An interesting tactic but I question how effective it will be. I don’t see where the suit was filed, but if it was in California, all NSO has to do is keep their operations offshore and there’s no way to enforce it.
I do expect the battle of the press to heat up. Apple is going after NSO for enabling spying on journalists, activists, and private citizens. Expect a blizzard of reports about how Apple is trying to protect criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, and pedos. It’ll come both from NSO and from the legion of Apple Haters out there.
Apple, and the U.S. are going after the wrong people:
If this had happened in almost any other country we would be going after that country for harboring and sponsoring cyber crime and cyber criminals.
But, we protect Israel regardless of how many they murder, how much they promote war in the middle east -- and how much cyber crime they sponsor. Sponsoring and protecting that country is a bit like housing a Pitt Bull: Yes, they'll protect you if somebody comes after you -- but they'll also attack you and your kids.
We invaded and occupied Afghanistan for 20 years to supposedly suppress terrorists -- while cyber terrorists were flourishing in Israel.
We need to apply the same rule of law equally to everybody -- regardless of their politics, skin color, religion or form of government.
This has been a long time coming. Although I fear once all the players have been unmasked you’re going to see who Is behind NSO and it could affect the US/Israeli relationship.
Way back in 2016 I reposted an article here that detailed where this came from and how easy it is to do a remote jailbreak just from a hidden URL. It took months of work, but the author of the article described how other hackers were able to deduce how the exploit worked and when they contacted Apple about it, Apple was skeptical until they were able to show a live jailbreak and deployment of the malicious code. Apple was then convinced and very concerned about how this would affect their image of being secure.
So what started out as a tool to monitor groups like Hamas and Fatah ended up being used by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other countries where the governments were trying to be dismantled by the Arab Spring.
Good for Apple, but unless NSO was violating copyright or parents or Apple’s licensing agreements, they might not have a case (unfortunately).
Nonsense. Apple is alleging NSO’s software has damaged Apple customers. It has nothing to do with copyright or patents.
Obviously they did harm Apple customers through cyber crime. I think his underlying point was: They didn't violate any laws. (Perhaps they did -- but certainly no common, obvious ones. We've had laws against peeping at somebody through their window but not through their laptop's camera.)
Another aspect is: We knew this was going on for years but we did nothing to stop it or oppose it -- probably because they claimed they would only spy on so called "Bad Guys". But, the definition of "Bad Guy" is pretty relative: Each morning I check out MSNBC before checking out "FauxNews" -- they seem to have opposing opinions over who the "bad guys" are.
An interesting tactic but I question how effective it will be. I don’t see where the suit was filed, but if it was in California, all NSO has to do is keep their operations offshore and there’s no way to enforce it.
I do expect the battle of the press to heat up. Apple is going after NSO for enabling spying on journalists, activists, and private citizens. Expect a blizzard of reports about how Apple is trying to protect criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, and pedos. It’ll come both from NSO and from the legion of Apple Haters out there.
Disagree.
NSO hasn’t been used yet (to my knowledge) to actually catch criminals. It’s being used by oppressive governments to track journalists or other “dissenters”.
The very nature of their exploits (expensive zero days) means they are only used on a small handful of highly valuable targets. This might also go against Apple in their lawsuit as NSO could claim 99.999% of Apple users have nothing to worry about.
And you know it for fact? What agency do you work for so you know that much?
What he claimed has been public knowledge for years.
An interesting tactic but I question how effective it will be. I don’t see where the suit was filed, but if it was in California, all NSO has to do is keep their operations offshore and there’s no way to enforce it.
I do expect the battle of the press to heat up. Apple is going after NSO for enabling spying on journalists, activists, and private citizens. Expect a blizzard of reports about how Apple is trying to protect criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, and pedos. It’ll come both from NSO and from the legion of Apple Haters out there.
Disagree.
NSO hasn’t been used yet (to my knowledge) to actually catch criminals. It’s being used by oppressive governments to track journalists or other “dissenters”.
The very nature of their exploits (expensive zero days) means they are only used on a small handful of highly valuable targets. This might also go against Apple in their lawsuit as NSO could claim 99.999% of Apple users have nothing to worry about.
I agree completely, NSO hasn't helped to catch a single bad guy, it seems they only sell to repressive regimes. But I fully expect them to use this kind of bs in the press as a tactic. To try and cover and draw attention away from their deeds. Pitch it as a "That giant evil corporation os picking on this little startup that's just trying to help law enforcement". The mainstream press, whose familiarity with Tech is limited to not knowing how to work Outlook, will eat it up.
But they have claimed for years that they only sell to the "Good Guys" -- the ones wearing the white hats.
Good for Apple, but unless NSO was violating copyright or parents or Apple’s licensing agreements, they might not have a case (unfortunately).
