Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2OEH8eoCRo0 | Hacker News Reader

Interesting use of language on your part as well- what makes the NSO Group spyware illegal?

Aren’t its primary methods of deployment and utilization widely considered to violate domestic and international laws for unauthorized access to targets’ devices and/or data? I might be mistaken, I don’t know for sure how common such statutes are outside of the US, but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal in the United States, even for law enforcement (the likely unconstitutional extrajudicial activities of some unnamed alphabet agencies notwithstanding). If nothing else, there are documented cases where it’s been used to spy on journalists and activists in Saudi Arabia, including the widow of the assassinated American journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The DMCA, in the US. Other statutes in other markets. Hacking computers is pretty prima facie criminal everywhere. It's true that there are inter-jurisdictional edge cases (cracking an iPhone in India via an attack from Israel probably isn't illegal in the USA,etc...) which allows NSO to operate more freely than we'd like. But no one seriously claims this is legal activity anywhere in particular, just that we can't catch them.

Basically the distinction is one of law enforcement authority, not legality.

The point I'm hearing in the parent post is more like that many of the state actors using such attacks against domestic targets actually may be legally allowed to do so, if they have passed laws which permit their own security services to use such software on their residents' phones.

Even in USA that likely could be legal with an appropriate court warrant, and many other countries have more permissive constitutions.

> Even in USA that likely could be legal with an appropriate court warrant

Can you expand upon this? I'm not particularly familiar but it doesn't seem right. Obviously LEO agencies are allowed to subpoena private information, but can they legally use exploits with a warrant? Are there recorded examples of this?

[Based on your reference to warrants, I guess I'm excluding the NSA or other supposed state-level spy agencies that supposedly secretively deploy such tactics]

I'm not a lawyer and the proper answer is likely state-dependent, but why not?

It's well established that with an appropriate warrant, LEO have always been able to come into your house without telling you and add hidden surveillance bugs to listen on your communications; they have always been allowed to physically modify or replace your phone (e.g. physical phone wiretaps a century ago); Electronic Communications Privacy Act reasserts that this applies also to electronic surveillance and digital communications; so (as a non-expert) I don't really see why that wouldn't apply to smartphone exploits as well. We do see exploits being applied to devices in LEO possession (e.g. https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/14/22383957/fbi-san-bernadin... for one random example) to recover evidence.

The main restriction is the constitutional limits of 4th amendment which requires specific warrants for each case - which is a significant practical obstacle, so the circumstances in which warrantless wiretapping is permitted (e.g. by PATRIOT act) is a contentious issue; however, it's not relevant if a proper warrant is obtained.

The CFAA is the broadest and most relevant US statute regarding computer hacking. But yes, international computer hackers typically operate outside of the jurisdictional reach of their targets.

NSO Group is sanctioned, so buying their spyware is probably illegal if you're an American. Furthermore, several tech companies have sued or are in the process of suing NSO Group for their hacking operations. Expect those lawsuits to involve every HN user's two least favorite laws: DMCA 1201 and CFAA.

ironically, DMCA does.

I would describe this spyware's "illegal" status as colloquially true - despite the lack of a comprehensive, international, enforceable legal framework - at least in the USA [0]:

> As part of this effort, the End-User Review Committee of the BIS decided to add four foreign entities, among them two Israeli companies, NSO Group and Candiru, to the Entity List. The U.S. Export Administration Regulations (‘EAR’) impose additional license requirements for exports to listed entities, and limits the exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers to such entities.

But they continue:

> The existing international and national frameworks regulating the export of sensitive spyware technologies lack the teeth necessary to deal with contemporary issues relating to the abuse of these technologies and the growing need for their enhanced supervision.

[0]: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/ctbl/blog/managing-risky-busi...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com