5 ms·

Pretty embarrassing response, honestly. If you specifically work in an area that can be used for sensitive purposes, you have a moral responsibility as to who y

Pretty embarrassing response, honestly. If you specifically work in an area that can be used for sensitive purposes, you have a moral responsibility as to who you choose to sell to and what you choose to enable them to do. Moreover, if you're going to engage in moral indignation -- we can't possibly be responsible for what our customers do!!! -- then you can't end with a paragraph about how you're a league of superheroes saving the world from all its evils. I completely believe Pegasus has the ability to help with a kidnapping case, but if they want an ounce of credit for it then they need to take responsibility for egregious abuses. You reap what you sow. Hope the victims of Pegasus sue these people into oblivion, especially Kashoggi's widows. And by the way, anyone who does public communications also has a moral obligation to consider whether their copy text engages in reputation laundering. The person who wrote this sounds stressed and demoralized, and that's a good thing. I hope this is the worst job they ever have in their life, and that they quit as soon as possible because of the misery they're going through.

framecowbird 5y ago
This is an excellent point. "We're responsible for the good applications, just not the bad ones"
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  The modern commecial business corporation is ineherently a risk-externalising structure, which is specifically indicated in certain naming conventions, notably the "limited liability corporation". Legally it exists to sheild investors, as well as creditors and officers, from full personal liability. That has certain advantages, but as with all forms of impunity is subject to and the direct source of tremendous abuses. Capitalism is often touted as an "engine of wealth generation", but what is in fact measured in financial reports and national GDP accounts is not wealth but profit, revenues less costs, where both seek the advantage of ecnomic externalities (positive externalities for profits, negative externalities for costs) to maximise those profits. The foundations of economics of the firm (microeconomics) are found in cost-accounting, and cost-accounting itself was limited to the expenses and revenues that could be measured (theree's a version of Goodhart's Law buried in here somewhere). Alexander Hamilton Church is the father of modern cost-accounting and gives some interesting insights. (Yes, related to the othere A.H.) GDP is a measure of cash flows, rather than actual increase in national capital, wealth, or well-being. (With some adjustments.) Economic definitions of wealth differ, though Adam Smith's was "the annual labour and produce of the nation". In general, it is the notion of productive capability (labour, motive, or change power, effectively available energy) plus stored capital to use that energy, plus resources to act on, and sinks to exhaust to. (Industrial knowledge is a form of copital.) NSO Group's activities and rhetoric are par for the course.
  - no_identd 5y ago
    >there's a version of Goodhart's Law [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law ] buried in here somewhere and/or: * Campbell's law — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law * the Lucas critique —https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique * the McNamara fallacy —https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy Previous discussion of Goodhart's law on Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23762526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23762526
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      Thanks, and also for the spell-check (corrected in original). A good set of additions as well, McNamara Fallacy especially.
fossuser 5y ago
> "NSO is a technology company. We do not operate the system, nor do we have access to the data of our customers, yet they are obligated to provide us with such information under investigations." This is an abdication of responsibility and I agree the substance and tone of the response from them is really bad. Just because you don't have direct customer data access does not mean that you don't hold some responsibility for how the tools you sell can and will be used. This is especially the case when you sell zero day security exploits in very high risk use cases. This response suggests the culture on the inside is probably as bad as it looks from the outside. Based on this, I'd guess abuse of their tools is lot worse than what's publicly known. A serious company operating in a high risk space would lead the messaging with and own the high risk issue directly and how they try to contain it in order to do pragmatic good in difficult areas. Instead we see a childish almost petulant, knee-jerk response that the bad things are 'not their fault' because they're just a software company. These guys are just rationalizing their own bad behavior. https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html
- jonplackett 5y ago
  I think it’s worse than just abdicating responsibility. As if they just didn’t know bad things cound happen. They’re selling this software to literal tyrants. They knew full well what this would be used for.
  - cbsmith 5y ago
    I don't think they're claiming they didn't know bad things could happen. Their "Transparency and Responsibility Report" is essentially a detailed accounting of how they weighed that risk when licensing their software. I think one can certainly take issue with their approach, but they don't appear to be naive about the risks.
    - fossuser 5y ago
      Their response in this post suggests they don't view this targeting as related to them or their responsibility. > "The list is not a list of targets or potential targets of Pegasus. > "The numbers in the list are not related to NSO group. > "Any claim that a name in the list is necessarily related to a Pegasus target or Pegasus potential target is erroneous and false. > "NSO is a technology company. We do not operate the system, nor do we have access to the data of our customers, yet they are obligated to provide us with such information under investigations." My read of this is it's the kind of carefully worded intel-like response, basically saying the people targeted are not Pegasus(tm) targets because Pegasus is the name of the product and it 'technically' doesn't do the targeting on its own, the customers do the targeting - therefore not our fault and not related to us, we just sell software. (Even though the customers used NSO software to do the targeting, sold to them by NSO).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
klyrs 5y ago
Malicious context removal exposes another truth... > I completely believe Pegasus has the ability to help with a kidnapping These tools cut both ways.
evilotto 5y ago
> you're a league of superheroes saving the world from all its evils. Never mind that every authoritarian regime labels its opponents as "terrorists". Thanks, "War On Terror" for enabling this!
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Being convinced beyond any shred of doubt that you are on the sight of light and righteousness is a very common gateway to ultimate evil. The truly good tend to doubt themselves to the extreme.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Never mind that every authoritarian regime labels its opponents as "terrorists". Thanks, "War On Terror" for enabling this! Um, the British in Ireland started this within a few years after the words “terrorism” and “terrorist” referring initially specifically to the acts of the Jacobin revolutionary regime in France, and the perpetrators of those acts, were coined, and its been pretty common since. Blaming the US’s early 21st Century War on Terror for the trend is... inaccurate.
soheil 5y ago
> Kashoggi's widows Plural?
- ithrow 5y ago
  In some cultures muslims can have four wives.
  - ignoramous 5y ago
    Muslims can marry four wives, but it is generally not recommended. Most muslim-majority countries place restrictions on polygny, and at least one (Turkey) has outlawed it entirely.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Jamal Khashoggi was married three times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi
  - soheil 5y ago
    It’s unusual to call his ex-wives his widows?
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      It is. That's not the aspect I was addressing. The number of former wives of Khashoggi is, however, trivial to research. The accepted definition of a widow is a woman who was married to person at the time of that person's death: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/widow https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/widow (The definition specifies "husband", though I suspect with the rise in gay marriages, a female survivor of an intact legal union will be considered a widow regardless of the deceased spouse's gender.) There's also the peculiarity of Western (predominantly Christian) tradition to unquestioningly accept serial polygamy, but not simultaneous, despite at least the sexual elements the latter itself being a widespread practice. I can't speak for notafraudster's intent, though their usage isn't an accepted one.

