Why would they cancel accounts without knowledge of wrongdoing?
I’m not saying that they don’t have that knowledge, and I really don’t mean to offend or be rude, but if the US government asks something of you, you tend to comply wether it’s reasonable or not.
I think it’s naive to think of ourselves as living in a just world. Post 9/11 the CIA abducted European citizens with the knowledge of our governments. In more recent years, here in Denmark we had a rather huge scandal when it was revealed that changing governments had allowed American intelligence services direct access to the backbone of our national internet. The list goes on.
Its of course unfortunate, but the world we live in is basically a huge turd of authoritarian bullshit where the users and customers have no actual enforceable rights.
I mean, even on a much smaller and much more harmless scale, just consider how many times you’ve read about someone losing their Google account here on HN.
The US military entered a foreign nation without their knowledge or authorization, abducted a resident, took the resident out to sea, placed a bag over their heads, put concrete shoes on that resident, and then dumped them overboard with no witnesses other than the "Seal Team" carrying out the order.
No trial. No witnesses. Only abduction, seclusion, and murder.
That's not justice. Those are Mafia Tactics. ___
Does this remind anyone of anything? A Mr. Al. A Mr. Al Capone perhaps? That's right. One of the world's most infamous gangsters, mobsters, crimelords, did this very thing to individuals that Capone didn't want talking to the press, the government, or anyone else that would listen.
This is mob-boss behavior, and the US Government does this now.
Oh, how about the unlawful imprisonment of 100s of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba?
Secret courts, whose authority is far-reaching with no citizen oversight whatsoever.
Yeah the US Federal Government, since 9-11, is a bunch of mobsters with guns. There is no difference in the way our Federal Government acts now, and how 1920s and 1930s mobsters act.
Any human being that doesn't recognize the similarity is deluding themselves into believing so.
Comparing that speific case to failure to follow proper criminal procedure and rule of law is disengenuous to the extreme. There are many criticisms which can be made of the US response to (and other actions after) the 9/11 attacks. The assassination of the leader of the irregular forces aligned against the US is not one such. Numerous other instances would have made for a vastly stronger argument.
The fact is that there is no clear dividing line between acts of war and criminal acts --- recognised among other ways in the phrase "war crimes" itself (which might be applied both by, and against, the United States).
The situation in Guantanamo is far more valid.
The case of drone warfare and strikes another instance.
It's worth noting that the US is hardly alone in these tactics, and that irregular and extrajudicial killings are in fact a major element of the considerations in the case of Al Qaeda, at least some of the Guantanamo detainees, and drone strikes.
The real world is messy.
That said, I'd disagree with your conclusion on lack of difference, moralising, invective, and hyperbole notwithstanding.
Since when do individuals wage "war" on nation-states?
(And no, if the only counter-examples you can come up with are 18th-century pirate chiefs and tiny Carribbean islands you've failed. We're talking 21st-century USA here.)
> Comparing that speific case
Which "specific" case? The GP mentioned hundreds of Gitmo prisoners, several of which have later been shown to be completely innocent victims of mistaken identity.
> to failure to follow proper criminal procedure and rule of law is disengenuous to the extreme.
If anything is "disengenuous to the extreme" here it seems to be your defense of the USA's recent practices.
Decapitating a specific cult of personality has been an effective method of eliminating it. Which also proved successful in the case of AQ.
(Yes, there are new emergent threats and groups, including several previously associated with AQ. I also said that the real world is messy.)
The specific case I was discussing, and I really hope I'm not so vague in my dotage that this wasn't crystal clear, was the 2 May 2011 attack on Osama bin Laden's compound resulting in his death.
What I defended was a specific instance, while acknowledging concerns and issues in other areas. Both you and imbchillyb are displaying a lack of such naunce. The US is vast and contains multitudes, some defensible, some not. It cares little for what I have to say.
Refreshing your memory: https://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/8257/
obLRPD: Powered by sporks.
Nope, certainly not crystal clear: You were replying to a post that mentioned, among other things, the Guantanamo internment camp, and airily said "this" case. I saw no specification there of which case, exactly, that was supposed to be.
Yes, the USA may be vast and contain multitudes, but even you talk about "the US": In the end there is only one of it, and when the USA as a nation-state does stuff then it's the USA, singular, as a nation-state that gets discussed and criticized. Just like here. I hope I'll never get so fuzzy in my dotage that I'll let sich disingenuous attempts at obfuscation slip by.
Hm... Pseudo-helpful hint/ reminder; feels like about 50/50 past and current posters. I'd already concluded neither extreme of Box or Ash, for rather obvious linguistic reasons. Been considering alumni like RM, DRL, KMS et al, but this feels more like currents such as RC, SK, or SA. Or perhaps AG; I notice that his recipe -- besides the formal declaration being severely watered down -- was pretty much what the US (singular, as a nation-state) went with.
I don't have your email; you have mine.
I may not have communicated effectively. And in discussion with you it seems I'll never be able to.
But I know what I intended to communicate, and have stated what that is, repeatedly.
You seem bent on steering the conversation to what you wanted to hear me say. Which seems to be a premise founded on precisely the weak foundation you criticise me for.
Really, we're done here, Christian.
But yeah: As long as you think you get to define what the conversation is about by what you "were referring to", yes Doug, we're done here.
So, it was difficult to finish your comment.
Other active entities include the Islamic State (ISIL / Daesh), and various organisations largely funded / supported and/or organised around Iranian, Syrian, and Palastinian interests.
