5 ms·

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, et

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.

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.