10 ms·

As I doubt the US needed the recent stories to know what the NSO Group was up to, this will cause similar groups to treat any potential leak source with even mo

As I doubt the US needed the recent stories to know what the NSO Group was up to, this will cause similar groups to treat any potential leak source with even more hostility. The US is making it clear that targeting dissidents, journalists or activists is fine but getting caught is a problem.

more_corn 5y ago
As long as attackers are sending their exploits to their targets they're going to have trouble remaining in the shadows. Perhaps if we continue unmasking the attackers they'll think twice about operating so brazenly.
fishtacos 5y ago
> The US is making it clear that targeting dissidents, journalists or activists is fine but getting caught is a problem. What's that saying? "Better late than never."? Or how about "Never let perfect be the enemy of good."? Obviously the US intelligence agencies knew about this well before the public did... and while I'm not quite ready to put this all on the goodwill of the Biden administration, it's also a reminder that civilian leadership changes do effect change, despite all the "Deep State" nonsense going on these days.
- Hikikomori 5y ago
  You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they've exhausted all other options.
  - mc32 5y ago
    What about everyone else, goody two shoes?
    - psadauskas 5y ago
      Its a quote, usually incorrectly attributed to Winston Churchill. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternatives/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternative...
    - buran77 5y ago
      The snark is unwarranted. The US has far more political, economic, and military power than any other country. Stands to reason that more is expected from them especially when "morality", "freedom", "rights", "doing the right thing" etc. seem to be the publicly stated cornerstones of most US initiatives. Do you think Denmark putting something on a blacklist will have anywhere near the same effect? Also your question is rarely asked when the US is doing something... questionable but certainly to their advantage when the rest of the world didn't do. It seems unfair to bring up the "whatabout" argument only when you feel insulted especially since it's not a strong defense to begin with, it's even weaker in this particular case. If you can do the right thing but decide to put your morals to sleep for as long as it's advantageous to you, then any positive spin (like protecting "the rules-based international order") is just a spin.
      - LogonType10 5y ago
        America prosecutes American hackers who hack foreign nationals. This already gives them the moral high ground over their peers. See: Russian ransomware gangs that are de facto state sponsored. Cyberspace is a new frontier that wasn't built to conform to your sense of right and wrong. >questionable but certainly to their advantage when the rest of the world didn't do They would if they could.
        trasz 5y ago
        >America prosecutes American hackers who hack foreign nationals America prosecutes the NSA? :-D
        LogonType10 5y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Was this supposed to be a funny joke?
        buran77 5y ago
        You're being intentionally obtuse. The only country which actively spies on pretty much everyone in the world is the US, via the NSA. And the NSA is the very definition of "state sponsored". In effect the US is running the largest state sponsored hacking programme that the world has ever seen. So who did the US prosecute for that? > America prosecutes American hackers who hack foreign nationals To this day the only person connected to US state sponsored hacking who was prosecuted is Edward Snowden, the guy who blew the whistle on said program. That says everything about the situation. The US is hacking everything that can be hacked, then floods western media with reports of Russian, Iranian, Chinese, and North Korean state sponsored hacks. > They would if they could. "Solid" defense there. The kind of argument the Mafia would use as a defense, which just happens to be really unprovable.
    - shlurpy 5y ago
      On the subject at hand, Israeli misdeeds in international law, I think the USA has been and continues to be uniquely dedicated to doing the wrong thing at all costs.
      - mc32 5y ago
        Unique compared to? Costa Rica? Ok. Compared to Iran, Russia, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, etc…
        buran77 5y ago
        It's telling that you have to pick Iran, Russia, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia to show that the US is not unique in their actions. Especially since 2 of those countries are close US allies. That's a very interesting bar to set, and very unflattering company. I mean you're correct, all superpowers will eventually resort to the same tactics to get, maintain, or increase their power, even if some are able to give them that fresh, clean smell. But having those countries as a moral baseline doesn't paint the bright picture you're looking for.
        mc32 5y ago
        It’s telling but not in the way you think it’s telling. Anyone who has power wilds it: colonial France, Spain, Japan, etc.
        buran77 5y ago
        You should also learn when to stop digging, especially when you're in the hole. Again it's really telling that you had to move to comparing today's US to decades or centuries ago France, Spain, or that country on which you had to drop 2 atomic bombs to get it to stop. Is everything acceptable today because it was done in the past? And if it's not acceptable than what point are you trying to make? That it's abysmal but at least that totalitarian regime is also doing it? Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, or Jeffrey Dahmer had power and wielded it. But whenever you are desperate enough to make yourself look good by comparing to them you lost the battle before it began.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  The NSO Group is clearly being punished for being caught. If you agree that the intelligence knew about this earlier, they could have punished them years ago and prevented basically all the intrusions found in the leaks. And taking the most favorable view of the Biden administration on this move, "Biden punishes foreign private competitor to US intelligence agencies" wouldn't be a sign of him addressing US intelligence.
  - bosswipe 5y ago
