[HN Gopher] Private Israeli spyware used to hack cellphones of j...
___________________________________________________________________
Private Israeli spyware used to hack cellphones of journalists,
activists
Author : tosh
Score : 403 points
Date : 2021-07-18 16:14 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| bambax wrote:
| > _The investigation by the Guardian and 16 other media
| organisations suggests widespread and continuing abuse of NSO's
| hacking spyware, Pegasus, which the company insists is only
| intended for use against criminals and terrorists._ (from the
| Guardian inquiry about the same topic).
|
| Every time we allow special laws or special tools to fight
| "terrorism" or "child abuse" or other evils that get people
| worked up, they end up being used against the people in general.
| Every time. Why are we even surprised.
| darig wrote:
| Every time someone tries to exterminate the culture/hybrid
| religious group of people generally responsible for such acts,
| someone cries hitler.
|
| Do you want to fix the problem or not? What is "evil"? Are you
| prepared to stop being a hypocrite when you explore the
| question to its natural conclusion?
| briefcomment wrote:
| It might hard to accept this, but "public health" is now a part
| of the surveillance justification tool kit too. When it's
| impossible to argue against measures taken in defense of public
| health without seeming selfish, why wouldn't it be?
| lvs wrote:
| Not where I live. Is your request simply not to be seen as
| selfish while making a selfish argument?
| krisoft wrote:
| How do I allow laws? Or rather what does it mean to not "allow"
| a law?
|
| You are right. Terrorism and cp are commonly used excuses to
| enable even more surveillance.
|
| When you talk about "allowing laws" it makes it sound as if we
| somehow got conned into letting them have these laws. In
| reality powerfull people want these tools. Powerfull people get
| these tools. Where does the allowing happen exactly?
|
| And don't tell me that all would be well if only we would vote
| for the other guy.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > what does it mean to not "allow" a law?
|
| Voting against any politicians who contribute to its passing,
| even if they're from your preferred political party.
| benlivengood wrote:
| Vote for approval voting, ranked choice, or even instant
| runoff at every level of government so that voting against
| an incumbent at least has a viable candidate.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| I worry that making voting more complicated and giving
| people more candidates to vote for might actually
| backfire.
|
| We already see this in American primary elections where
| the incumbent runs against a half dozen or more
| "nobodies" and seems to win on name recognition and vote
| splitting alone.
| playguardin wrote:
| Ah yes! The old democracy will fix it argument.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| >" When you talk about "allowing laws" it makes it sound as
| if we somehow got conned into letting them have these laws."
|
| This is a very Machiavellian and realpolitik take, so please
| keep that in mind. People in a democracy "allow" laws
| whenever they just continue to live normally. Sure, you can
| protest with signs and vote differently in the next election,
| but we know that's not particularly effective at shaking the
| status quo.
|
| What does "not allowing" a law look like? Civil disobedience,
| defiance, harassing politicians, and trying to force change.
| In essence, it's average people and activists using _every
| tool_ at their disposal to force the politicians to act
| differently. We saw plenty of this in 2020.
| bambax wrote:
| Yes the wording is imperfect. I meant "accept", as in, not
| protest until they are repealed. Voting is useless as all
| main political parties typically agree on this.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| I hate to say it, but if what you're communicating could risk
| your life or that of someone else you might want to avoid using
| computers to communicate it altogether.
|
| Old-school techniques such as physically smuggling microdots[1]
| seem much safer than relying on any computer technology, which
| can always be hacked.
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdot
| dogorman wrote:
| If these hacking firms succeed in chasing journalists off
| digital communication, I think the totalitarian regimes they
| serve will consider that "a win."
| pmoriarty wrote:
| It's arguably an even bigger "win" for them if they kill off
| or imprison those journalists.
| buran77 wrote:
| Old-school techniques were hard to pull off even by trained
| spies with a proper (and vast) support network, let alone
| by journalists and John Rando who have never met. If you're
| on a watch list that gets your phone flagged for malware
| then it's not a stretch to assume that you can also be
| physically watched. And meeting in person with journalists
| or sources while being under surveillance is like painting
| a target on your back.
|
| And that's before considering that a journalist would never
| have a realistic chance to meet potential sources under
| repressive regimes on the other side of the world,
| certainly not a useful number.
