6 ms·

"But privacy and rights activists worry such powerful technology can wind up in the wrong hands, leading to abuses." Am I to believe that this firm is the righ

"But privacy and rights activists worry such powerful technology can wind up in the wrong hands, leading to abuses." Am I to believe that this firm is the right hands? Or government? Please...all hands are the wrong hands. These vulnerabilities need to be closed. I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA or some other government tentacle was paying them not to make whatever they found known. Gee, I sound paranoid. What am I thinking, our government would never do that. Oh wait... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-rsa-idUSBRE9BJ1C220131220 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-rsa-idUSBRE9B...

flipp3r 10y ago
Actually Cellebrite themselves have been victim of some kind of hack last month and had a load of their internal documents leaked online. So no, if any, this firm is _not_ the right hands.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Any place which hoards 0-days is a prime target. Even if they are considered to be the "right hands", the "wrong hands" could grab those exploits eventually.
  - AtheistOfFail 10y ago
    When the target holds a lot of $1 million dollar 0-day exploits, the target is worth hacking into.
- sjwright 10y ago
  The only "right hands" for a 0-day exploit is the device manufacturer.
  - benchaney 10y ago
    And even then, only some manufacturers.
user5994461 10y ago
> I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA or some other government tentacle was paying them not to make whatever they found known. It looks like your are unsure, so let me clarify. There really are companies whose only business is to find and sell vulnerabilities to states. (Whether it's exclusive is just a matter of negotiations).
- superflyguy 10y ago
  Most US "charity" ends up in Israel too. Best to think of them as if they were an entirely US-funded university you then have to pay to use the services of.
wahsd 10y ago
You highlight a kind of social disconnect among a segment of the population that are kind of eternal liberal optimist loyalists that have no problem trusting their parent, the government with any and all sorts of individual rights. It is precisely why some people simply cannot look through or past the notion that the government could somehow not be a benevolent parent that only has our best interest in mind and are thereby more than willing to cede all sorts of responsibilities and rights. It is the frame of mind behind many different dualistic issues like gun rights, state's rights vs strong central power consolidation, immigration, education, etc.
- Steko 10y ago
  People don't favor gun control because they're eternal optimists about the government's benevolence, that is a ridiculous straw man. Generally people favor gun control because -- to use the same language -- they are not eternal optimists about the benevolence of their fellow citizens who sometimes murder large groups of innocents.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    If they bothered to crack a history book, of course, they'd come to understand that on a long-enough timeline, they're most likely to be shot by their own government, military, or police forces. But of course, That Can't Happen Here, because We're Special. (How many times have you heard that schtick lately?) After that, the person most likely to shoot you is a fellow criminal that you're either associated with or competing with, such as a rival gang member. Then comes suicide and firearm-related accidents. Everything else is just so much statistical noise. Meanwhile, the American left's inexplicable insistence on gun control as a key platform element continues to cost them elections they otherwise could have won handily.
    - andrepd 10y ago
      I don't even know where to start. Do you have any sources on your first claim? Or on your other claims? Also, gun control costs elections that would otherwise be won handily? With so much going on on this last election, do you think the barely discussed topic of gun control was the single most important topic to blame for an election that could otherwise have been won, and won handily? Would you have Hillary be against gun control, offering the majority of people that favour it no major candidate reflecting their beliefs?

flipp3r 10y ago

Actually Cellebrite themselves have been victim of some kind of hack last month and had a load of their internal documents leaked online. So no, if any, this firm is _not_ the right hands.

rdtsc 10y ago
Any place which hoards 0-days is a prime target. Even if they are considered to be the "right hands", the "wrong hands" could grab those exploits eventually.
- AtheistOfFail 10y ago
  When the target holds a lot of $1 million dollar 0-day exploits, the target is worth hacking into.
sjwright 10y ago
The only "right hands" for a 0-day exploit is the device manufacturer.
- benchaney 10y ago
  And even then, only some manufacturers.

user5994461 10y ago

> I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA or some other government tentacle was paying them not to make whatever they found known. It looks like your are unsure, so let me clarify. There really are companies whose only business is to find and sell vulnerabilities to states. (Whether it's exclusive is just a matter of negotiations).

superflyguy 10y ago
Most US "charity" ends up in Israel too. Best to think of them as if they were an entirely US-funded university you then have to pay to use the services of.

wahsd 10y ago

You highlight a kind of social disconnect among a segment of the population that are kind of eternal liberal optimist loyalists that have no problem trusting their parent, the government with any and all sorts of individual rights. It is precisely why some people simply cannot look through or past the notion that the government could somehow not be a benevolent parent that only has our best interest in mind and are thereby more than willing to cede all sorts of responsibilities and rights. It is the frame of mind behind many different dualistic issues like gun rights, state's rights vs strong central power consolidation, immigration, education, etc.

Steko 10y ago
People don't favor gun control because they're eternal optimists about the government's benevolence, that is a ridiculous straw man. Generally people favor gun control because -- to use the same language -- they are not eternal optimists about the benevolence of their fellow citizens who sometimes murder large groups of innocents.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  If they bothered to crack a history book, of course, they'd come to understand that on a long-enough timeline, they're most likely to be shot by their own government, military, or police forces. But of course, That Can't Happen Here, because We're Special. (How many times have you heard that schtick lately?) After that, the person most likely to shoot you is a fellow criminal that you're either associated with or competing with, such as a rival gang member. Then comes suicide and firearm-related accidents. Everything else is just so much statistical noise. Meanwhile, the American left's inexplicable insistence on gun control as a key platform element continues to cost them elections they otherwise could have won handily.
  - andrepd 10y ago
    I don't even know where to start. Do you have any sources on your first claim? Or on your other claims? Also, gun control costs elections that would otherwise be won handily? With so much going on on this last election, do you think the barely discussed topic of gun control was the single most important topic to blame for an election that could otherwise have been won, and won handily? Would you have Hillary be against gun control, offering the majority of people that favour it no major candidate reflecting their beliefs?