211–220 of 306 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As long as we fail to reward good work, we will continue to get poor work. I think that's a bit off. The problem is that we continue to reward poor work so the poor work continues.
That's correct. I was being generous. Note that even my fairly mild statement was not received well. People really don't like discussion of improving the Quality of software, here. Too much money to be made in not-so-good stuff.
I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm misunderstanding something but the plaintiff is Whatsapp, not the journalists. This isn't really about holding NSO Group accountable for hacking journalists at all The fact journalists were compromised seems only incidental, the ruling is about weather or not NGO Group "exceeded authorization" on WhatsApp by sending the Pegasus installation vector through WhatsApp to the victims and not…
> I doubt I'm the only person here who has ever made an alternative client for something before. I've been on both sides of the issue by authoring unofficial clients, and battling abusive unofficial clients to services I run. The truth is, complete carte blanche for either side is untenable. 99.99% of well-behaved clients are tacitly ignored, I'm not against those that deliver malware, or bypass rate-limiting having…
If we want using a service to perpetrate a crime to itself be an additional crime then that should be made explicit. In the (unlikely) event that NSO wasn't actually perpetrating any crimes against the end users then that fact is probably what needs to be fixed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I refuse to use Israeli tech in my stack if at all possible. I don't see how someone could use software like Snyk and not put themselves at risk (founders are ex-IDF Unit 8200). Especially in the area of security, it seems like using Israeli tech is inviting the wolf straight into the hen house. No thanks.
[flagged]
I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm misunderstanding something but the plaintiff is Whatsapp, not the journalists. This isn't really about holding NSO Group accountable for hacking journalists at all The fact journalists were compromised seems only incidental, the ruling is about weather or not NGO Group "exceeded authorization" on WhatsApp by sending the Pegasus installation vector through WhatsApp to the victims and not…
> fake client to send some messages that the original application wouldn't be able to send which provide information about the target users' device > I doubt I'm the only person here who has ever made an alternative client for something before I think the distinction here for "exceeds authorisation" is pretty apparent. I don't read this judgement as being damning for people wanting to make their own clients. They mad…
That sounds hopelessly ambiguous to me. What if Google decides that making use of yt-dlp is causing harm to them? What is the criteria here?
We wanted email spam to be illegal and so it was explicitly made illegal. We wanted robocalling to be illegal and so it was explicitly made illegal. In such cases we have (reasonably) clear criteria for what is and is not permitted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genocide is an attempt to eradicate a group. The only group Israel is trying to eradicate is Hamas. They're not genociding Palestinians, they're genociding Hamas. Are they killing an excessive number of civilians as collateral damage? Certainly seems like it. But collateral damage is not genocide. If they wanted to genocide the Palestinians, they'd be shipping 'em to camps and gassing them, like the Nazis did. Lookin…
This argument merely serves to justify murder and is inhumane, in and of itself. Please re-consider your position on the subject of the wanton and willful murder of your fellow human beings. Genocide is not a matter of scale , it is a matter of intent . The definition fits: the people of Palestine are being genocided . The Nazi’s took years to murder 6 million Jews and other classes of humans they deemed undesirable…
The people ultimately to blame for the high civilian casualties are the people who 1. started the war and 2. insist on staging that war entirely in civilian areas. That is Hamas on both counts. I am certain that if tomorrow Hamas said "hey, let's have a pitched battle in the style of Middle Ages Europe, where we go to a field and send all our fighters against all your fighters and and the victor is the one left standing", the IDF would be happy to oblige.
But Hamas will not do that, because they want the destruction of Palestinian peoples more than Israel does. After all, it helps their cause much more than it does the cause of Israel (and they clearly can't actually win the war without the human shields).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have to start assuming that any communication method in use is compromised. There’s just no way on earth orgs like the NSA would throw their hands up in the air and not find multiple different avenues into an app like signal. Its one of the most downloaded messaging apps. Investment into compromising it is very worth while. People should just assume everything involving a cell phone or computer is inherently i…
Password managers are such a high target that I wonder how we’ve convinced people to put all their passwords in the same software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I refuse to use Israeli tech in my stack if at all possible. I don't see how someone could use software like Snyk and not put themselves at risk (founders are ex-IDF Unit 8200). Especially in the area of security, it seems like using Israeli tech is inviting the wolf straight into the hen house. No thanks.
Yes, I think the pager attack is also an interesting case study. It's one thing to execute a supply chain compromise for information gathering, where the target may never know what happened. On the other hand, flaunting your abilities in that area will just lead you to being cut out of supply chains.
So i don't think it follows that the attack would lead to israel being cut out of supply chains, since the attack didn't involve that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i dont think users of whatsapp would have standing against people hacking whatsapp to get their data. whatsapp owns the systems, so its up to whatsapp to sue
What? So if someone robs a bank and empties my safety deposit box I can't sue them because it was the bank that had the money, not me?
(One might argue that it's similar with "your" money ((in the bank)) , but that's not the point)