6 ms·

Perhaps NSO Group should be considered a terrorism-aiding organization. Freeze its assets, track all their employees, backers, etc. Wonder if they are even hel

Perhaps NSO Group should be considered a terrorism-aiding organization. Freeze its assets, track all their employees, backers, etc. Wonder if they are even helping to hack US government employees through China, etc. (besides just helping to torture dissidents).

flyinglizard 5y ago
The biggest customers for these companies are Western governments. You’re not going to take away their toys.
- igorzx31 5y ago
  Their biggest customers are middle eastern governments according to the WaPo article. US certainly has bought the software but it's mostly Saudi, UAE, Qatar, etc. US has NSA so they don't really need some software. Middle eastern powers dont have the same type of technical expertise to develop their own in-house.
  - h1fra 5y ago
    So should we consider the NSA a terrorism-aiding organization? edit: the tone is lost via internet; my own opinion on this: yes, it is.
    - bobthechef 5y ago
      Does terrorizing citizens through illegal spying and mass surveillance constitute terrorism? Or does only setting off bombs in public spaces count?
      - throwaway210222 5y ago
        Once you too have had the misfortune of a bomb going off near your family, you will know the answer.
      - PeterisP 5y ago
        There would need to be some actual violence involved to constitute terrorism. If you spy on some journalist and then us that info to catch him and cut him in pieces while he's still alive, then the dismemberment may be considered terrorism and the spying was aiding that terrorism; if you spy on many people and the end result is just that some officers laugh about their naked photos or deny them jobs or disallow crossing borders, then that's just "ordinary" mass surveillance with no relationship to terrorism.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        Terrorism aiding, they said.
      - igorzx31 5y ago
        The NSA does not illegally spy. Congress has given them large authorizations to collect data and they need FISA approval before tapping Americans. 99.9% of the good work that NSA does will never be seen by the public.
        throwaway675309 5y ago
        How quickly we forget the massive warrantless wiretapping that occurred under the umbrella of the patriot act.
    - blackearl 5y ago
      Is this supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"? Both are despicable.
      - whymauri 5y ago
        Exactly, lol. Not sure if the GP comment is trying to imply some sort of good comes out of the NSA.
        freeflight 5y ago
        There comes good out of the NSA, at least good for the US like stealing IP and patents for American companies [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial_espionage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial...
        igorzx31 5y ago
        Ummm, stopping terror attacks is pretty good.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > So should we considered the NSA a terrorism-aiding organization This statement needs the "we" defined to be meaningful. If it is the U.S., then obviously no, the NSA is an arm of the state. If "we"` is e.g. China, probably no, because words have meanings and the arms of recognized foreign states don't conduct terrorism, they do espionage and they do war. If "we" is a freshman dorm room, then, of course, the NSA is a terrorist organization alongside the student government.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > > So should we considered the NSA a terrorism-aiding organization > If it is the U.S., then obviously no, the NSA is an arm of the state. Its perhaps worth noting that “terrorism” originally exclusively denoted action by the State against its own subjects, though it was within a few years expanded to include other activities.
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > “terrorism” originally exclusively denoted action by the State against its own subjects Correct, in the French Revolution, I believe. There are a variety of definitions of terrorism. The common elements seem to be the (a) peacetime use (b) of violence (c) against non-combatants (d) as a political tool. There also seems to be an unspoken requirement that it occurred after the formation of modern states (otherwise almost all of the preceding human history was terrorism and the word gets normalized); the French Revolution is a useful line. The NSA targets non-combatants (c) in peacetime (a). It does not use violence (b), though it does enable it (⅓b). It does not do so for domestic political aims (to any proven degree); the degree to which it does so abroad depends on where one draws the line between politics and geopolitics. (The CIA, in contrast, engages in all four overseas.) When an organization that has done terrorism becomes a terrorist organization is another question.
