3 ms·
NSO sells tools that when used violate the CFAA act. It is an Israeli company but a majority share was bought by a San Francisco based VC [0]. It doesn't seem l
by guelo 10y ago
NSO sells tools that when used violate the CFAA act. It is an Israeli company but a majority share was bought by a San Francisco based VC [0]. It doesn't seem like it should be legally allowed to exist as an American owned company. Maybe Ahmed Mansoor could sue the VC in American courts.
[0] http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2014/03/19/francisco-partners-acuires-israeli-intelligence-cyber-tracking-developer-start-up-nso-for-120-million/ http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2014/03/19/francisco-partners-...
- lostlogin 10y agoA little off topic, but that link has such an obnoxious share-tab-nubbin-thingy on the side of the page.
- cloudjacker 10y agoa) Selling tools itself doesn't violate the CFAA act. A separate entity uses the tools and assumes that liability, which as we see is mitigated by sovereign immunity. b) And even if selling tools began to violate CFAA, then NSO itself would be sued. As it is a separate entity than the investors, which is the whole point of limited liability....
- darkarmani 10y agoIf you can tie the tool to any circumvention of copyright protections -- pretty broad argument (DMCA), you can be sued or arrested.
- cloudjacker 10y agoand then you lean on USC Title 17 Chapter 12 § 1201 (f) : the interoperability with other software defense, broad argument.
- guelo 10y agoThat makes more sense then my idea. But it would have to be Apple that brought the suit.