|
| Computers and encryption made this kind of covert
| communication far more accessible to the laymen. Anything
| that sets that back just deters people from even trying and
| this is exactly the chilling effect those oppressive
| regimes are looking for.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" If you're on a watch list that gets your phone flagged
| for malware then it's not a stretch to assume that you
| can also be physically watched."_
|
| The difference is you need way more resources and funds
| to physically watch and search a lot of people than to
| spy on their computer communications or hack in to their
| phones/laptops.
|
| Mass computer surveillance is practical, easy, and
| affordable.. mass physical surveillance is much harder,
| much more expensive, and impractical to do effectively on
| large populations.
| buran77 wrote:
| > you need way more resources and funds to physically
| watch and search a lot of people [...] Mass computer
| surveillance is practical, easy, and affordable
|
| You're right but old-school methods make everything
| impractical, hard, expensive, and far riskier for both
| the dissident who already has enough reasons to just stay
| quiet, and also for the journalist. They set a _very_
| high bar for succeeding. You 're asking a regular person
| to take the end-to-end role of a Cold War spy _and_ their
| source. And this when having access to sensitive info,
| suspicious purchases like photographic equipment and
| chemicals, trips abroad, or any attempt to contact a
| journalist would individually be enough to put someone on
| a watch list. There are only so many ways to get in
| contact with a journalist and set up meetings that don 't
| involve any electronic communication.
|
| The state can take a lot more than the individual. So the
| question is how many people who have sensitive
| information to share could or would go that route in face
| of this dramatically mounting pressure? Anything that
| raises that bar for doing it is a win for the oppressive
| regime because it makes surveillance that much easier.
| dogorman wrote:
| They're doing that too... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass
| assination_of_Jamal_Khashog...
|
| These firms are helping authoritarian regimes kill and
| imprison journalists. The journalists who survive by being
| paranoid will be made less effective by having to use less
| effective methods of communication, which likely aren't
| understood by the people journalists talk to
| (whistleblowers, witnesses, etc.)
| dillondoyle wrote:
| The articles show that his wife (or whoever was his
| partner idk status) was hacked around the time of his
| murder.
|
| Also reports Mexican journalist was hacked, then executed
| right after at an obscure location. Heavily implies GPS
| tracking was used for the hit.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I think if you sell an exploit and it's used in a crime you
| should be held accountable as if you sold a weapon to an enemy.
| slg wrote:
| Would you want people who develop encryption algorithms held
| accountable if those algorithms are used to hide illegal
| activities?
| DangitBobby wrote:
| We can pick and choose.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Like comparing a gun safe to a gun
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| No
| slg wrote:
| How is it different? They are tools that can be used for
| both legal and illegal means. If you put legal
| responsibility on one toolmaker to ensure their tools are
| not used in an illegal fashion, why wouldn't you do the
| same for other toolmakers?
| zatertip wrote:
| Isn't that obvious?
|
| An exploit is to encryption as a sword is to a shield.
|
| We don't regulate shields.
| Talanes wrote:
| We do regulate body armor though.
| MajorBee wrote:
| I looked into this because I was intrigued, turns out
| convicted felons in the good ol' United States are not
| allowed to purchase/wear/own body armor [1] (barring
| explicit exceptions).
|
| I wonder what the rationale behind this federal law is.
| Does wearing/purchasing armor indicate that you,
| convicted felon, are simply up to no good once again? Is
| it one of those "you don't need ~~privacy~~ armor if you
| don't have anything to hide" things?
|
| [1] https://www.shotstop.net/resources-1/2020/9/8/is-it-
| legal-to...
| slg wrote:
| A shield can inflict damage just like a sword can.
| Encryption hiding the details of a murder plot can be
| just as crucial as an exploit that reveals a murder
| target's location.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| And you will be jailed should you murder someone with a
| shield. But since the primary purpose of a shield is
| defense, it's assumed you will not use it as a blunt
| weapon. Buying a two handed longsword will definitely get
| you on some list, however.
|
| Stop trying to find gotchas. Weapons (read: items whose
| primary goals are to inflict damage, maim, kill, injure,
| destroy) are and should be regulated.
| slg wrote:
| The point of OP's original comment is that it isn't
| enough for the seller to assume that the customers will
| use the product in a legal manner. Once you start holding
| the seller legally liable for use of their product, the
| primary purpose of that product becomes irrelevant. All
| possible uses must now be considered when selling a
| product.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| Journalism is already a profession running on fumes (literally,
| in the past. More metaphorically, today). It's just not
| feasible to do without technology.