        vmception 5y ago
        Okay that settles it, the word terrorism has so many conflicting and overlapping contexts that it is useless
      - 5y ago
    - tomrod 5y ago
      There is a community on reddit called "self-aware wolves" that narrowly identifies a much broader phenomenon: there are many elements of modern society which are generally tolerated but not morally permissible. This is a representative instance.
    - beebeepka 5y ago
      Yes, we should
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Yes. We should.
  - flyinglizard 5y ago
    1. There are many, many more Western countries other than the US. 2. Even if they develop their own tools and research their exploits, using NSO provides a layer of plausible deniability and hiding behind someone else's fingerprint (think about the command and control servers, for example). 3. Even if they develop their own stuff, most governments have multiple arms which can use these tools (think about FBI, CIA, NSA, various military intelligence branches), and they tend not to share between them. This makes smaller government branches which don't have the resources and expertise of the others (think DEA, ATF...) buy from 3rd parties. 4. Zero days are a scarce resource, if I ran an agency I'd rather use someone else's every day and keep my own just for the special stuff. In summary, it's exceedingly appealing for bodies like the Dutch police to use NSO tools and NSO's association with the Saudis and other provides a convenient masking to their operations.
- input_sh 5y ago
  Western governments mostly make their own. Other with less resources buy off-the-shelf products.
bakuninsbart 5y ago
The Israeli government classified Pegasus, the software by NSO currently in the news, as a weapon, thus restricting its exports. If you look at the list of customers, it quickly becomes clear that they are the same organizations that make the laws.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > If you look at the list of customers, it quickly becomes clear that they are the same organizations that make the laws Israel's unicameral, sovereign, supreme state body, the Knesset [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset
  - lupire 5y ago
    no, its customers are foreign governments. its world governments against world people, not nation vs nation.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  "same organizations that make the laws" More importantly, they are the ones that decide what laws are enforced. What is sad is that in America, the law around surveillance and security is largely a nice marketing campaign. Sure, you have rights that protect you from the government. But practically speaking the government won't enforce them, doesn't stop its employees from abusing them even for personal drama, undermines or stops dead any lawsuits by saying the discovery is impossible due to "national security", or will invent terms like "enemy combatant" and then apply them to its own citizens to bypass even the constitution. It will setup "oversight courts" that rubberstamp everything and have no real power or regulatory function/safeguard. The result of this is that each presidential election is becoming truly dangerous to the opposition. If a McCarthyism movement takes over either party that's in power with the modern surveillance infrastructure, legal "precedents" established by Bush in the war on terror, the confirmation of those powers by the Obama administration holding onto them and continuing funding of infrastructure, undermining of judicial powers, rote acceptance by the people at large, and propaganda outlets available to push messaging, and huge amounts of institutional mores and standards thrown out in the Trump administration, the opposition has real motivation to feel an existential threat.
q1w2 5y ago
The intelligence community ties between the US and Israel - and the private security companies is so tight, that there is no way this doesn't link back to the US gov't. "five eyes" is nothing compared to the level of cooperation between the US and Israel on cybersecurity. One of the very first things I noticed when I started in cybersecurity was the prevalence of Israeli accents.
ehsankia 5y ago
I mean Saudi Arabia literally murdered a American journalist and hacked the cellphone of an American businessman, yet they're still allies. So....

