12 ms·

I don't understand the focus on NSO in these stories. If U.S State Department personnel in Uganda were shot from an M-16, would the headline mention "an America

I don't understand the focus on NSO in these stories. If U.S State Department personnel in Uganda were shot from an M-16, would the headline mention "an American arms manufacturer"? No, because it's ridiculous. For better or worse, NSO's product is a weapon. How is it any different from an M-16? Where is the outrage towards the people who used this weapon against the State Department?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
walrus01 5y ago
It's my understanding that NSO runs centralized command and control servers that their "clients" are granted access to, for both the on-device payload installation and also data exfiltration. They do not give the software to their clients to go use somewhere in the world fully independently (self hosted payload dropper, C&C, etc) They're a direct participant in the network traffic. Unlike a dumb purely offline piece of hardware like a M4 rifle or similar.
- montblanc 5y ago
  So selling an F-15 to the Saudis (like the U.S is doing in droves) is more morally justifable because what exactly..? After the plane is sold the Saudis are independent with it? (they aren't really btw. I'm sure there's maintenance and buying parts etc).
  - walrus01 5y ago
    I am also not in favor of selling advanced weaponry to the saudis or pretty much any non-democratic regime. The US has a very poor historical track record of supporting strongmen that do brutal things. Pinochet. Suharto. MBS. I could write a very long list.
  - phatfish 5y ago
    None one else was talking about F-15s or drones in this thread. The only mention was of weapons that even civilians can buy is some countries and do not come with a support contract attached. IMO the US selling F-15s or drones to the Saudis is very similar. The US shouldn't be supporting the Saudis murdering civilians with F-15s, and Israel should not be supporting hacking tools that enable other governments (or private organizations) to murder people they dont like.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- montblanc 5y ago
  I find it very unlikely they knew about state department phones. Why bring up M4 rifles all the time? That's not how the U.S or any other arms seller makes money at all. The big money comes from planes, drones, etc. 350 billion worth over 10 years just to Saudi Arabia alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_arms_deal#:~:text=On%20May%2020%2C%202017%2C%20U.S.,%24350%20billion%20over%2010%20years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States%E2%80%93Sau....
montblanc 5y ago
[flagged]
- Tronno 5y ago
  Israel is ostensibly a Western ally, yet they sell weapons that are used to attack Western nations and their citizens. Can you see why some people might consider that a problem? Your accusations of anti-semitism are unwelcome and without merit.
  - mola 5y ago
    Uganda is not a US enemy. NSO is a disgusting money grab and a threat for democracies. But, they never sold to any nation which is a US enemy. Uganda is not a US enemy. Israeli government, which grants the export licenses is not that dumb. Allies spy on eachother all the time. that's a given any sovreign state knows and takes into account.
  - ryneandal 5y ago
    There are also numerous instances of their intelligence forces spying on us, an ally. - https://apnews.com/article/israel-jonathan-pollard-espionage-united-states-37bc3324e69faba12aad551a4c1585a4 https://apnews.com/article/israel-jonathan-pollard-espionage... - https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house-spying-devices-1491351 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house...
    - xxpor 5y ago
      Everyone spies on everyone, no one is actually shocked by that. The US does it too (see the interception of Angela Merkel's phone calls...) The key is you don't get caught doing it, because it removes plausible deniability.
      - ryanlol 5y ago
        The important detail is to not get caught publicly, generally nobody will raise a stink if western counterintel catches spies from a friendly state.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> don't understand the focus on NSO in these stories. If U.S State Department personnel in Uganda were shot from an M-16, would the headline mention "an American arms manufacturer"? No, because it's ridiculous. No, because it isn't novel, it's not wide reaching, it's not at arm's length and it cannot be stopped. Stuxnet, a novel American-Israeli cyber weapon, purpose built to hit Iran, was absolutely billed as such. And it was received differently, by Iran, than would be e.g. an American-made gun fired by Iraqis at Iranian surrogates. NSO is making and selling cyberweapons. They're doing it now. These weapons are hitting the U.S. government and its allies to an unknown extent. And they can be turned off, right now, if Jerusalem orders it. U.S. persons being shot in Uganda by Kalashnikovs are none of these things. It's not novel. Nobody wonders if the Ugandans are going to show up, guns blazing, in Arlington. And Moscow can't remotely disable the guns.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
snowwrestler 5y ago
U.S. weapons manufacturers receive a lot of criticism too, both domestically in the U.S. and internationally. The comments here focus on NSO because the story is about what NSO did. This is computer tech kind of community so you’re going to see more computer weapon stories here than stories about improper use of rifles.