|
| People sometimes seem to imagine some world inhibited by
| security-conscious professions that is more akin to a slick
| movie than real life. Witness the common believe that, say,
| blocking websites at DNS levels has zero impact on crime
| because it's easy to circumvent.
|
| Real-life criminals, journalists, or activists prefer Telegram
| over code tattooed on a messenger's scalp for the same reason
| we all do: hair grows too slow and nobody is getting on
| international flights right now. I know it's fun to imagine all
| these activities involving "threat actors" and steganographic
| key exchanges via Pornhub (Alex and Bob getting on?). But that
| road leads to busywork that doesn't get any corrupt
| politician's name on that white page.
| throwaway984393 wrote:
| Does Israel have an entire start-up sector dedicated to spyware
| or something? I feel like I'm reading about these all the time?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Are there U.S. laws NSO Group has violated? If not, how would
| laws define the prohibited activity?
|
| We're at the point of, at the very least, barring NSO Group, its
| employees and its investors from travelling to the U.S., using
| our financial system or keeping assets here. (Which would
| indirectly bar our police departments and agencies from
| contracting with them.)
|
| Financing terrorism is a crime. Aiding and abetting journalistic
| suppression should be in a similar, albeit lower severity,
| category.
| Dah00n wrote:
| >We're at the point of, at the very least, barring NSO Group
|
| I haven't followed the US response to the behaviour of NSO
| Group but _if_ things like you mention have already been done I
| very much doubt it isn 't a smokescreen. The US is arguably the
| biggest user and customer to these kinds of services.
|
| >Financing terrorism is a crime
|
| Yes but if you have the power to define what is and what isn't
| terrorism (or journalistic suppression) then a law is useless.
| Fixing this is beyond the reach of a representative democracy
| and the likes. It needs a full-on direct democracy and enough
| citizens that are against it _or_ a Dictatorship with a
| dictator that is against it. Otherwise any law pretending to be
| against stuff like this are at best a smokescreen or at worst a
| plot to keep it for those in power but out of reach of anyone
| else.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| In at least one of the articles I've read so far they mention
| an American citizen journalist living in the UK whose phone was
| hacked. He was reporting on IMDB and looks like UAE corruption
| was why he got hacked.
|
| So perhaps that's a way in? If not law in civil court? pardon
| my lack of legal jargon/knowledge
|
| "Also listed in the leaked records is a UK phone number
| belonging to the American investigative journalist Bradley
| Hope, who lives in London. At the time of his selection he was
| an employee at the Wall Street Journal."
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/ft-editor-roul...
| penguin_booze wrote:
| Do we know how this software is able to do something that others
| can't; and be very successful, especially being invisible while
| at it?
| cf100clunk wrote:
| Earlier post on this story from a different consortium member:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27874027
| pope_meat wrote:
| That's why I keep it simple. I run things out of a closet with an
| air gaped computer, a single printer, and a gun...in case the
| printer starts acting suspicious.
| drummer wrote:
| > in case the printer starts acting suspicious.
|
| These days that is a very real possibility if you run Windows.
| toyg wrote:
| _> a single printer_
|
| You've already lost, then. Printers' output can be uniquely
| identified.
|
| Nothing should ever be in dead-tree format. If you need to
| carry something that does not need electricity to display text,
| use eInk. Or build your own printer.
| fma wrote:
| So - I guess everyone should use WeChat? Because I'm sure the
| Chinese government wouldn't put up with Israeli software being
| able to capture that data.
| jokoon wrote:
| I'm not even surprised.
|
| Snowden needs to repeat and remind people, over and over, that
| people should just not trust their electronics if they are doing
| sensitive work that somebody powerful elsewhere (government or a
| rich company) might not like.
|
| I'm also curious how whatsapp/facebook will respond to those
| vulns. Hard to really trust them at all, it's really easy to
| imagine a conspiracy theory when intelligence agency negotiate
| inserting backdoors into popular software.
|
| I'm really discouraged from working in computer security, it
| really looks like a shady industry.
| sharikone wrote:
| For politicians in democracies citizens are potential voters,
| foreigners don't matter.
|
| It's still arguably better than dictatorships, where your
| citizens don't matter either, as long as you have a good police
| system.
|
| We act surprised when we notice such things but we shouldn't be,
| it is a mistake to apply the same standards that we, as the lucky
| citizens of "free countries" enjoy, to any other system of power.