    Oh thanks for the Biden mention. I was confused by your convoluted yet harsh complaint about the US for this action, but now I see it was more of a partisan thing.
    - schawtz-dkk 5y ago
      Im sure boom boom would also criticize the last President for failing to do the same thing. Mentioning a government official who belongs to a party doesnt make you a partisan for a different party. That would be a shallow dismissal of his valid point.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      The person I was replying to brought up the Biden administration, I personally don't think any president in the last fifty years would have handled this differently.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>despite all the "Deep State" nonsense You believe it is nonsense? I figured it was just generally understood that the President is more or less powerless really at this point, This is not new under Trump, hell this really was that way before 9/11 but accelerated ALOT after. NSA, CIA, FBI, etc do not really answer to elected officials, I am surprised people still believe they do
  - rougka 5y ago
    Life is not binary, just because the president isn’t an absolute monarch doesn’t make him powerless
  - worik 5y ago
    Life is not binary, just because the president isn’t an absolute monarch doesn’t make him powerless The USA system was designed to balance powers between the three branches of government. Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy
    - syshum 5y ago
      >Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense"
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense" "Deep State" implies more than acknowledging the bureaucracy. It's the claim that the bureaucracy is unresponsive to, or even controlling over, our elected leaders. (And presumably, the courts, though I don't tend to see that part addressed in common tellings.) If you don't believe the latter bit, using the term "deep state" unnecessarily tarnishes the credibility of your argument. (Federal bureaucracy is a more neutral term.)
      - xxpor 5y ago
        It responds perfectly well to people that understand its knobs. But when you elect a guy who's never been in a government position before, is it really any surprise he can't bend it to his will? It's like if you pulled someone random off the street and made them CEO of a Fortune 500. Do you think the entire org would just turn on a dime and listen to them? No chance.
tptacek 5y ago
It's hard to punish people for not getting caught.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  I'd guess that the NSA had already caught them.
snarf21 5y ago
This feels a lot like faux outrage. "How dare they!!! That's our job!!"
- md_ 5y ago
  There’s every reason to be skeptical of the US government’s use of spyware, but at least it is, notionally, a democracy responsive to its citizens. A for profit company selling to the highest bidder is surely even worse, no? Like, yeah, I want nuclear weapons to be abolished. But if NSO were selling briefcase nukes to everyone interested, I wouldn’t say, “but what about the SAC?”
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Maybe the way to conceive of them is as mercenaries.
    - md_ 5y ago
      I think that's accurate. And historically, there's been more moral opprobrium directed at mercenaries than those who fight for a country.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Who said life's fair? The fact of the matter is, given the way the world works, you probably don't want to piss off the US Treasury Department.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > Who said life's fair? Certainly NSO can't complain about being victims of unfairness and government abuse.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> US is making it clear that targeting dissidents, journalists or activists is fine but getting caught is a problem The U.S. was willing to look the other way when NSO was selling its crap to e.g. the UAE, an American ally. In my opinion, NSO fucked up twice: first, by selling to America police departments, thereby putting it on one side of a partisan issue. Second, by helping subvert democracy in India, thereby pissing off its allies in State. The first mistake made them persona non grata. The second removed the protection their being Israeli granted.
- cutemonster 5y ago
  I wonder if this will make NSO group focus even more on selling to dictatorships and subvert-democracy-groups in India hereafter, and drug lord politicians in Mexico? Hereafter, why not, they're already blacklisted (in the US) anyway
  - mrtesthah 5y ago
    Not being able to sell to US firms/agencies will greatly reduce their potential revenue. Less money coming in means less money to spend on the black market for exploits, which means less incentive for security researches to sell to NSO. Edit: I apparently didn't read closely enough
    - xxpor 5y ago
      Oh this is much worse than that. They can't (in theory) buy any US software or hardware. That's essentially everything. Including mainstream x86 and ARM implementations. And Linux. And Windows. and iOS. And most foreign software, since nearly everything includes various libraries, which have Americans writing code for them. This is the same list Huawei was added to.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > Oh this is much worse than that. They can't (in theory) buy any US software or hardware. Practically speaking, it also means they and their affiliates will have a difficult time maintaining bank accounts and getting financing.
10xrubberduck 5y ago
People really think this will have an impact? Look at post snowden leaks, on orgs that dissolved and what new orgs popped up around the world (and even some ex-employees, moved from one country to another to the new orgs). I live in a country that's deep into all this, so I am not going to put any names or links here, but search HN historic links a bit and you see them.
atmosx 5y ago
Assumed innocence is one of the pillars of the justice estate and public relations. I believe it's a sign of civilisation. I know that in this case puts the whole thing in a bad light, but still as a principle assumed innocence is worth preserving IMHO.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Then this verdict should come after a trial, and NSO should still have the presumption of innocence. Plus, the NSA should basically just shut down.
bogomipz 5y ago
How and when has the US made it clear that targeting dissidents, journalists or activists is fine? Can you elaborate on specific incidents? Isn't this black listing a shot across the bow?