- montblanc 5y ago
  The U.S sells super sophisticated weapons such as attack drones, F-15s or nuclear submarines. The tech behind these things is probably super interesting and there's a lot of software involved. If you look at the comments here, around 90% of them don't care about the tech at all but focus on bashing Israel. This isn't a tech story.
  - azernik 5y ago
    And Israel also sells super sophisticated weapons like AWACS radars and surface-to-air missiles. But there are clear understandings that e.g. nothing goes to China, and no fancy radars go even to untrustworthy places like Myanmar. NSO is still in a gray zone.
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    An Israeli company selling hacking services to every dictatorship and or corporation willing to pay? I hope you can see why that's bad. And yes I'm acutely aware that the CIA literally ran torture training camps in the 1970s but two wrong don't make something right.
  - chucksmash 5y ago
    It would certainly be a news story if someone used a U.S. built submarine to attack the U.S. State Department.
    - montblanc 5y ago
      You do realize it was Ugandans who actually ordered the hack yes?
octopoc 5y ago
Unlike an M-16, hacks can be conducted remotely, they can be used to plant evidence, conduct blackmail, and lots of other things where most people would never know a hack was involved. Also, there's outrage towards NSO because Israel is supposedly an American ally. Israel needs American support, and yet Israel freely allows Israeli corporations to sell services American enemies. And this isn't an isolated company--there are other Israeli hacking companies that target Americans, such as Black Cube.
- azernik 5y ago
  This isn't being sold to an American enemy - in fact, the US sells and donates (!) weapons to the same government. The US doesn't care much about Israel (a Major Non-NATO Ally) or Turkey (a NATO member) selling artillery pieces and APCs to Uganda. It's all about the specific class of weapon. There are general understandings about who can get sold what weapon without the US getting mad. No radars or surface-to-air missiles for China or Russia or for random tiny dictatorships; but it's totally okay to sell them to India or Latin America. Dumber things like artillery pieces can go anywhere, even places under US sanctions like Myanmar, without crossing any lines. But this isn't written in treaties; it's all implicit understandings and learned patterns of retaliation. For this new class of weapon, both sides are still feeling out the rules. The US is laying down precedents that put NSO's products much closer to the rules for radars and missiles, while Israel is pushing the limits to see how far the US can live with.
- montblanc 5y ago
  Uganda is not an American enemy.
user-the-name 5y ago
> No, because it's ridiculous. Is it really.
- dang 5y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You've been doing it a lot, unfortunately, and we ban that sort of account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - jaclaz 5y ago
      > And I will not stop calling it out when I see it. None of my business, but it seems to me that you are perfectly free to call out anything, the point, as I see it, is that: > Is it really. is not "calling out" or actually "anything else" that adds anything to the discussion, only a (BTW of difficult interpretation) unsubstantiated comment.
    - dang 5y ago
      Every passionate ideologue thinks that both the community and the moderators are biased in favor of their opponents. Your counterparts are just as certain that it's all biased in favor of you: Typical modern leftist ideology. Very disappointed with HN lately. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25955953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25955953 Hacker News has a progressive Silicon Valley bias https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26402235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26402235 this site is heavily biased towards the left https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26610757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26610757 the status quo here is California liberalism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26719247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26719247 HN, where the SV/SJW group think prevail https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26731079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26731079 a mod who curates comments based on what's politically expedient according to leftist valley dweebs https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26866955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26866955 Ssshh.. You can't say that on HN. You might anger the WOKE mob! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27227591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27227591 HN is best thought of as a machine for deepening the delusions of the left https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27242324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27242324 pure commie propaganda https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27269114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27269114 Democrat cultists https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27308327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27308327 HN is very, very authoritarian left https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27507112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27507112 90% of the HN audience supports communism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27816841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27816841 HN is populated by the very liberal types https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27939890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27939890 this website (like most of the internet), is controlled by the far left https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28037354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28037354 This site is sadly run by militant commies https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=k33n https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=k33n This site is ran by the most radical socialist lefties San Francisco has to offer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28203889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28203889 all non-leftie viewpoints are banned here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28237072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28237072 HN moderation got outsourced to affiliates of the Democratic Party https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28291108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28291108 a total invasion of commies to HN over the past decade https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28065194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28065194 blue for how liberal it is [...] red for how commie it is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29022117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29022117 insane how hard-left this forum has gotten https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29100962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29100962 HN doesn't like it when you criticize the US left https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29176196 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29176196 That's a small sample, and of course there is an equivalent list of complaints saying the opposite. They can't all be right, and I don't think the odds are very high that yours are right while theirs are wrong (or vice versa)—the comments are too isomporphic and the logic too identical. Rather, some deeper mechanism is generating them, one that you/they have in common. What might that be? Well, there's one variable that has complete predictive power here: the ideological passions of the observer. Since the entire phenomenon is predictable from that, I assume it's being generated by it. Moderation is far from perfect - for one thing, there's far too much content for us to see it all, and for another we make mistakes. But that's a far cry from "breeding a community full of extreme opinions, generally $ideology" and all the rest of it. Note that the one thing such complaints never come with is specific examples of all these horrendous things that moderators do or don't do.
