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

211–220 of 260 posts

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#211

Post by perl4ever »

freeflight wrote: post #209
igorzx31 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^This person is wrong. FISA and FBI counter-intel have a low bar to get warrants because that's what congress intended.

Indeed, the FISA court only exists to rubber-stamp warrants. 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...

The rejection rate, in a vacuum, isn't evidence that they are rubber stamping warrants.

From a logical perspective, it could mean that those submitting requests are able to avoid sending weak ones and choose to do so.

I'm not saying I believe you/the standard view is wrong, but there must be some other evidence.

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#212

Post by sofixa »

perl4ever wrote: post #210
sofixa wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

People keep asking that. Seems like every few weeks for however long it's been, I see a comment like yours. 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?

A good news source would retract their initial article(s) when experts debunked them and nobody could corroborate, not double down with even less evidence.

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#213

Post by smokelegend »

Scoundreller wrote: post #93
reaperducer wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon refused to do anything about it. Actually "refused" to do anything about it, or didn't respond to you?

I’ve had government agencies claim it’s not a refusal/rejection if they refuse at the moment and claim you might (with no guarantee) have success if you try later. I call it a “constructive refusal”.

i.e. "differed success"

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#214

Post by perl4ever »

xoa wrote: post #190
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " As a matter of law in the United States you are objectively wrong. " You are quite correct, of course. I meant to write "shouldn't" instead of "don't". > " 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? " I'll point out that there's an entirely separate and intentional carv…

:\ > I'll point out that there's an entirely separate and intentional carve-out for freedom of the press that is distinct from freedom of speech Not really as a matter of law we're talking about here. "The press" isn't some special legal entity, there's no licensing for it or anything. Absolutely critical press victories like NYT v. Sullivan were based on freedom of speech protections. But whatever, so you don't want…

>"The press" isn't some special legal entity, there's no licensing for it or anything

This is one of those things that's plausible and common enough to read on the internet that it makes me worry about alternate universes intersecting.

If you type "credentialed members of the media" into Google, do you see any results, or is it just me?

Another key phrase I find is "reporter's privilege" relating to state laws to shield the press, which, as you might imagine, requires defining what a reporter is.

"Some privilege schemes are narrow and apply only to full-time employees of professional news outlets, while others are broad and extend to bloggers, filmmakers, freelancers, book authors, and student journalists. In other words, some are inclusive and others are exclusive."

https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/journalists_privil...

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#215

Post by secfirstmd »

azernik wrote: post #204
vmception wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that more of a notification form or an actual collaborator process with a tribunal?

The Ministry of Defense has a strong inclination to approve any such requests. It's a hassle for the company in question, but the system is set up to encourage inflow of foreign capital to build up and maintain the defense industry.

Also great opportunities for backdoor access...

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#216

Post by perl4ever »

sofixa wrote: post #212
perl4ever wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep asking that. Seems like every few weeks for however long it's been, I see a comment like yours. 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?

A good news source would retract their initial article(s) when experts debunked them and nobody could corroborate, not double down with even less evidence.

It's notoriously hard to prove a negative.

But what I'd really like to know is who is a "good news source" in contrast to Bloomberg.

If one doubtful article discredits an entire organization, it's pretty astounding to me anyone worth trusting can exist. The Daily Mail?

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#217

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

xoa wrote: post #189
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Private society looking at extremist content and saying "we're not going to shoot you over it but we do strongly object and we're going to socially ostracize you and deny you business and our support in any way we can" is free speech working as intended. " Given that such logic was once used to attempt to deny service to and harass PoCs, religious, LGBTQ and other formerly "undesirable" classes, society clearly d…

> Given that such logic was once used to attempt to deny service to and harass PoCs, religious, LGBTQ and other formerly "undesirable" classes, society clearly doesn't buy that logic and made them into protected classes and required businesses to serve them on an equal footing. No, that was not the logic, businesses were not discriminating based purely on speech and choices of content. That's the point. I mentioned P…

> "innate to their personhood"

Religion is not innate, nationality is not innate (cf. the discriminatory "Help Wanted. No Irish Need Apply" signs of the 19th century), and while sexual preference may be innate, expression of it can be consciously restrained as demonstrated by all those people who suffered from being "being in the closet". Does not being innate mean these protected classes should not exist? Clearly not, so appealing to innateness does not rescue your argument.

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#219

Post by neom »

detritus wrote: post #174
neom wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Reading my response back now, I didn't mean to sound cynical or abrasive when I quoted 'helped build' from your profile. I could have as easily said "I see you were involved in.." or whatever and that would not have sounded snarky. Honestly though, I didn't think it through that much, I just literally quoted what I saw. Just in case you thought that was where I was coming from!

The replies to my comment generally simply serve to remind me of the quality of humans in this community, I'm certainly not sure why I waste my time contributing to it.

Re: Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

#220

Post by xorcist »

meowface wrote: post #146
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

It's a little more complicated than that in Cloudflare's case. The debate isn't really relevant to AWS/CloudFront or anyone else, but Cloudflare has famously had a policy of not kicking off any customers as long as they abide by US law. The CEO publicly identifies as a free speech absolutist. (Malware/phishing/etc. is still removed, since it's illegal.) The CEO publicly broke their policy on this on two occasions: th…

> Malware/phishing/etc. is still removed, since it's illegal.

They are known for protecting DDoS-for-hire and Cryptolocker services.

Post reply on HN