4 ms·

I don’t like NSO or what they do, but I don’t think I’m comfortable with the idea that there is legal liability here. I wonder how much of that hinges on the f

I don’t like NSO or what they do, but I don’t think I’m comfortable with the idea that there is legal liability here. I wonder how much of that hinges on the fact that the messages had to transit WhatsApp servers, even if they didn’t actually hack any WhatsApp infrastructure. By that same logic, it seems like an SMS exploit targeting a handset could make you liable to AT&T as well.

alasdair_ 7y ago
> By that same logic, it seems like an SMS exploit targeting a handset could make you liable to AT&T as well. This seems fine to me. Take a different common carrier like the US post office - using the mail to carry out a crime can lead to the additional (and oft-prosecuted) additional crime of mail fraud.
qtplatypus 7y ago
I am not sure that I am uncomfortable with that. If you are using AT&T's network to commit abuse then you are disrupting the usefulness of that network. I think that the equivalent would be if you committed fraud using the postal system the postal service being able to take legal action against you.
- mcny 7y ago
  I'm very uncomfortable with the criminal aspects of cfaa (US government vs Joe Small Man) but I think I'm ok with civil cases as long as we agree that we are not into boats.
  - qtplatypus 7y ago
    True. Though I can see some situations where the criminal aspects would be acceptable. Such as a case where hacking was the proximate cause of catastrophic harm (like a criminal using an insecure industrial control system to crash a power grid). I am almost willing to support criminal aspects in this case. Extrajudicial killing was a predictable result in giving these tools to repressive governments.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
> By that same logic, it seems like an SMS exploit targeting a handset could make you liable to AT&T as well. Exploiting SMS destroys the trust custumers place in the messaging system. This causes damage to all telecommunication services.

alasdair_ 7y ago

> By that same logic, it seems like an SMS exploit targeting a handset could make you liable to AT&T as well. This seems fine to me. Take a different common carrier like the US post office - using the mail to carry out a crime can lead to the additional (and oft-prosecuted) additional crime of mail fraud.

qtplatypus 7y ago

I am not sure that I am uncomfortable with that. If you are using AT&T's network to commit abuse then you are disrupting the usefulness of that network. I think that the equivalent would be if you committed fraud using the postal system the postal service being able to take legal action against you.

mcny 7y ago
I'm very uncomfortable with the criminal aspects of cfaa (US government vs Joe Small Man) but I think I'm ok with civil cases as long as we agree that we are not into boats.
- qtplatypus 7y ago
  True. Though I can see some situations where the criminal aspects would be acceptable. Such as a case where hacking was the proximate cause of catastrophic harm (like a criminal using an insecure industrial control system to crash a power grid). I am almost willing to support criminal aspects in this case. Extrajudicial killing was a predictable result in giving these tools to repressive governments.

matheusmoreira 7y ago

> By that same logic, it seems like an SMS exploit targeting a handset could make you liable to AT&T as well. Exploiting SMS destroys the trust custumers place in the messaging system. This causes damage to all telecommunication services.