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

Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 260 posts

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#101

Post by berto4 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #33
sloshnmosh wrote: post #20

I contacted Amazon to report an advertiser out of Tel Aviv that was using JavaScript hosted on CloudFront to fingerprint user's devices and if an Android device was detected a fake media player or fake CAPTCHA would trick user's into accepting push notifications for fake virus warnings to install questionable apps from the Play Store. This script also pushed ads for a fake AdBlock app that was a dropper for banking t…

It feels like this is more a result of Amazon not being able to connect you with the right escalation path to verify & act on these claims than a considered decision to ignore them. Does anyone here know what an individual reporter should do? Is there an escalation ramp that exists but was so poorly marked that neither sloshnmosh nor Amazon support was able to find it? Does the ramp go through other organizations (e.…

always a narrative/explanation...right on

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#102

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dragonwriter wrote: post #94
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So should we considered the NSA a terrorism-aiding organization This statement needs the "we" defined to be meaningful. If it is the U.S., then obviously no, the NSA is an arm of the state. If "we"` is e.g. China, probably no, because words have meanings and the arms of recognized foreign states don't conduct terrorism, they do espionage and they do war. If "we" is a freshman dorm room, then, of course, the NSA is…

> > So should we considered the NSA a terrorism-aiding organization > If it is the U.S., then obviously no, the NSA is an arm of the state. Its perhaps worth noting that “terrorism” originally exclusively denoted action by the State against its own subjects, though it was within a few years expanded to include other activities.

> “terrorism” originally exclusively denoted action by the State against its own subjects

Correct, in the French Revolution, I believe. There are a variety of definitions of terrorism. The common elements seem to be the (a) peacetime use (b) of violence (c) against non-combatants (d) as a political tool. There also seems to be an unspoken requirement that it occurred after the formation of modern states (otherwise almost all of the preceding human history was terrorism and the word gets normalized); the French Revolution is a useful line.

The NSA targets non-combatants (c) in peacetime (a). It does not use violence (b), though it does enable it (⅓b). It does not do so for domestic political aims (to any proven degree); the degree to which it does so abroad depends on where one draws the line between politics and geopolitics. (The CIA, in contrast, engages in all four overseas.)

When an organization that has done terrorism becomes a terrorist organization is another question.

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#103

Post by Dah00n »

esens wrote: post #32
javajosh wrote: post #27

Isn't NSO just a poor-man's NSA, since the NSA can force Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/[Any Carrier] to do anything to any number of devices or data, and in secret?

NSO seems to be used by tyrants to go after legitimate opposition. The NSA isn't used by the President to target the party out of power no? But in NSO case in India apparently it was: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/jul/19/key-modi-rival-... NSO is used to keep those with money and access to NSO in power undermine their legitimate rivals. It can be used to plant evidence on their devices as well as monitor ever…

To clarify, are you arguing that NSO Group have had a bigger impact on innocent people, suppression of speech, etc. than the NSA?

If so, I'm not sure I buy what you seem to be arguing, that "NSO case in India" and "It can be used to plant evidence" makes it anywhere near as bad as what the NSA has done/does. In my opinion this is exactly how a "poor-man's NSA" would look: What your money can buy from greedy corporations protected by nasty governments.

>legitimate opposition

Who decides what is legitimate though? It sounds like weasel words to me, just like "terrorists" (that get defined by those in power and then maybe later becomes revolutionists and heroes if they actually win). Going after Snowden, torture in Guantanamo, and using three letter agencies for industrial espionage is also "legitimate".

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#104

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

jorvi wrote: post #98
londons_explore wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't cloudfront generally act like cloudflare? Ie. We don't inspect your content. Law enforcement are the only people who can stop us hosting a site.

Cloudflare has taken voluntary action on sites 2 (or 3?) times now. They can no longer claim complete neutrality. I don't know about Cloudfront.

It has nothing to do with "neutrality", they have Terms of Service like every single service provider in the world. If you violate them, there goes your infra. Spreading malware is almost certainly a violation of AWS' ToS (Amazon engs, correct me if needed)

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#105

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bakuninsbart wrote: post #71
zzleeper wrote: post #9

Perhaps NSO Group should be considered a terrorism-aiding organization. Freeze its assets, track all their employees, backers, etc. Wonder if they are even helping to hack US government employees through China, etc. (besides just helping to torture dissidents).

The Israeli government classified Pegasus, the software by NSO currently in the news, as a weapon, thus restricting its exports. If you look at the list of customers, it quickly becomes clear that they are the same organizations that make the laws.

> If you look at the list of customers, it quickly becomes clear that they are the same organizations that make the laws

Israel's unicameral, sovereign, supreme state body, the Knesset [1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#106

Post by Spooky23 »

xoa wrote: post #23
Spooky23 wrote: post #3

Shouldn’t there be an outcry against the suppression of free speech? When Facebook or Google blocks extremist propaganda, it’s a big thing. What jurisdiction’s laws were broken by this company?

