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

191–200 of 477 posts

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

#191

Post by ethbr0 »

kmonsen wrote: post #183
ethbr0 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What normal people probably want is the state of affairs that historically existed: Government (legislative) mandates via law what rights consumers are entitled to, that cannot be stripped from them. Companies are free to request waiving or agreeing to anything not enumerated in the above. What's broken down recently is that legislatures aren't doing their job of proactively mandating consumer rights, and consequentl…

Realistically speaking we have no legislature anymore.

In what sense?

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

#193

Post by kmonsen »

ethbr0 wrote: post #191
kmonsen wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically speaking we have no legislature anymore.

In what sense?

In the sense that new laws are really difficult to do in the age of polarization. So instead the executive branch issues orders and the judiciary interprets laws in creative ways.

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

#194

Post by cwkoss »

ksec wrote: post #133

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…

NSO Group and any organization who does business with them should be placed on the OFAC list

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

#195

Post by jjcon »

shmatt wrote: post #146
tzahifadida wrote: post #129

If you think that israel is doing anything not sanctioned by the US government you are mistaken. In Israel NSO cant make a move without 7 agencies regulating it. This is considered a weapon sale. The same weapons the US are sponsoring israel and buy them from israeli industry. There is no way NSO will fail from this. So eula or whatever these are matters between states for national security interests.

Yes, the many US government 3 letter agencies would love to have full read access to every single iPhone in the world. It doesn't mean Apple needs to comply, or that doing so without a search warrant is legal in California

>the many US government 3 letter agencies would love to have full read access to every single iPhone in the world

They 100% already do

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

#196

Post by riedel »

Barrin92 wrote: post #84
fragmede wrote: post #60

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…

There's always the problem with a little one that has to accept the big one's terms. Actually in Germany and probably elsewhere there is clear jurisdiction what is allowed in a terms and conditions type contract. It actually applies to any contract that is not created from scratch on an eye to eye basis. Other laws like the GDPR also restrict what can be part of a contract. So while nobody is reading all this stuff at least we have some assurance that it's not totally unfair. Otherwise is typically safe to assume that companies try to shape everything to their own benefit. So it boils down to trusting a company in general.

Not being a lawyer and having no clue abou US jurisdiction: I am really curious if this EULA thing works though. Normally under copyright law wrongdoing would normally just mean that your licence is terminated. Illegal use typically just requires paying damages twice the licence cost afaik. I would actually find it kind of scary if I could be pulled into any kind of jurisdiction about something not directly related to the contract just because I accepted a software licence agreement.

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

#197

Post by rektide »

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #185
ziddoap wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Agreed. That's exactly what it seems like. And that sounds like immoral, unjustifiable, sickening hell. That Apple gets to hold all the cards, no one else on the planet gets any say in how a device might be used. I'm not a big proponent of IP, but you're basically saying it is immoral, unjustifiable, and sickening as hell that Apple enforces the rules that Apple wants on Apple products/services, which were created…

The law works fine when there is no monopoly. But since Apple has 50% of the market share, the law doesn't work well anymore.

This and more. I find it beyond farce that Apple & it's adherents chief defense seems to be that there are other people making products that aren't Lawful-Evil to humanity. If Google one day woke up and said, we're just going to try to do what Apple does to it's users, there would be nothing left. This pretense that Apple's behavior is anything but anti-competitive, anti-trust worthy rings so hollow to me. The excuses that there are other places to go completely fail to wash for me.

It's as if these folks are saying the Carterphone victory was only won because AT&T was a monopoly. That's not how consumer rights work. That's not a solid enough platform for humanity to remain upright.

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

#198

Post by JohnFen »

fragmede wrote: post #60
strict9 wrote: post #7

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…

> While NSO Group created hacking tools, and then did some questionable things with them

Wow, that's some serious softballing there. At a minimum, The NSO Group knowingly facilitates criminal activity. They shouldn't be treated as if they were a legitimate organization.

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

#199

Post by Caligatio »

ziddoap wrote: post #160
rektide wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sits so unwell with me, gives such limitless tyrannical & dictatorial control to a company. > As much as people might look at this and think Apple is being heavy-handed, it comes down to the fact that iCloud, iOS, and the App Store are their IP and they can (within legal limits) set whatever terms they please. Agreed. That's exactly what it seems like. And that sounds like immoral, unjustifiable, sickening hell.…

> Agreed. That's exactly what it seems like. And that sounds like immoral, unjustifiable, sickening hell. That Apple gets to hold all the cards, no one else on the planet gets any say in how a device might be used. I'm not a big proponent of IP, but you're basically saying it is immoral, unjustifiable, and sickening as hell that Apple enforces the rules that Apple wants on Apple products/services, which were created…

Replace "Apple" by any traditional car company and you should immediately become concerned. Shouldn't a car company have absolute, one-sided control over the cars they sell? Like should the car stop working if you agreed to obey the speed limit but then sped? Or stop working if you didn't use their branded fluids?

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

#200

Post by sam-2727 »

threeseed wrote: post #124
edge17 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> has some cringe worthy descriptions of technical things 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.

Reminds me of when the Oracle v. Google case was argued in front of the Supreme Court on a series of metaphors, among other things comparing Java to football teams: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21506172/oracle-google-ja...
Post reply on HN