framecowbird 5y ago

This is an excellent point. "We're responsible for the good applications, just not the bad ones"

dredmorbius 5y ago
The modern commecial business corporation is ineherently a risk-externalising structure, which is specifically indicated in certain naming conventions, notably the "limited liability corporation". Legally it exists to sheild investors, as well as creditors and officers, from full personal liability. That has certain advantages, but as with all forms of impunity is subject to and the direct source of tremendous abuses. Capitalism is often touted as an "engine of wealth generation", but what is in fact measured in financial reports and national GDP accounts is not wealth but profit, revenues less costs, where both seek the advantage of ecnomic externalities (positive externalities for profits, negative externalities for costs) to maximise those profits. The foundations of economics of the firm (microeconomics) are found in cost-accounting, and cost-accounting itself was limited to the expenses and revenues that could be measured (theree's a version of Goodhart's Law buried in here somewhere). Alexander Hamilton Church is the father of modern cost-accounting and gives some interesting insights. (Yes, related to the othere A.H.) GDP is a measure of cash flows, rather than actual increase in national capital, wealth, or well-being. (With some adjustments.) Economic definitions of wealth differ, though Adam Smith's was "the annual labour and produce of the nation". In general, it is the notion of productive capability (labour, motive, or change power, effectively available energy) plus stored capital to use that energy, plus resources to act on, and sinks to exhaust to. (Industrial knowledge is a form of copital.) NSO Group's activities and rhetoric are par for the course.
- no_identd 5y ago
  >there's a version of Goodhart's Law [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law ] buried in here somewhere and/or: * Campbell's law — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law * the Lucas critique —https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique * the McNamara fallacy —https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy Previous discussion of Goodhart's law on Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23762526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23762526
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Thanks, and also for the spell-check (corrected in original). A good set of additions as well, McNamara Fallacy especially.