> Shouldn’t there be an outcry against the suppression of free speech? Only if someone was one of the many people who don't understand what Free Speech is or incorrectly think of rights only in terms of themselves and people they like, not for those who they don't. In this case, Amazon is exercising their own Free Speech rights. Free speech necessarily (and as a matter of law) means the freedom to not speak and to no…

I don't understand the line where lots of people are seemingly outraged about people using online platforms to disseminate propaganda and extremist materials. (ie. most recently Google Drive)

NSO group seems to be a not-so-nice company. But why does what they do justify blackballing, while similar companies (say BlueCoat or any of a dozen companies that provide solutions to hack on behalf of the police) are ok?

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#107

Post by neom »

detritus wrote: post #68
neom wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's "DigitalOcean" - sorry to be pedantic, it drives me absolutely nuts when people put a space between, especially publications.

I see you 'helped build' Digital Ocean, so I can understand your personal reasoning, but really - it's not at all important to anyone else. Also, wasn't that a bit of a fad back in the late 90s early 00s? I know my wee business followed the path of concatenating words for brand ...something... , but I honestly couldn't care less how other people deploy it in their own space, as long as they remember the name.

Of course, some people might choose to reply "Oh I see you worked on DigitalOcean! Funny people care about something like that, but given another human does, I'll respect that!" Some might chose to reply "I can do whatever I want, I don't really care what you think" - people can choose how they react. It's always very interesting to me who choses what, it's very telling regarding personality. I am well aware people are welcome to do as they please, nevertheless, the name of the company is "DigitalOcean" not "Digital Ocean".

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#108

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

javajosh wrote: post #27

Isn't NSO just a poor-man's NSA, since the NSA can force Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/[Any Carrier] to do anything to any number of devices or data, and in secret?

Intelligence agencies don't force people to do things, their operations are covert. It's the DoD/FBI that will force things and issue gag orders. Think of the intelligence agencies as Ninja, and the FBI/law enforcement as Samurai.

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#109

Post by Spooky23 »

xoa wrote: post #29
geofft wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and it "seems like" the extremist propaganda that Big Tech shut down was violating all sorts of other laws like incitement. Is "seems like" enough of a reason now for private companies to choose not to contract with other private companies? Or should we go to a judge and jury in both cases?

> Sure, and it "seems like" the extremist propaganda that Big Tech shut down was violating all sorts of other laws like incitement. Most of it actually wasn't FWIW, hateful extremist content is generally perfectly legal free speech. "Incitement" gets used way, way too often on the internet, almost nothing that gets posted online is legal incitement. But neither "Big Tech" (such a dumb term) nor Hacker News nor a rand…

> Most of it actually wasn't FWIW, hateful extremist content is generally perfectly legal free speech. "Incitement" gets used way, way too often on the internet, almost nothing that gets posted online is legal incitement. But neither "Big Tech" (such a dumb term) nor Hacker News nor a random forum on birds needs any violation of law or anything else to moderate what gets posted on their sites. It doesn't have to be "negative" or whatever at all even. There is nothing illegal or objectionable about someone who likes discussing trains for example. But if you post lots just about trains on a birder forum they may delete all your posts and ask you to stop because they want to focus on birds, and if you continue to do so they can delete everything and ban you. Why would there be anything wrong with that?

I don't think anything is wrong with that.

What I don't understand is why AWS is justified to shut them down; but Google or Facebook is not justified in preventing their platforms from being propaganda distribution channels?

Specifically here on HN, people were outraged about Google's actions, but at the time I posted my original comment, nobody seemed to be upset about AWS's actions against NSO, at all.

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#110

Post by Quanttek »

xoa wrote: post #23
Spooky23 wrote: post #3

Shouldn’t there be an outcry against the suppression of free speech? When Facebook or Google blocks extremist propaganda, it’s a big thing. What jurisdiction’s laws were broken by this company?

> Shouldn’t there be an outcry against the suppression of free speech? Only if someone was one of the many people who don't understand what Free Speech is or incorrectly think of rights only in terms of themselves and people they like, not for those who they don't. In this case, Amazon is exercising their own Free Speech rights. Free speech necessarily (and as a matter of law) means the freedom to not speak and to no…

This is not even a free speech problem in the first place. We are talking about actions. To draw up an analogy: If I own a gun store and I sell you a rifle and ammunition because you want to hunt deer and I learn that you started shooting at journalists instead, I can decide to stop selling (an act) you further goods because of your actions.

As pointed out elsewhere, this is a business relationship.

In any case, the grave human rights violations that are the result of the use of Pegasus - including loss of life and liberty - weigh much more than an abstract notion of a corporation's freedom to act and impose their will on other corporations.

Post reply on HN