Please note that this is not an area of personal expertise.
Actual "formally", or "formerly" (or both)?
That said, this is among the weaker rebuttals which could be offered. (See my own response in thread.)
- not have any indication their tools were used
- canceled the relevant accounts
Which "relevant" accounts if NSO's tools weren't used?
- When questioned about a specific malevolent client misusing their data, they cannot be held accountable because the client is running the ops and NSO has no access.
- When asked how they ensure that clients in general don't go rogue and misuse (i.e. human rights & international law abuse) their service, they assure you they monitor them and turn off their access.
NSO is very popular with governments that don't have robust domestic intelligence because all you have to do is type a phone number into a web form and in anywhere from an hour to a week you get a point and click GUI for accessing the contents of the phone.
You have a source for this? I genuinely want to know if they make it that simple
Should all come out in the Apple lawsuit though.
Edit: Rereading the NSO statement they said they blocked exploitation of numbers starting with +1. Take that to mean whatever you'd like.
FWIW "international law" is its own thing and doesn't work like normal law; in truth every nation by default "rules over international law". When was the last time you saw an "international law" trial or saw a nation punished?
Mid-to-late 1990s, den Haag, Serbia?
NSO sells only to governments and law enforcement agencies.
Therefore, the relevant client would be the Ugandan government.
Oh man, for purely comical purposes I would love to see NSO actually believe that.
> hundred billions or so dollars ... every year
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-military-aid-does-the...
The US and Israel are in bed together for better or worse. It's actually really embarrassing that Israel has allowed NSO Group to operate at this level, and influential US politicians could destroy NSO Group in a heartbeat if they actually wanted to.
its closer to 3%
Again the US provides comparable military aid to Egypt and Pakistan too.. NSO is not the Israeli government
Well that, and the hamburger vendor buys a big house in the DC metro area. And everybody else's ticket prices go up a little.
But still, draw a control volume, and it's just hamburgers flowing out.
The next step isn't to blow them up, the next step is to sue them.
I just assume the IDF and Shin Bet would like to be the only ones who blow up civilians in Israel, but I can't think of a single reason why the Israeli government would oppose an extradition request if they were presented with evidence of cyber-whatever.
Because they want to foster such companies, and not deter people from founding them by showing them that they will be extradited to the US?
If that's true (which would be disappointing when you consider what "such companies" means in context) I assume the Israeli government already have "entrepreneurs" ready to jump into that market if they haven't already. "Showing them that they will be extradited to the US" if they fuck up in a conspicuous and public manner that is problematical for Israel and her allies might be considered a win by everyone involved except the NSO executives involved.
Of course, politics is complicated and NSO might have powerful friends in government. Or the Israeli government might be complicit in some ways that they really don't want to become known. So who the hell knows?
If an American company would get caught doing the similar, would US allow extradition request of those people to some other country?
This is what extradition treaties are for. The specific laws involved and the evidence matter a lot.
Except the really obvious detail that most normal countries won’t extradite their citizens? Israel loosened up their laws on this a bit after the Sheinbein affair, but extraditing resident-citizens remains a rather unlikely prospect.
I can’t even guess why you’d believe that. Participating in extradition treaties is the norm, not the exception.
Well I hope you're right, but I don't think you are.
No, but I think the US intelligence agencies are fully aware of where they're hiding the iceberg and could destroy it before it rises to the surface.
I mean, they are a very skilled set of engineers. You seem to grant them being able to hold onto very powerful secrets and use them for active blackmail. You even believe they've been operating actively against the US government for several years.
If they can do all that, then replacing the sitting US president with a very convincing android isn't much harder! It is just as likely as the situation you propose.
What I cannot believe is you dismiss concern over ongoing security risks, however exagerated, by suggesting a head of state might have been replaced by an android. Please don't troll.
How about this senerio though.
I heard our President yak about his accomplishments this morning. I was half asleep, but felt his voice sounded different. I thought maybe just hoarse, or I was wrong about his voice.
I was thinking about his appearance. I don't know if I would recognize him if he walked up to me on the street without the suit.
Ok the Hollywood script.
Joe biden goes into a hospital. He only wants certain Secret Service personnel around.
His boy, and wife, are tragically killed in a plane accident.
Joe decides he needs grieving time.
The year before all this happens the NSO finds a lookalike Joe Biden, and performs all the necessary surgery.
A few more weeks pass, and the switch is performed. The real Joe is gone. The fake one is in power.
Then China, or Russia, have control.
(I guess if there was suspicion--the FBI could perform a dna test though? I think someone did this in a movie.)
Not all but do you really believe that the NSO group wont have some blackmail material on at least some US politicians?
There was a recent Darknet Diaries episode that reported evidence that at least some of the NSO tools are hosted services.
Pegasus is only as good as its 0days are secret
Heck, forget about bothering to extract 0-days; if you have access to the binary, straight-up warez techniques would be applied to nerf any restrictions (licensing or otherwise) on the operation of the software, as well as any monitoring functionality that can "phone home".
If a state sponsored party really wants to find these zero days I'm sure they can. I would imagine that this is more like what happened with EternalBlue: it's something they know but don't report because it's useful to them too.
Also in other stories they have claimed they do not track who does what.
I mean, they could also be lying, but its also pretty standard business practise to not work with people who bring your reputation into disrepute. For example, consider how hard it was for parler to get hosting.