more_corn 5y ago

As long as attackers are sending their exploits to their targets they're going to have trouble remaining in the shadows. Perhaps if we continue unmasking the attackers they'll think twice about operating so brazenly.

fishtacos 5y ago

> The US is making it clear that targeting dissidents, journalists or activists is fine but getting caught is a problem. What's that saying? "Better late than never."? Or how about "Never let perfect be the enemy of good."? Obviously the US intelligence agencies knew about this well before the public did... and while I'm not quite ready to put this all on the goodwill of the Biden administration, it's also a reminder that civilian leadership changes do effect change, despite all the "Deep State" nonsense going on these days.

Hikikomori 5y ago
You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they've exhausted all other options.
- mc32 5y ago
  What about everyone else, goody two shoes?
  - psadauskas 5y ago
    Its a quote, usually incorrectly attributed to Winston Churchill. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternatives/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternative...
  - buran77 5y ago
    The snark is unwarranted. The US has far more political, economic, and military power than any other country. Stands to reason that more is expected from them especially when "morality", "freedom", "rights", "doing the right thing" etc. seem to be the publicly stated cornerstones of most US initiatives. Do you think Denmark putting something on a blacklist will have anywhere near the same effect? Also your question is rarely asked when the US is doing something... questionable but certainly to their advantage when the rest of the world didn't do. It seems unfair to bring up the "whatabout" argument only when you feel insulted especially since it's not a strong defense to begin with, it's even weaker in this particular case. If you can do the right thing but decide to put your morals to sleep for as long as it's advantageous to you, then any positive spin (like protecting "the rules-based international order") is just a spin.
    - LogonType10 5y ago
      America prosecutes American hackers who hack foreign nationals. This already gives them the moral high ground over their peers. See: Russian ransomware gangs that are de facto state sponsored. Cyberspace is a new frontier that wasn't built to conform to your sense of right and wrong. >questionable but certainly to their advantage when the rest of the world didn't do They would if they could.
      - trasz 5y ago
        >America prosecutes American hackers who hack foreign nationals America prosecutes the NSA? :-D
        LogonType10 5y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Was this supposed to be a funny joke?
        buran77 5y ago
        You're being intentionally obtuse. The only country which actively spies on pretty much everyone in the world is the US, via the NSA. And the NSA is the very definition of "state sponsored". In effect the US is running the largest state sponsored hacking programme that the world has ever seen. So who did the US prosecute for that? > America prosecutes American hackers who hack foreign nationals To this day the only person connected to US state sponsored hacking who was prosecuted is Edward Snowden, the guy who blew the whistle on said program. That says everything about the situation. The US is hacking everything that can be hacked, then floods western media with reports of Russian, Iranian, Chinese, and North Korean state sponsored hacks. > They would if they could. "Solid" defense there. The kind of argument the Mafia would use as a defense, which just happens to be really unprovable.
  - shlurpy 5y ago
    On the subject at hand, Israeli misdeeds in international law, I think the USA has been and continues to be uniquely dedicated to doing the wrong thing at all costs.
    - mc32 5y ago
      Unique compared to? Costa Rica? Ok. Compared to Iran, Russia, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, etc…
      - buran77 5y ago
