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

Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 477 posts

Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware

#131

Post by lupire »

roblabla wrote: post #79
leecb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those inane licenses no one reads, do we really want them to legally binding? What all would be possible if software EULAs weren't legally binding? One thing that EULAs typically do is reduce liability for the company producing the software. Imagine if Google/Apple were liable for damages from all the miscommunications caused by autocorrect?

EULAs are also used to protect IP, such as by prohibiting reverse engineering. Preventing reverse engineering would prevent modding games, fixing bugs in software that aren't supported anymore, security analysis, etc... In my view, it'd be a net negative for society.

and if software business becomes unsustainable due to piracy, that's also a net negative.

Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware

#132

Post by bannable »

jp57 wrote: post #62
kingcharles wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. If a lawyer makes an argument in court about the law governing a case (as opposed to the facts of the case), and the judge accepts the argument, and the judge's decision survives all its appeals, then the lawyer's argument is, by definition, true. EDIT: I'm objecting here to…

Case law, not truth. Judges do not decide fact.

Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware

#133

Post by ksec »

I guess I am getting cynical. What is the context in which trigger Apple to sue them now, and not any time before?

And what if NSO Group closed the branch in US? I assume you cant really do anything to an Israeli company.

Because half of it reads a lot like a PR pieces to me. And Apple easily gets the marketing message response they wanted. They are fighting "State Sponsored" spyware. The privacy message they are sending out ( fighting on behalf of their user ), in the mist of a worldwide App Store battle and Anti-Trust.

And I am willing to bet this message will be used in their future PR message when they discuss it in Anti-Trust to gain public support.

Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware

#134

Post by threeseed »

fortran77 wrote: post #128

Apple enabled them by making insecure operating systems. Aren't we on Hacker News all for the ability to side-load software on your platform?

Do you have some statistical evidence that macOS is fundamentally more insecure than other operating systems ? That would be surprising to me given many controls e.g. application signing I've not seen implemented on other platforms.

Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware

#135

Post by smoldesu »

kevinh wrote: post #70
rStar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

apple builds their own hardware and software. security, or lack thereof, is clearly apples choice. apple blaming nso here is pure public relations and optics, nee propaganda, which many on this board drink like the koolaid it is. it’s confirmation bias.

Ah, yes, Apple just neglected to flip the security switch on.

They certainly haven't flipped the "US-sanctioned spyware" switch off.

Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware

#136

Post by udev »

freejazz wrote: post #113
udev wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Facebook never filed? Would Apple never be able to act on this? If they would have acted, why didn't they do it before Facebook?

"What if Facebook never filed? Would Apple never be able to act on this?" If there wasn't precedent that Apple's TOS venue clause was binding, then the case would have been thrown out as I just previously explained. "If they would have acted, why didn't they do it before Facebook?" Because the case would have been dismissed as I just explained.

Before Facebook filed, was there precedent for their TOS?

Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware

#137

Post by dragonwriter »

bannable wrote: post #132
jp57 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If a lawyer makes an argument in court about the law governing a case (as opposed to the facts of the case), and the judge accepts the argument, and the judge's decision survives all its appeals, then the lawyer's argument is, by definition, true. EDIT: I'm objecting here to…

Case law, not truth. Judges do not decide fact.

> Judges do not decide fact.

Trial court judges in jury trials do not (in principal) decide fact questions (though even that is misleading, since they can decide “as a matter of law” that offered evidence is insufficient for a particular fact conclusion even over the jury’s determination of fact, except in the case where that would be unfavorable to the defense in a criminal trial.)

Judges in bench trial, and appellate judges in many cases, do, in fact, decide matters of fact, though in the latter case the usual rules are generally, but not infinitely, deferential to trial court decisions.

Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware

#138

Post by Sporktacular »

josh2600 wrote: post #41
rasengan wrote: post #28

Legal methods are a crutch at best. Apple would be wise to put forth the same budget into their security team's research and development and properly address these weaknesses.

Ok normally I’d just let something like this go but I just have to pull my hair out when I see a comment like this. The attack surface of software as complicated as a modern operating system (iOS or MacOS, etc.) is simply too large to lockdown without dramatically hurting the user experience (assuming you could actually achieve a lockdown in the first place!!). Let’s, just for a second, propose that apple went full M…

"Right now a chain of exploits is ~$5M on iOS. What if it was $50M? Would that actually stop a nation state?"

Yes, some states yes it would. That could make it unaffordable for many of NSOs clients.

The result would not be perfect, just better.

Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware

#139

Post by fortran77 »

threeseed wrote: post #134
fortran77 wrote: post #128

Apple enabled them by making insecure operating systems. Aren't we on Hacker News all for the ability to side-load software on your platform?

Do you have some statistical evidence that macOS is fundamentally more insecure than other operating systems ? That would be surprising to me given many controls e.g. application signing I've not seen implemented on other platforms.

NSO seems to concentrate on making products for iOS

Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware

#140

Post by tptacek »

fsflover wrote: post #88
tptacek wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, my Qubes friends keep using it too. I'm not saying it's un-usable. Is dys-usable a word?

This is a vague and unconstructive criticism. Perhaps you could say something more to the point. In my opinion, most of the HN audience would be able to use it to their benefit.

That might be true! But it's not very relevant to the NSO problem, because the mass market will not be able to use it.
Post reply on HN