fossuser 5y ago

> "NSO is a technology company. We do not operate the system, nor do we have access to the data of our customers, yet they are obligated to provide us with such information under investigations." This is an abdication of responsibility and I agree the substance and tone of the response from them is really bad. Just because you don't have direct customer data access does not mean that you don't hold some responsibility for how the tools you sell can and will be used. This is especially the case when you sell zero day security exploits in very high risk use cases. This response suggests the culture on the inside is probably as bad as it looks from the outside. Based on this, I'd guess abuse of their tools is lot worse than what's publicly known. A serious company operating in a high risk space would lead the messaging with and own the high risk issue directly and how they try to contain it in order to do pragmatic good in difficult areas. Instead we see a childish almost petulant, knee-jerk response that the bad things are 'not their fault' because they're just a software company. These guys are just rationalizing their own bad behavior. https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html

jonplackett 5y ago
I think it’s worse than just abdicating responsibility. As if they just didn’t know bad things cound happen. They’re selling this software to literal tyrants. They knew full well what this would be used for.
- cbsmith 5y ago
  I don't think they're claiming they didn't know bad things could happen. Their "Transparency and Responsibility Report" is essentially a detailed accounting of how they weighed that risk when licensing their software. I think one can certainly take issue with their approach, but they don't appear to be naive about the risks.
  - fossuser 5y ago
    Their response in this post suggests they don't view this targeting as related to them or their responsibility. > "The list is not a list of targets or potential targets of Pegasus. > "The numbers in the list are not related to NSO group. > "Any claim that a name in the list is necessarily related to a Pegasus target or Pegasus potential target is erroneous and false. > "NSO is a technology company. We do not operate the system, nor do we have access to the data of our customers, yet they are obligated to provide us with such information under investigations." My read of this is it's the kind of carefully worded intel-like response, basically saying the people targeted are not Pegasus(tm) targets because Pegasus is the name of the product and it 'technically' doesn't do the targeting on its own, the customers do the targeting - therefore not our fault and not related to us, we just sell software. (Even though the customers used NSO software to do the targeting, sold to them by NSO).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

klyrs 5y ago

Malicious context removal exposes another truth... > I completely believe Pegasus has the ability to help with a kidnapping These tools cut both ways.

evilotto 5y ago

> you're a league of superheroes saving the world from all its evils. Never mind that every authoritarian regime labels its opponents as "terrorists". Thanks, "War On Terror" for enabling this!

dredmorbius 5y ago
Being convinced beyond any shred of doubt that you are on the sight of light and righteousness is a very common gateway to ultimate evil. The truly good tend to doubt themselves to the extreme.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Never mind that every authoritarian regime labels its opponents as "terrorists". Thanks, "War On Terror" for enabling this! Um, the British in Ireland started this within a few years after the words “terrorism” and “terrorist” referring initially specifically to the acts of the Jacobin revolutionary regime in France, and the perpetrators of those acts, were coined, and its been pretty common since. Blaming the US’s early 21st Century War on Terror for the trend is... inaccurate.

soheil 5y ago

> Kashoggi's widows Plural?

ithrow 5y ago
In some cultures muslims can have four wives.
- ignoramous 5y ago
  Muslims can marry four wives, but it is generally not recommended. Most muslim-majority countries place restrictions on polygny, and at least one (Turkey) has outlawed it entirely.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Jamal Khashoggi was married three times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi
- soheil 5y ago
  It’s unusual to call his ex-wives his widows?
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    It is. That's not the aspect I was addressing. The number of former wives of Khashoggi is, however, trivial to research. The accepted definition of a widow is a woman who was married to person at the time of that person's death: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/widow https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/widow (The definition specifies "husband", though I suspect with the rise in gay marriages, a female survivor of an intact legal union will be considered a widow regardless of the deceased spouse's gender.) There's also the peculiarity of Western (predominantly Christian) tradition to unquestioningly accept serial polygamy, but not simultaneous, despite at least the sexual elements the latter itself being a widespread practice. I can't speak for notafraudster's intent, though their usage isn't an accepted one.