flyinglizard 5y ago

The biggest customers for these companies are Western governments. You’re not going to take away their toys.

igorzx31 5y ago
Their biggest customers are middle eastern governments according to the WaPo article. US certainly has bought the software but it's mostly Saudi, UAE, Qatar, etc. US has NSA so they don't really need some software. Middle eastern powers dont have the same type of technical expertise to develop their own in-house.
- h1fra 5y ago
  So should we consider the NSA a terrorism-aiding organization? edit: the tone is lost via internet; my own opinion on this: yes, it is.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    Does terrorizing citizens through illegal spying and mass surveillance constitute terrorism? Or does only setting off bombs in public spaces count?
    - throwaway210222 5y ago
      Once you too have had the misfortune of a bomb going off near your family, you will know the answer.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      There would need to be some actual violence involved to constitute terrorism. If you spy on some journalist and then us that info to catch him and cut him in pieces while he's still alive, then the dismemberment may be considered terrorism and the spying was aiding that terrorism; if you spy on many people and the end result is just that some officers laugh about their naked photos or deny them jobs or disallow crossing borders, then that's just "ordinary" mass surveillance with no relationship to terrorism.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Terrorism aiding, they said.
    - igorzx31 5y ago
      The NSA does not illegally spy. Congress has given them large authorizations to collect data and they need FISA approval before tapping Americans. 99.9% of the good work that NSA does will never be seen by the public.
      - throwaway675309 5y ago
        How quickly we forget the massive warrantless wiretapping that occurred under the umbrella of the patriot act.
  - blackearl 5y ago
    Is this supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"? Both are despicable.
    - whymauri 5y ago
      Exactly, lol. Not sure if the GP comment is trying to imply some sort of good comes out of the NSA.
      - freeflight 5y ago
        There comes good out of the NSA, at least good for the US like stealing IP and patents for American companies [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial_espionage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial...
      - igorzx31 5y ago
        Ummm, stopping terror attacks is pretty good.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > So should we considered the NSA a terrorism-aiding organization This statement needs the "we" defined to be meaningful. If it is the U.S., then obviously no, the NSA is an arm of the state. If "we"` is e.g. China, probably no, because words have meanings and the arms of recognized foreign states don't conduct terrorism, they do espionage and they do war. If "we" is a freshman dorm room, then, of course, the NSA is a terrorist organization alongside the student government.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > > So should we considered the NSA a terrorism-aiding organization > If it is the U.S., then obviously no, the NSA is an arm of the state. Its perhaps worth noting that “terrorism” originally exclusively denoted action by the State against its own subjects, though it was within a few years expanded to include other activities.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > “terrorism” originally exclusively denoted action by the State against its own subjects Correct, in the French Revolution, I believe. There are a variety of definitions of terrorism. The common elements seem to be the (a) peacetime use (b) of violence (c) against non-combatants (d) as a political tool. There also seems to be an unspoken requirement that it occurred after the formation of modern states (otherwise almost all of the preceding human history was terrorism and the word gets normalized); the French Revolution is a useful line. The NSA targets non-combatants (c) in peacetime (a). It does not use violence (b), though it does enable it (⅓b). It does not do so for domestic political aims (to any proven degree); the degree to which it does so abroad depends on where one draws the line between politics and geopolitics. (The CIA, in contrast, engages in all four overseas.) When an organization that has done terrorism becomes a terrorist organization is another question.
      - vmception 5y ago
        Okay that settles it, the word terrorism has so many conflicting and overlapping contexts that it is useless
    - 5y ago
  - tomrod 5y ago
    There is a community on reddit called "self-aware wolves" that narrowly identifies a much broader phenomenon: there are many elements of modern society which are generally tolerated but not morally permissible. This is a representative instance.
  - beebeepka 5y ago
    Yes, we should
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Yes. We should.
- flyinglizard 5y ago
  1. There are many, many more Western countries other than the US. 2. Even if they develop their own tools and research their exploits, using NSO provides a layer of plausible deniability and hiding behind someone else's fingerprint (think about the command and control servers, for example). 3. Even if they develop their own stuff, most governments have multiple arms which can use these tools (think about FBI, CIA, NSA, various military intelligence branches), and they tend not to share between them. This makes smaller government branches which don't have the resources and expertise of the others (think DEA, ATF...) buy from 3rd parties. 4. Zero days are a scarce resource, if I ran an agency I'd rather use someone else's every day and keep my own just for the special stuff. In summary, it's exceedingly appealing for bodies like the Dutch police to use NSO tools and NSO's association with the Saudis and other provides a convenient masking to their operations.
input_sh 5y ago
Western governments mostly make their own. Other with less resources buy off-the-shelf products.

bakuninsbart 5y ago

The Israeli government classified Pegasus, the software by NSO currently in the news, as a weapon, thus restricting its exports. If you look at the list of customers, it quickly becomes clear that they are the same organizations that make the laws.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> If you look at the list of customers, it quickly becomes clear that they are the same organizations that make the laws Israel's unicameral, sovereign, supreme state body, the Knesset [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset
- lupire 5y ago
  no, its customers are foreign governments. its world governments against world people, not nation vs nation.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
"same organizations that make the laws" More importantly, they are the ones that decide what laws are enforced. What is sad is that in America, the law around surveillance and security is largely a nice marketing campaign. Sure, you have rights that protect you from the government. But practically speaking the government won't enforce them, doesn't stop its employees from abusing them even for personal drama, undermines or stops dead any lawsuits by saying the discovery is impossible due to "national security", or will invent terms like "enemy combatant" and then apply them to its own citizens to bypass even the constitution. It will setup "oversight courts" that rubberstamp everything and have no real power or regulatory function/safeguard. The result of this is that each presidential election is becoming truly dangerous to the opposition. If a McCarthyism movement takes over either party that's in power with the modern surveillance infrastructure, legal "precedents" established by Bush in the war on terror, the confirmation of those powers by the Obama administration holding onto them and continuing funding of infrastructure, undermining of judicial powers, rote acceptance by the people at large, and propaganda outlets available to push messaging, and huge amounts of institutional mores and standards thrown out in the Trump administration, the opposition has real motivation to feel an existential threat.

q1w2 5y ago

The intelligence community ties between the US and Israel - and the private security companies is so tight, that there is no way this doesn't link back to the US gov't. "five eyes" is nothing compared to the level of cooperation between the US and Israel on cybersecurity. One of the very first things I noticed when I started in cybersecurity was the prevalence of Israeli accents.

ehsankia 5y ago

I mean Saudi Arabia literally murdered a American journalist and hacked the cellphone of an American businessman, yet they're still allies. So....