked your software for interoperability with non-evil activities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it great? The lawsuit is Apple trying to enforce the iCloud EULA to stop reverse engineering. While NSO Group created hacking tools, and then did some questionable things with them, do we really want those inane licenses no one reads, and everyone scrolls down to hit [agree]; do we really want them to legally binding? Put another way, if it was someone HN liked , would we still say this is actually good? Because c…
It's not just the iCloud terms of service, though — they're using that to strengthen the case that NSO agreed to the jurisdiction of California courts but they're relying on the CFAA and especially the claim that the access to the users' device was not authorized by that user. It would be really interesting to see what precedent comes out of this case and especially how that would affect a future case where Apple cla…
What's their theory of standing to sue over damage to their customers?
Edit: the main point is this (from the CFAA count):
Defendants’ actions caused Apple to incur a loss as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11), in an amount in excess of $5,000 during a one-year period, including the expenditure of resources to investigate and remediate Defendants’ conduct. Apple is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as injunctive relief or other equitable relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beyond merely selling their products to Israel, the NSO Group itself is an Israeli firm, founded by ex-Israeli intelligence, and whose products are subject to Israeli national export controls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSO_Group That's a level of sponsorship way beyond simply being a customer... that's state espionage served with a side of profit. It's evil when the USA does it, it's evil when the Russians do it,…
None of this seems like 'sponsorship' to me, it seems more like 'restriction' or 'regulation'. 'Sponsorship' implies that someone is providing a level of funding beyond just being a paying customer. Is there any evidence that the government of Israel (or any of the other governments you mention) are actually providing loans or share capital to NSO Group?
In this case it is clear that the Israeli government is sponsoring NSO.