5 ms·

They didn't just whine, they sued Facebook in Israeli court (and won). Facebook was forced to reinstate their accounts: https://www.cyberscoop.com/facebook-nso-

by goatsi 6y ago

They didn't just whine, they sued Facebook in Israeli court (and won). Facebook was forced to reinstate their accounts: https://www.cyberscoop.com/facebook-nso-group-accounts-reinstate-lawsuit-whatsapp/ https://www.cyberscoop.com/facebook-nso-group-accounts-reins...

ketamine__ 6y ago
Wow, I didn't know that. What an illegitimate court system. Facebook should be able to choose who can and can't use their platform. Facebook will probably have better luck with lawsuits in the US.
DSingularity 6y ago
If Facebook was sincere, they could have held their ground. The Israeli government would then have to decide whether it was willing to ban a platform so widely used in their country or to simply fine them. Instead, FB decided to comply. Just a bunch of dead brown people — who cares?
- slavak 6y ago
  The Israeli government has absolutely no say in how any of this plays out, that is the entire point of an independent judiciary. The lawsuit and sanctions are decided by the courts based on existing laws and precedent, and for them Facebook's size or position in the Israeli market does not (and should not) hold any weight whatsoever. The most the legislative can do is amend the relevant laws to make what Facebook tried to do legal going forward, and that still wouldn't apply retroactively. The odds of the government choosing to extensively overhaul its consumer protection laws for the interests of a single multinational in a single lawsuit aren't great.
  - msh 6y ago
    Facebook could choose to leave the Israeli market so it would not be bound by Israeli law.
    - slavak 6y ago
      Yes, Facebook could do that. There's probably many laws in many other countries Facebook operates in that are a lot less reasonable than this one, but I guess if for some reason this was the specific hill they wanted to die on, they would absolutely be free to do so. Facebook also has a pretty big engineering office in Tel-Aviv, which they'd probably have to close in this scenario. I imagine that would also be a massive PITA. But, again, there's nothing technically stopping them from doing that.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > The Israeli government has absolutely no say in how any of this plays out, that is the entire point of an independent judiciary. Israel has no genuinely independent judiciary, nor genuinely free press. IDF regularly intervenes in both, that's a very poorly held secret. Any normal nation would be completely horrified at the prospect of a private company effectively intervening into its foreign relations, but Israel is remarkably not, and even seem to give NSO a considerable amount of legal cover. I believe it's just a cover for the state to distance itself from the activity in public eyes, just like IDF distances itself from peddling military hardware around the world by hiding behind "independent private companies."
    - yyyk 6y ago
      >Israel has no genuinely independent judiciary, nor genuinely free press. Israel is the only country in the world where the judiciary appoints itself and a newspaper like "Ha'artez" can exist. >Any normal nation would be completely horrified at the prospect of a private company effectively intervening into its foreign relations That would make most of the West "not normal nations".
      - baybal2 6y ago
        > Israel is the only country in the world where the judiciary appoints itself No. Judges who serve on the Supreme Court, as well as the district and magistrate courts, are appointed by the Judicial Selection Committee, which consists of nine members: the Minister of Justice, another cabinet member, two Knesset members (in practice one is from the coalition and the other is from the opposition), two members of the Israel Bar Association, and the President of the Supreme Court and two other Supreme Court justices. The committee is chaired by the Minister of Justice. It can appoint judges to the magistrate and district courts by a majority vote, but appointing a Supreme Court judge requires a majority of at least 7 to 9 or two less than the number present at the meeting.
        yyyk 6y ago
        In short, Judges and people who are dependent on them have an absolute majority. They also have a direct veto power over any Supreme Court appointment (7 of 9 and they have 3 votes).

by goatsi 6y ago

ketamine__ 6y ago

Wow, I didn't know that. What an illegitimate court system. Facebook should be able to choose who can and can't use their platform. Facebook will probably have better luck with lawsuits in the US.

DSingularity 6y ago

If Facebook was sincere, they could have held their ground. The Israeli government would then have to decide whether it was willing to ban a platform so widely used in their country or to simply fine them. Instead, FB decided to comply. Just a bunch of dead brown people — who cares?

slavak 6y ago
The Israeli government has absolutely no say in how any of this plays out, that is the entire point of an independent judiciary. The lawsuit and sanctions are decided by the courts based on existing laws and precedent, and for them Facebook's size or position in the Israeli market does not (and should not) hold any weight whatsoever. The most the legislative can do is amend the relevant laws to make what Facebook tried to do legal going forward, and that still wouldn't apply retroactively. The odds of the government choosing to extensively overhaul its consumer protection laws for the interests of a single multinational in a single lawsuit aren't great.
- msh 6y ago
  Facebook could choose to leave the Israeli market so it would not be bound by Israeli law.
  - slavak 6y ago
    Yes, Facebook could do that. There's probably many laws in many other countries Facebook operates in that are a lot less reasonable than this one, but I guess if for some reason this was the specific hill they wanted to die on, they would absolutely be free to do so. Facebook also has a pretty big engineering office in Tel-Aviv, which they'd probably have to close in this scenario. I imagine that would also be a massive PITA. But, again, there's nothing technically stopping them from doing that.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > The Israeli government has absolutely no say in how any of this plays out, that is the entire point of an independent judiciary. Israel has no genuinely independent judiciary, nor genuinely free press. IDF regularly intervenes in both, that's a very poorly held secret. Any normal nation would be completely horrified at the prospect of a private company effectively intervening into its foreign relations, but Israel is remarkably not, and even seem to give NSO a considerable amount of legal cover. I believe it's just a cover for the state to distance itself from the activity in public eyes, just like IDF distances itself from peddling military hardware around the world by hiding behind "independent private companies."
  - yyyk 6y ago
    >Israel has no genuinely independent judiciary, nor genuinely free press. Israel is the only country in the world where the judiciary appoints itself and a newspaper like "Ha'artez" can exist. >Any normal nation would be completely horrified at the prospect of a private company effectively intervening into its foreign relations That would make most of the West "not normal nations".
    - baybal2 6y ago
      > Israel is the only country in the world where the judiciary appoints itself No. Judges who serve on the Supreme Court, as well as the district and magistrate courts, are appointed by the Judicial Selection Committee, which consists of nine members: the Minister of Justice, another cabinet member, two Knesset members (in practice one is from the coalition and the other is from the opposition), two members of the Israel Bar Association, and the President of the Supreme Court and two other Supreme Court justices. The committee is chaired by the Minister of Justice. It can appoint judges to the magistrate and district courts by a majority vote, but appointing a Supreme Court judge requires a majority of at least 7 to 9 or two less than the number present at the meeting.
      - yyyk 6y ago
        In short, Judges and people who are dependent on them have an absolute majority. They also have a direct veto power over any Supreme Court appointment (7 of 9 and they have 3 votes).