Nonsense. Apple is alleging NSO’s software has damaged Apple customers. It has nothing to do with copyright or patents.
If the customers have been harmed but not Apple then the courts will likely dismiss the suit for lack of standing. Apple needs to show that they themselves were harmed.
I wish Apple luck in this, but I agree with the others in that I don't think it will be very successful. Their best defense is good offense patching the zero day exploits.
Perhaps not. At least in Texas these days anybody can sue anybody over abortion. A complete stranger with no connection to anything can sue a complete stranger for doing something they disapprove of.
An interesting tactic but I question how effective it will be. I don’t see where the suit was filed, but if it was in California, all NSO has to do is keep their operations offshore and there’s no way to enforce it.
I do expect the battle of the press to heat up. Apple is going after NSO for enabling spying on journalists, activists, and private citizens. Expect a blizzard of reports about how Apple is trying to protect criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, and pedos. It’ll come both from NSO and from the legion of Apple Haters out there.
Disagree.
NSO hasn’t been used yet (to my knowledge) to actually catch criminals. It’s being used by oppressive governments to track journalists or other “dissenters”.
The very nature of their exploits (expensive zero days) means they are only used on a small handful of highly valuable targets. This might also go against Apple in their lawsuit as NSO could claim 99.999% of Apple users have nothing to worry about.
And you know this how? Haven't we had articles about police use of this tool? I would expect that most of their customers are police/law enforcement agencies... There is not enough money from despots for a publicly facing company of any reasonable size to do enough business (I didn't say "public company" in the legal sense). We just hear about the use and mis-use by the despots and their ilk. You don't hear about the mundane use of these tools to crack organized crime, pedophile rings, traffickers, drug cartels, terrorist related criminals, etc.
And so it begins.
Statements of assumed fact.
Nothing against Apple or excusing the company (or the opposite).
(Personally I take the "libertarian" route. Apple puts out software, and other companies are free to try and exploit it. Apple needs to be quicker at reacting and put out less buggy software. But governments etc have no right or expectation that Apple will make their job easier with hidden (or not so hidden) backdoors, special versions, etc. I applaud Apple for saying NO so far. Make people work to find and exploit issues.)
I don't think Apple has (or should have) much of a case (looking at a high level -- I am not a lawyer or law scholar). Not because of any "virtuous use" of such tools excusing it but because Apple puts stuff out there to the world and they should expect it to be abused and exploited and need to do better at putting out fewer bugs and fixing those that do get out more quickly.
(And in general, if you looked at my posting history, I tend to be on "Apple's side' more often than not -- I probably fall into what detractors would call the "fan boy" camp).
Good for Apple, but unless NSO was violating copyright or parents or Apple’s licensing agreements, they might not have a case (unfortunately).
Nonsense. Apple is alleging NSO’s software has damaged Apple customers. It has nothing to do with copyright or patents.
If the customers have been harmed but not Apple then the courts will likely dismiss the suit for lack of standing. Apple needs to show that they themselves were harmed.
I wish Apple luck in this, but I agree with the others in that I don't think it will be very successful. Their best defense is good offense patching the zero day exploits.
Harm to Apple’s customers damages the reputation and therefore sales of Apple devices. Ergo Apple is harmed.
I'm not a lawyer, but arguing vicarious harm hasn't been accepted in the past. We'll see what the courts say.
I wonder if Apple has a case. Rather than trying to sue, they should plug the security holes that keeps making this company successful in their activities.
Better yet, Apple keep quiet and make sure they are getting the latest update to the software so they can see what it is doing and patch the holes.
Comments
was skeptical until they were able to show a live jailbreak and deployment of the malicious code. Apple was then convinced and very concerned about how this would affect their image of being secure.
What he claimed has been public knowledge for years.
But they have claimed for years that they only sell to the "Good Guys" -- the ones wearing the white hats.
Nothing against Apple or excusing the company (or the opposite).
(Personally I take the "libertarian" route. Apple puts out software, and other companies are free to try and exploit it. Apple needs to be quicker at reacting and put out less buggy software. But governments etc have no right or expectation that Apple will make their job easier with hidden (or not so hidden) backdoors, special versions, etc. I applaud Apple for saying NO so far. Make people work to find and exploit issues.)
I don't think Apple has (or should have) much of a case (looking at a high level -- I am not a lawyer or law scholar). Not because of any "virtuous use" of such tools excusing it but because Apple puts stuff out there to the world and they should expect it to be abused and exploited and need to do better at putting out fewer bugs and fixing those that do get out more quickly.
(And in general, if you looked at my posting history, I tend to be on "Apple's side' more often than not -- I probably fall into what detractors would call the "fan boy" camp).