Nice! I'm not sure if I want them to win though. Perhaps this may create a precedent also applicable to people exploring Apple firmwares for sake of user freedom and privacy rather than spying on people.
Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
391–400 of 477 posts
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
"NSO can be sued under California law because they accepted the EULA" seems like a mechanical, strict, pedantic application of law though.
How does that seem pedantic? It's incredibly straightforward. On the other hand, creating some kind of convoluted, contrived paper trail to claim that mysterious third parties were the ones to have physically pressed the "Accept" button on your 100 fake accounts and so you didn't even know there was a EULA seems kind of like it might actually be fraud.
Wouldn't there be an article in the EULA that states if you use an Apple device, regardless of clicking buttons, you automatically consent to the ToS? Or is that not how the law works ...?
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
>0) The defendant's can be sued under California law because they accepted the EULA The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, on information and belief, they created more than one hundred Apple IDs to carry out their attacks and also agreed to Apple’s iCloud Terms and Conditions (“iCloud Terms”), including a mandatory and enforceable forum selection and exclusive jurisdiction clause that constitute…
Apple will have the IP addresses of every “I agree” click. Maybe some of them are traceable to NSO.
What if the devices are not connected to the internet?
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
...50% of what market?
I assume OP is referring to the fact that Apple has 60% phone market share in the US[0].
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#395Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#396> to hold it accountable for the surveillance and targeting of Apple users. What exactly does that mean? Fine them? Get them to stop? Have them publicly say, "my bad?" I suspect the larger goal is to find out exactly how NSO is bypassing Apple's very expensive security and plugging it? Is that specific info the type of thing Apple can get their hands on (actual code, etc) for this type of trial?
> bypassing Apple's very expensive security and plugging it?
Most likely, they're either finding new exploits continuously, or finding exploits and keeping them for later. The fact that Pegasus is being reserved for people with more importance to NSO (journalists, nation state actors, etc. etc.) may confirm the latter.
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#397>make products/services more secure >sue others to make them stop trying to hack your products/services Chooses the second one. I'm pretty sure this is just a PR stunt for Apple to try to appeal and brand themselves as "oh, we stand for security" and all the other bullshit.
I can see why you think the need for legal intervention suggests fundamental insecurities in Apple's devices, but wouldn't you agree that it (in theory) is better to take both approaches?
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#398As an Israeli, NSO is deeply embarassing. I do not understand why this is allowed to continue.
There is a lot of money on NSO Group. I'm not really surprised they're being given the green light, especially by the government.
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#399In a just world, Israel should suffer sanctions for sheltering what is basically a criminal enterprise.
what is a "just" world?
Re: Apple sues NSO Group to curb the abuse of state-sponsored spyware
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
"target them"? What are you proposing?
Based on context, and the phrase “expensive”, I assume they mean they want prosecution/legal action against the individual engineers and management. Not threatening
Wouldn't it be better to target the one outfit (NSO), and not its workers? Then again, I suppose the workers would setup another underground business to do the same thing, with the same exploits, and the same people. What is the solution for this?