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…
If you want a more technical perspective, The Darknet Diaries did an episode a couple months ago about the NSO group: https://overcast.fm/+PMNc5Hr8c I discovered darknet diaries listening to that episode. It’s very accessible and excellent storytelling.
Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
291–300 of 477 posts
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#292Apple simply needs to exercise its right to deplatform everyone who works for NSO. Oh and deplatform all government wonks of government of Israel as it is allowing NSO Group to operate. Life in 2021 is very difficult without a smartphone. In fact it is so difficult that if working for NSO comes with "no smartphone forever" sticker NSO won't be able to find people to work for it.
It's actually not, at least in the US. Tons of people do it.
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nerds always want to interpret the law in some strict pedantic fashion, but in practice this is almost never how it works. Law is not applied stupidly or mechanically, you can't fashion yourself some ad hoc workaround unless you're extremely certain about what you're doing, preferably with a mountain of precedent behind you.
"NSO can be sued under California law because they accepted the EULA" seems like a mechanical, strict, pedantic application of law though.
Lots of people negotiated these things and agreed to make commerce happen.
Novel to you does not mean novel to humanity.
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Not a lawyer, but this is the correct answer) 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. Especially for these sorts of arrangements, it seems like a problem to me if the platform/IP owner doesn't have absolute, final discretion over what happen…
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.…
Do you think Apple could get some "hackers" extradited if they don't live in the US? Its that old adage, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and some country's like Russia will point blank refuse extradition to the US as will other countries.
Any business can put what they like in their terms and conditions, those T's & C's are still tertiary to regional and state law if they are even enforceable. Lawyers will let your put what ever you like in a contract, whether its reasonable and enforceable is another matter which only judges can decide.
Now if you live in the EU, there is nothing wrong with reverse engineering code, the EU court has ruled this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28809559 but the definition of a bug can be more vague because a coder might suggest a user reported bug is working as its coded, so the coder may not see it as a bug but the user might and her you just need to convince the judge. Grey area.
Another example of what was a grey area of law was initiating an email send to an email server in order to track whether an email address existed or not. Once the status of an email address was known abort the reset of the communication. It was useful for tracking people globally, and spam filters were not that good at picking this up in the past. Anyway that process has effectively been ruled illegal by the EU now as your email address supplied by your employer has to be treated as a private and personal email address so then other personal & privacy laws come into play to make the game more complicated, but you used to be able to track people globally in businesses & military to spot when people had left an employer or been moved in some cases.
Then you have the NSA putting out reverse engineering tools for free like https://ghidra-sre.org/ making one wonder what is the point of law especially when you reproduce parts of the AT&T infrastructure in Romania? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29135559
Now whilst the law might seem absolute, legislation is very intentionally left vague and its judges who make it closer to being absolute with narrow specific definitions when they make a judgement, but if there's one thing I have learnt, interpretation of the law can be surprisingly vague even by judges.
So all in all this could actually be a marketing or reputation management exercise or both involving lawyers to reassure Apple customers they have made the right purchase. Running an entity beit a business or a govt can be incredibly nuanced like playing a game of chess, and sometimes its not the initial action we need to be concerned with but the resulting action.
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#295Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#296Earlier 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…
They are just using the EULA as the basis for claiming jurisdiction. They are actually suing not to stop reverse engineering but rather to recover damages incurred by unlawful business practices. Basically their argument is that: 0) The defendant's can be sued under California law because they accepted the EULA. 1) California law makes businesses liable for damages incurred by their unlawful business practices. 2) Bu…
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
H.R.3684 (aka "Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act" aka "INVEST in America Act" aka "the Infrastructure Bill") passed the House 221/201/8 [0] and the Senate 69/30/1 [1]. Admittedly not the best numbers, but not terrible either. [0] https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021208 [1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
I think if Trump proposed the very same bill more or less all republicans would have been on board.
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a civil case If you perjure yourself in a civil case, you've committed a crime. Contempt of court is, similarly, a (process) crime.
It's not a crime to simply not show up. Default judgement that they won't ever pay, and everyone moves on with their lives.
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#299Earlier 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…
hmmm, I mean if we have to agree to things that are supposedly legally binding, I would like them to be so. If they are not legally binding, I would like to know that and not have to agree to them.
So if Apple added a term that said "you will owe use $1000 per day and give us license to harvest your organs", it would be nullified even if the user agreed. They would have to have something like a big payment screen showing $1000 and clearly marking out the terms without being lost in a wall of text.