|
| From a less cynical point of view, as an Israeli, I am not happy
| at all to see this kind of export products from my country. It is
| in great part because of the conflict. Te SIGINT units are huge
| and among the people who graduate from the army with this kind of
| knowledge you will certainly find many who will turn a blind eye
| to ethics for a huge paycheck. Not to mention that the research
| itself that the defense apparatus needs attracts capitals from
| other countries that will buy some of it and use it for
| unorthodox means. I wish we exported less of these things,
| especially to autocratic countries. I agree it's horrible.
| hashbig wrote:
| > in democracies citizens are potential voters, foreigners
| don't matter
|
| Not long ago, what determined whether you "mattered" or not was
| your religion and belief. We now replaced it with a state
| issued piece of paper and convinced ourselves that this is
| progress.
| golemiprague wrote:
| I don't think it is the job of Israel to decide who is going to
| use it and how. Do we even know what countries are using it
| for? in most cases it is unknown. I find it a bit disingenuous
| that people who got no problem trading with countries like
| China suddenly find one case where some other country misused
| eavesdropping and manage to slap "Israel" in the headline as if
| it is their responsibility and they are the main issue here.
| tosh wrote:
| Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/revealed-
| leak-...
| [deleted]
| halotrope wrote:
| It would be really nice if I could own my phone to the point
| where I could install an outgoing firewall or harden the os to my
| abilities instead of blind trust into the diligent but not
| infallible vendor.
| colordrops wrote:
| https://grapheneos.org/
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| Cat and mouse game. The foundations of computing must be
| completely reworked if we are to ever have any real security.
| Zigurd wrote:
| You have touched on the real problem: Most of our digital
| devices have way too many attack surfaces.
|
| If you can secure a movie from being copied by the owner of
| the device showing the movie, you can hide spyware on that
| device. That's OK for a usb gizmo you plug into your TV,
| but why would supposedly security minded enterprises accept
| that in their computers?
| halotrope wrote:
| Yes but no. Quite frankly I love iOS and my apps and the
| camera etc. The big disappointment is really that there is no
| power user mode for the rest of us. The computer/phone is
| really an extension of the mind at this point and we gave up
| control so easily. It is as if we let corporations lock down
| our pleasure center.
| Krasnol wrote:
| You're a good example though for why it works so well.
| You're not even ready to sacrifice a bit (that bit being
| still disputable) to gain more control over your phone by
| switching the vendor. Meanwhile most people wouldn't even
| get your first desire. We're and have lost already.
| andyxor wrote:
| WaPo? if this is true there must be a better source, otherwise
| fake news
| shever73 wrote:
| I'm currently reading Nicole Pelroth's book "This Is How They
| Tell Me The World Ends", which has a big section on the NSO Group
| and the Pegasus Project. If even part of what she uncovered is
| true, then digital privacy is effectively non-existent.
| ackbar03 wrote:
| Aren't these private hacking companies breaking the law though?
| Does anyone know why no one has sued them or arrested them or
| something? From what I understand in most cases, any attempts to
| reverse engineer or exploit any system is against terms of
| service with the offender held liable. Some teenager who comes up
| with a game hack can be slapped with a massive fine, but these
| hacking companies aren't even breaking the law? How does that
| work?
|
| Cause I think I'm in the wrong game
| squarefoot wrote:
| When you get a government contract in this and similar fields,
| it usually comes with protection against most laws, no matter
| which ones are broken and where (see "Blackwater").
| notdang wrote:
| Why would anyone sue or arrest them? They develop the software,
| they do not break into the phones of journalists.
|
| The article says that the governmental agencies are breaking
| into the phone. These hacking companies just license their
| software to these governmental agencies.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Try to sell ransomware programs and sell support contracts
| and then see what happens.
|
| It is illegal to provide assistance in the commitance of a
| crime even if you're not the one that pulls the trigger.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Does anyone know why no one has sued them or arrested them
| or something?_
|
| Facebook is suing NSO Group and winning, at least on procedural
| grounds [1].
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-nso-cyber-
| idUSKB...