        It's telling that you have to pick Iran, Russia, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia to show that the US is not unique in their actions. Especially since 2 of those countries are close US allies. That's a very interesting bar to set, and very unflattering company. I mean you're correct, all superpowers will eventually resort to the same tactics to get, maintain, or increase their power, even if some are able to give them that fresh, clean smell. But having those countries as a moral baseline doesn't paint the bright picture you're looking for.
        mc32 5y ago
        It’s telling but not in the way you think it’s telling. Anyone who has power wilds it: colonial France, Spain, Japan, etc.
        buran77 5y ago
        You should also learn when to stop digging, especially when you're in the hole. Again it's really telling that you had to move to comparing today's US to decades or centuries ago France, Spain, or that country on which you had to drop 2 atomic bombs to get it to stop. Is everything acceptable today because it was done in the past? And if it's not acceptable than what point are you trying to make? That it's abysmal but at least that totalitarian regime is also doing it? Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, or Jeffrey Dahmer had power and wielded it. But whenever you are desperate enough to make yourself look good by comparing to them you lost the battle before it began.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
The NSO Group is clearly being punished for being caught. If you agree that the intelligence knew about this earlier, they could have punished them years ago and prevented basically all the intrusions found in the leaks. And taking the most favorable view of the Biden administration on this move, "Biden punishes foreign private competitor to US intelligence agencies" wouldn't be a sign of him addressing US intelligence.
- bosswipe 5y ago
  Oh thanks for the Biden mention. I was confused by your convoluted yet harsh complaint about the US for this action, but now I see it was more of a partisan thing.
  - schawtz-dkk 5y ago
    Im sure boom boom would also criticize the last President for failing to do the same thing. Mentioning a government official who belongs to a party doesnt make you a partisan for a different party. That would be a shallow dismissal of his valid point.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    The person I was replying to brought up the Biden administration, I personally don't think any president in the last fifty years would have handled this differently.
syshum 5y ago
>>despite all the "Deep State" nonsense You believe it is nonsense? I figured it was just generally understood that the President is more or less powerless really at this point, This is not new under Trump, hell this really was that way before 9/11 but accelerated ALOT after. NSA, CIA, FBI, etc do not really answer to elected officials, I am surprised people still believe they do
- rougka 5y ago
  Life is not binary, just because the president isn’t an absolute monarch doesn’t make him powerless
- worik 5y ago
  Life is not binary, just because the president isn’t an absolute monarch doesn’t make him powerless The USA system was designed to balance powers between the three branches of government. Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy
  - syshum 5y ago
    >Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense"
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense" "Deep State" implies more than acknowledging the bureaucracy. It's the claim that the bureaucracy is unresponsive to, or even controlling over, our elected leaders. (And presumably, the courts, though I don't tend to see that part addressed in common tellings.) If you don't believe the latter bit, using the term "deep state" unnecessarily tarnishes the credibility of your argument. (Federal bureaucracy is a more neutral term.)
    - xxpor 5y ago
      It responds perfectly well to people that understand its knobs. But when you elect a guy who's never been in a government position before, is it really any surprise he can't bend it to his will? It's like if you pulled someone random off the street and made them CEO of a Fortune 500. Do you think the entire org would just turn on a dime and listen to them? No chance.

