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

WhatsApp forces Pegasus spyware maker to share its secret code

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 170 posts

Re: WhatsApp forces Pegasus spyware maker to share its secret code

#91

Post by tempodox »

diego_sandoval wrote: post #69
lmm wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overwhelming majority of dollars are not physical cash, and the overwhelming majority of dollar transactions by volume happen in a fashion which New York claims jurisdiction over (and, ultimately, has a big army that will back them on, which is what really matters in international law), even when neither party has any obvious connection to the US. Even for physical cash, they might claim jurisdiction. Dollars are…

And then people say that cryptocurrencies have no reason to exist. This one right here is a pretty powerful reason.

Of course criminal organizations would prefer a currency not controlled by an unfriendly government. “Reason to exist” alone doesn't make it a good idea.

Re: WhatsApp forces Pegasus spyware maker to share its secret code

#92

Post by tempodox »

jeroenhd wrote: post #50
xxpor wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US government has jurisdiction over all US dollars. That's how sanctions work.

If I bring a suitcase full of dollars home with me from a trip to the US (assuming I make it through border control with that much cash), I don't see what kind of jurisdiction the USA would have over me for simply owning dollars. These are just pieces of paper, they don't provide any kind of jurisdiction. The American banking system may refuse to serve me perhaps, but it's not the dollars that give the American gover…

> These are just pieces of paper

I let you have one guess which entity gives those pieces of paper their value.

Re: WhatsApp forces Pegasus spyware maker to share its secret code

#93

Post by qazwse_ »

jevoten wrote: post #77
vineyardmike wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would they get paid? Almost every bank in every us-allied countries would have to comply to hand over the money. The US banking regulations apply overseas because those banks want to interact with US entities. That's the nature of the US-Dollar economy. Are you a French wine maker that wants to sell to America? You better be using USD with a friendly bank to pay for things like import fees/tariffs (or the America…

But that's because they're doing business with banks that want to remain friendly with the US, not because they're doing business specifically in US dollars. If they got paid in Turkish liras, but through a bank under US influence, those liras would also get seized, wouldn't they? On the other hand, if someone used a local bank in their country to transact with an entity in China, and China demanded their assets in t…

I think a similar situation you can look into is the sanctions on Carrie Lam. While they are sanctions instead of a lawsuit, they did result in her losing access to all banking facilities in HK and China regardless of the fact they probably didn't think she didn't anything wrong. I think for most countries, keeping their banks working trumps almost all other considerations.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/28/hong-kong-carr...

Re: WhatsApp forces Pegasus spyware maker to share its secret code

#94

Post by silverliver »

selectodude wrote: post #80
jevoten wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's because they're doing business with banks that want to remain friendly with the US, not because they're doing business specifically in US dollars. If they got paid in Turkish liras, but through a bank under US influence, those liras would also get seized, wouldn't they? On the other hand, if someone used a local bank in their country to transact with an entity in China, and China demanded their assets in t…

There are very few FOREX currency pairs that aren’t USD to whatever. Most cross currency trades are currency A to USD and then USD to currency B. So USD is involved and thus the US Government has jurisdiction.

Again, that's only for foreign orgs that want to comply with foreign US law. The involvement of USD in and of itself is not relevant to whether the US government has jurisdiction.

Re: WhatsApp forces Pegasus spyware maker to share its secret code

#95

Post by asveikau »

ethbr1 wrote: post #49
gsk22 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to the FISA "court" system, I doubt US spy agencies fear any legal reprecussions. No need to follow the law if you have a secret court where no one has standing to challenge your actions.

Omnipotent and yet completely legally-neutered FISA is a lazy excuse to avoid thinking about things. There are no illuminati. There are powerful institutions, who nonetheless fear other powerful institutions. In this case, intelligence preferring to remain out of the courts and newspapers.

The problem with FISA as I understand it is not illuminati. It's that the court probably approves almost everything the government asks for without scrutiny. In general, most courts probably have issues like this -- when their job might be oversight and scrutiny they end up as a rubber stamp for the powerful, like cops, prosecutors, etc. For FISA it's especially bad because decisions and arguments made aren't public.