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Rule of law is a joke. If you work for your government and
| don't anger the politicians you can workout sweetheart deals
| that will shield you from the law completely, unless you fall
| out of political favour.
|
| But they are breaking the law. Same as many security agencies.
| It just doesn't matter.
| amelius wrote:
| What if someone with a hacked phone crosses borders and
| enters e.g. the US. Would the Israeli spyware company who
| hacked the phone be liable now?
| sudosysgen wrote:
| In theory it should be, in reality good luck getting any
| damages or penalties.
| dogorman wrote:
| > _Aren 't these private hacking companies breaking the law
| though?_
|
| Like Russia, Israel doesn't seem to give a damn when criminal
| enterprises operating in their borders victimize people in
| other countries. This shit has been going on for years:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Download_Valley
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Gamma Group, Hacking Team and a plethora of other European
| companies were/are in the same business.
| dogorman wrote:
| I brought up Russia to make the point that Israel isn't the
| only country that operates like this. But they _are_ one of
| the countries that does and their reputation for it spans
| decades.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Operate like what?
| dogorman wrote:
| > _" doesn't seem to give a damn when criminal
| enterprises operating in their borders victimize people
| in other countries."_
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Those guys don't care about laws.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Not anymore than a defense contractor is breaking the law.
|
| Their sells are export controlled in a similar manner that arms
| sales are.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| It's easier to go against a Chiuaua, than a dire wolf.
|
| Same with suits.
| ruined wrote:
| nso group is based in israel. suing them for activities
| directed by the israeli state is not likely to be effective.
|
| it would be like trying to sue a ransomware group in russia, or
| a phone company in america.
| azernik wrote:
| In this case it's not directed by the Israeli state; the
| Israeli state just doesn't really care, and doesn't want to
| interfere with the post-army job prospects of intelligence
| personnel.
| mahkeiro wrote:
| No but at least try to make sure that people working for them
| are banned from the international security community. They
| are clearly not working for the good guys (specifically here
| French journalist under surveillance of Morocco spies)
| mromanuk wrote:
| When the customer are certain government agencies, there is the
| law and the law.
| smashah wrote:
| The people who work in these companies should be absolutely
| shunned and black listed from laundering their past by taking up
| a role at any major tech firm.
|
| The people who work at NSO and companies like this are a stain on
| the whole tech industry and are outcasted by their own IOF peers
| for being greedy and morally-lacking.
|
| Absolutely disgusting to think your hands are clean while you
| make tools that directly empower dictators and keep whole regions
| of people subjugated.
| fortran77 wrote:
| There may be another side to this. From NSO's website:
|
| > NSO Group licenses its products only to government intelligence
| and law enforcement agencies for the sole purpose of preventing
| and investigating terror and serious crime. Our vetting process
| goes beyond legal and regulatory requirements to ensure the
| lawful use of our technology as designed.
|
| Also, the company's owner, Novalpina, is not Israeli, though the
| founders and engineers of this particular surveillance product
| are in Israel.
| 71a54xd wrote:
| This is problematic and wrong, however, in today's climate I
| think the term "activist" is applied far too liberally. At times,
| so much that clear enemies of the state could also claim to be
| "activists". Another important distinction is that for
| journalists to be truly objective, most of the time that means
| they can't simultaneously be active as "activists".
|
| Hard to think anyone is surprised that top-tier pay-to-play
| malware is being promulgated by Israeli firms...
| bjourne wrote:
| I know it's not a foolproof solution but perhaps there should be
| a greater focus on ethics in Computer Science curricula? The
| Israeli developers who wrote this software may not even have been
| exposed to the moral and ethical questions writing such software
| ought to raise. Perhaps there should be trade associations for
| developers that calls out software companies that writes immoral
| software?
|
| With great power comes great responsibility, and if you knowingly
| use your great power to write this kind of software you are a
| terrible person, in my opinion.
| heliodor wrote:
| People's ethics are all over the spectrum regardless of career
| path. The root problem is that we need to worry about the
| ethics of our politicians. Overall, they seem like a pretty bad
| bunch!
| saagarjha wrote:
| Politicians aren't the ones writing spyware, though.
| antonzabirko wrote:
| Lol. Sure dude, it's the programmers who are the bad guys, not
| the people funding the israel/palestine war or in this case the
| owners of the company who decide to make software that helps
| assasinate people.
| bjourne wrote:
| The whole Israeli state is morally bankrupt, but that doesn't
| mean that Israeli software developers doesn't have any
| responsibility themselves. Everyone is responsible for their
| own actions and should at least try to act ethically.
|
| I can't say I know where the line is. For example, would it
| be unethical to work for Facebook? I don't know and I don't
| think so. Working for an online casino? In my opinion yes,
| but others would disagree. Writing software that is used by
| authorities to hack activists cell phones? Absolutely! It's
| so far beyond the pale that I can't fathom how anyone could
| defend it.
| detaro wrote:
| Where is parent saying that these other people are not also
| bad guys?