tptacek 5y ago

It's hard to punish people for not getting caught.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
I'd guess that the NSA had already caught them.

snarf21 5y ago

This feels a lot like faux outrage. "How dare they!!! That's our job!!"

md_ 5y ago
There’s every reason to be skeptical of the US government’s use of spyware, but at least it is, notionally, a democracy responsive to its citizens. A for profit company selling to the highest bidder is surely even worse, no? Like, yeah, I want nuclear weapons to be abolished. But if NSO were selling briefcase nukes to everyone interested, I wouldn’t say, “but what about the SAC?”
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Maybe the way to conceive of them is as mercenaries.
  - md_ 5y ago
    I think that's accurate. And historically, there's been more moral opprobrium directed at mercenaries than those who fight for a country.
xxpor 5y ago
Who said life's fair? The fact of the matter is, given the way the world works, you probably don't want to piss off the US Treasury Department.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Who said life's fair? Certainly NSO can't complain about being victims of unfairness and government abuse.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> US is making it clear that targeting dissidents, journalists or activists is fine but getting caught is a problem The U.S. was willing to look the other way when NSO was selling its crap to e.g. the UAE, an American ally. In my opinion, NSO fucked up twice: first, by selling to America police departments, thereby putting it on one side of a partisan issue. Second, by helping subvert democracy in India, thereby pissing off its allies in State. The first mistake made them persona non grata. The second removed the protection their being Israeli granted.

cutemonster 5y ago
I wonder if this will make NSO group focus even more on selling to dictatorships and subvert-democracy-groups in India hereafter, and drug lord politicians in Mexico? Hereafter, why not, they're already blacklisted (in the US) anyway
- mrtesthah 5y ago
  Not being able to sell to US firms/agencies will greatly reduce their potential revenue. Less money coming in means less money to spend on the black market for exploits, which means less incentive for security researches to sell to NSO. Edit: I apparently didn't read closely enough
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Oh this is much worse than that. They can't (in theory) buy any US software or hardware. That's essentially everything. Including mainstream x86 and ARM implementations. And Linux. And Windows. and iOS. And most foreign software, since nearly everything includes various libraries, which have Americans writing code for them. This is the same list Huawei was added to.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > Oh this is much worse than that. They can't (in theory) buy any US software or hardware. Practically speaking, it also means they and their affiliates will have a difficult time maintaining bank accounts and getting financing.

10xrubberduck 5y ago

People really think this will have an impact? Look at post snowden leaks, on orgs that dissolved and what new orgs popped up around the world (and even some ex-employees, moved from one country to another to the new orgs). I live in a country that's deep into all this, so I am not going to put any names or links here, but search HN historic links a bit and you see them.

atmosx 5y ago

Assumed innocence is one of the pillars of the justice estate and public relations. I believe it's a sign of civilisation. I know that in this case puts the whole thing in a bad light, but still as a principle assumed innocence is worth preserving IMHO.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
Then this verdict should come after a trial, and NSO should still have the presumption of innocence. Plus, the NSA should basically just shut down.

bogomipz 5y ago

How and when has the US made it clear that targeting dissidents, journalists or activists is fine? Can you elaborate on specific incidents? Isn't this black listing a shot across the bow?