Re: WhatsApp forces Pegasus spyware maker to share its secret code

#96

Post by omneity »

cortesoft wrote: post #84
SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't care less if there's a group of people misusing the phrase, logically "I could care less" means the exact opposite of "I couldn't care less". The majority of the world is not American, and presumably the majority of Americans don't use the incorrect phrase, so why should the rest of the world cater for a minority within a minority by putting their butchered phrase on equal footing with the correct phrase?

And logically, flammable and inflammable mean the exact opposite, but here we are.

Not quite. "in" here as a prefix is not a negation thing but to _do_ something like "en" in "enhance" or "encapsulate". The word's actual latin root is "inflammare" which means to put something _in_ flames. The subject is the one doing the burning and it's transitive.

Flammable on the hand comes from "flammare", which means for something to catch fire, and is intransitive instead, i.e. the subject is the one catching fire.

The actual opposite of inflammable is uninflammable, which I reckon is only in British English at this point and mostly lost in American English.

Re: WhatsApp forces Pegasus spyware maker to share its secret code

#97

Post by abenga »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #40
pvo50555 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

couldn't* care less

Much as it may pain you, “could care less” is an established idiom in American English that’s been in use for 70 years, and Webster’s dictionary has a whole page about it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-l... , in which they say: > people who go through life expecting informal variant idioms in English to behave logically are setting themselves up for a lifetime of hurt.

One day, this reasoning will formalize the use of "would/could/should of" and I will rage quit English as a language.

Re: WhatsApp forces Pegasus spyware maker to share its secret code

#98

Post by ethbr1 »

mardifoufs wrote: post #85
ethbr1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Omnipotent and yet completely legally-neutered FISA is a lazy excuse to avoid thinking about things. There are no illuminati. There are powerful institutions, who nonetheless fear other powerful institutions. In this case, intelligence preferring to remain out of the courts and newspapers.

Who said anything about illuminatis? Does FISA effectively allow intelligence agencies to hide stuff or not? And can you show me a concrete example of IA actually getting punished from other powerful institutions in any meaningful way?

FISA allows them to conduct it legally. It doesn't have anything to do with hiding.

Before FISA, they generally just did it, without asking anyone.

And press reports on intelligence operations led directly to the Church/Pike Committees, which led to EO 11905/12036.

Re: WhatsApp forces Pegasus spyware maker to share its secret code

#99

Post by ethbr1 »

asveikau wrote: post #95
ethbr1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Omnipotent and yet completely legally-neutered FISA is a lazy excuse to avoid thinking about things. There are no illuminati. There are powerful institutions, who nonetheless fear other powerful institutions. In this case, intelligence preferring to remain out of the courts and newspapers.

The problem with FISA as I understand it is not illuminati. It's that the court probably approves almost everything the government asks for without scrutiny. In general, most courts probably have issues like this -- when their job might be oversight and scrutiny they end up as a rubber stamp for the powerful, like cops, prosecutors, etc. For FISA it's especially bad because decisions and arguments made aren't public.

But it nonetheless exists and could be reformed if there were political will. There was a (much worse) time when FISA didn't exist.

There can also be a future time in which something even stronger exists!

It's annoying to get low-effort whatabout'isms that are justifications for inaction on the basis that nothing will ever change.

It has and it can.

Re: WhatsApp forces Pegasus spyware maker to share its secret code

#100

Post by mardifoufs »

ethbr1 wrote: post #98
mardifoufs wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about illuminatis? Does FISA effectively allow intelligence agencies to hide stuff or not? And can you show me a concrete example of IA actually getting punished from other powerful institutions in any meaningful way?

FISA allows them to conduct it legally. It doesn't have anything to do with hiding. Before FISA, they generally just did it, without asking anyone. And press reports on intelligence operations led directly to the Church/Pike Committees, which led to EO 11905/12036.

Who exactly was punished by that EO? You are proving my point, even the most "push back" IAs have seen in terms of concrete actions against them led to... a directive that forbid them from murdering people in foreign countries. No actual consequences for anyone involved, no one got even a slap on the wrist in terms of actual consequences. And that's after the church committee, which revealed some super damning stuff.

Oh, and they went back to doing it after a few decades.

Post reply on HN