201–210 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn’t be so quick to rush into a future where Amazon takedowns are as easy as YouTube DMCA requests.
Yes! Let’s stay in a present where Israeli hackers-for-hire can help dictatorships capture and murder dissidents. At a minimum we should demand transparency and accountability from all of these scale-enabling organizations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't there recently a whole huge story about how it turned out to be his girlfriend's brother?
It's not a contradiction. Whoever would have ordered NSO or similar actor to hack Bezos' phone is probably after more juicy info than a dick pic or at least wouldn't leak it for 'lulz' and thereby revealing that the phone is compromised somehow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that more of a notification form or an actual collaborator process with a tribunal?
In the same interview the spokesman said that some companies choose to avoid it by operating from offices outside of Israel (Bulgaria and Cyprus were mentioned). This seems to imply that the process is burdensome.
Sometimes I avoid listing directors of a new corporation by forming an LLC and privately filing with the IRS to treat it as a C-Corp
Doesn't mean the regulations were tough, but still burdensome in some small way
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From an radio interview with NSO spokesman ( an ex spokesman for the IDF ), all sales require the Israeli MoD approval.
Is that more of a notification form or an actual collaborator process with a tribunal?
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?
I dunno. NSO group is extremely capable. I know a lot of folks go back and forth on the “if you don’t want X vendor to shut you down then go build it yourself” and for various reasons. But in the case of NSO group I feel like AWS cutting them off is probably more of an annoyance than anything else. They’re gonna be ok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> " In this case, Amazon is exercising their own Free Speech rights. " Corporations aren't humans; they don't have free speech rights.
> Corporations aren't humans; they don't have free speech rights. As a matter of law in the United States you are objectively wrong. This has been settled in a series of SCOTUS decisions starting with Buckley v. Valeo (1976). Corporations are legal persons, and further the individual humans that make them up do not somehow lose the free speech rights just because they decide to take collective action. And in turn: as…
The people in many corporations in fact lose their free speech rights and have to follow the company line. Granted, they agreed to that in their employment contract but this is in many cases a coercive relationship.
> Exactly what form of combined effort do you imagine most, say, NEWSPAPERS are organized under? So what, you think individuals should be able to investigate something all by themselves, but the government should be free to put the boot down on newspapers because they're corporations?
Well, the individual reporters could still be free to exercise their free speech rights without conferring any right on the newspaper itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"? Both are despicable.
Exactly, lol. Not sure if the GP comment is trying to imply some sort of good comes out of the NSA.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes! Let’s stay in a present where Israeli hackers-for-hire can help dictatorships capture and murder dissidents. At a minimum we should demand transparency and accountability from all of these scale-enabling organizations.
I guess your founder and CEO being victim of something similar helps in these decisions. Or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The NSA isn't used by the President to target the party out of power no Close, but you've got the wrong organization. It was the FBI that used evidence it knew was false from the start to justify a spying campaign into the opposition candidate and then used the candidate's campaign's resistance of that illegal election interference to justify political interference and, ultimately, an indictment. That's right, the…
^This person is wrong. FISA and FBI counter-intel have a low bar to get warrants because that's what congress intended.
In 33 years the FISA court granted 33,942 warrants, in that same time only 12 were denied, a rejection rate of 0.03% [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bezos Bezos' phone probably wasn't hacked. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-05-05/how-jeff-...
Didn't Bloomberg ruin their tech reputation with the still-unproven (years later) and probably baseless claims of nano chips planted in the supply chain of Supermicro ?
I haven't seen anyone mention what news source meets the standard of never having published an article with insufficient evidence according to one or more people on the internet.
I mean, obviously not the NY Times, for instance, right?