| antonzabirko wrote:
| It doesn't matter. You need to prioritize the issues you
| discuss by their impact: in this case, Israeli government
| oversight of these companies. It's dishonest to misdirect
| away from the real ethical issue which is what the parent
| is doing. He doesn't have to say anything for me to point
| out that it's moving the focus away from the real problem.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| Ethics that is not enforced is a joke. You only need one guy
| not to give a fuck.
| zild3d wrote:
| > The Israeli developers who wrote this software may not even
| have been exposed to the moral and ethical questions writing
| such software ought to raise
|
| Of course they have been exposed to ethical questions for
| writing the software. If you know Israel well, and the famed
| Unit 8200 [0], the initial creation of this type of software is
| definitely built with morals in mind - saving lives is the
| entire impetus.
|
| Lots of security software out of Israel (see CheckPoint, a now
| public company) is first born out of the IDF with the goal of
| fighting terrorism and criminals. I don't see an ethics class
| being the answer here, as this type of cyber & security
| software has certainly saved lives. The issue is what happens
| after this software is developed, with seemingly justified
| reason to exist, and now in the hands of a business growing
| around it.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_8200
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/revealed-
| leak-...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_Point
| bjourne wrote:
| I meant actual ethics - not Israeli hasbara (propaganda).
| Clearly, the perspective that the Israeli Defense Forces is
| the bravest and most moral army in the world and that
| everyone who resists the occupation are evil terrorists is
| not foreign to them! I meant real ethical questions. Do I
| have a responsibility if what I create is used for evil? Is
| "just following orders" a valid defense? Is it right to spy
| on people who haven't committed any crime? Is the life of a
| civilian on the enemy side worth less than the life of a
| civilian on my side?
|
| I'm a software developer so my life is all about identifying
| and fixing bugs. And it is a "bug" and a big problem that
| developers are willing to write software to hack journalists'
| and activists' cell phones. We should fix this bug. More
| ethics education? Shunning developers writing phone hacking
| software? I don't know what the solution is.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Has an ethics class ever stopped someone from accepting a 6
| figure salary?
| saagarjha wrote:
| Yes.
| jonas21 wrote:
| It's also possible that the developers who wrote this software
| are very aware of the ethical questions surrounding it and have
| decided that the benefits to society in combatting crime and
| terrorism outweigh the harms from misuse of the technology.
| While I don't personally agree, I can see how someone could
| hold such an opinion.
|
| One of the things you'll learn in an ethics class is that
| ethical values are heavily influenced by culture and
| circumstance, and there are vast differences in what different
| groups of people believe is ethical and not.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| How are they different to the Italian developers that worked on
| Da Vinci/Galileo or the British and German developers that
| worked on FinFisher?
|
| Plenty of people work on products that may be immoral in some
| application or frame of reference.
|
| Developing technologies that facilitate the predatory practices
| for social media networks, ad targeting, gaming/gambling and
| plenty of other shit.
|
| And this goes beyond tech I don't think that the 40 something
| machinist that works at Glock in Austria or the 23 year old EE
| engineer that works on imagines sensors for BAE in the UK some
| loses sleep at night because a handgun or some guided bomb
| somewhere killed someone.
| Magodo wrote:
| Apologies for commenting before reading the article. But I'm
| curious what the sales process is for spyware. I understand the
| underground groups do all their stuff anonymously, but what sales
| ops do legitimate companies like NSO Group practice? Do they have
| sales targets/quotas? Do they vet their clients? What channels do
| they sell through?
| thefounder wrote:
| Usually for profit companies are looking to boost profits and
| work near the legal limit if that means bigger returns.
|
| This happens in finance, tech, food, pharma and pretty much all
| the industries that have a "legal" risk due regulation.
|
| If breaking the law means a fine that sometimes is less than
| the profit then you can imagine that the incentive is to break
| the law.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Similar channels as any other arms manufacturer or defense
| contractor, as far as Israel goes they are regulated in the
| same manner by the same agency DECA.
|
| They likely do not sell to anyone or for any reason that does
| not contribute to Israel's foreign policy in some way or
| another.
| SpywareThrow wrote:
| First Hollywood, then media, then computers, now this.
|
| Not surprised in the least.
| csmpltn wrote:
| @dang?
| saagarjha wrote:
| Just flag the post or email hn@ycombinator.com
| teslaberry wrote:
| there are no rules in love and war and hacking.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-18 23:00 UTC)