bell-cot 5y ago
In National Security contexts, the "get angry at the weapon seller" response is very strongly correlated with how advanced (in technology, power, and scarcity) the weapon is perceived to be. For an "average soldier" weapon, such as an M-16 - $Company isn't likely to catch much grief - unless they're selling a considerable quantity of them, or to an extremely notorious buyer. Similar for a cyberweapon - but an "everyday" one, which wouldn't be a big surprise for a C-list ransomware group to use. Vs. NSO's stuff seems to be the sort of top-tech goodies which A-list nation states use to maintain & enjoy their A-list status. Whether any actual harm results from this incident... publicly letting a bunch of "the wrong sorts" into that exclusive clubhouse is getting NSO into really deep do-do with "the regulars".
- azernik 5y ago
  Yup. If decently up to date surface-to-air missiles were fired at State Department helicopters in X country, the US would be very very angry at whoever let those get sold so loosely.
eecc 5y ago
Nope, that’s a bad analogy. A manufacturer that produces and sells thousands if not millions of items won’t be deemed as complicit as one building a nuke that somehow lands in your enemies’ lap. That’s pretty obvious and it’s disingenuous that you’re trying to steer the conversation in that direction
Sporktacular 5y ago
Speak plainly. Are you suggesting this is a company being unfairly singled out just because it's Israeli?
- montblanc 5y ago
  It being Israeli is definitely a big part of why this story is so huge. Why do you think it's making huge headlines then - what's your theory? The fact that 8 American diplomats got their phones hacked?
  - Sporktacular 5y ago
    Because they are amoral pieces of shit who'll sell to dictatorships and use state export regulations as a fig leaf. Because they fight back, lobbying in an attempt at regulatory capture. Because of how many innocent people's phones their software has provably ended up on. Because it's so closely connected with state funded and trained hackers from Unit 8200. Because they lie, simultaneously denying involvement, yet, disabling the relevant accounts. Just a theory. Follow the industry long enough and you'll know how Hacking Team (Italy), Finfisher (Germany), Gamma International (UK), smaller and larger firms have rightfully attracted their fair share of condemnation. Journalists pile on when a story gains momentum, this round was started by the published list of targets and Citizen Lab. We can't call this anti-semitism yet. Defending it just because it's Israeli would be as unjustifiable as attacking it just because it's Israeli.
jimbob45 5y ago
I'm in agreement with you. I don't see any indication that the Israelis specifically made this weapon to target US interests, nor do I see any indication that the Israelis are discriminating between the US and any other nation, nor do I see anything that leads me to believe that we aren't potentially using this ourselves against other nations. Fuck NSO, for sure. But I'm just not sure Israel should be held accountable for the actions of a private corporation with no apparent political motivations, just as in your M-16 example.
- tomjakubowski 5y ago
  The Israeli state regulates the export of NSO Group's software. So yeah, they do have some responsibility here. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/tech-news/israel-will-review-defense-export-regulation-after-nso-allegations-lawmaker-says-1.10019274 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/tech-news/israel-will-re...
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    If it's specifically, then I'd agree with you. If it's just broadly (such as how the US unilaterally doesn't trade with countries currently in the midst of war), then I'm not so sure.
fnordfnordfnord 5y ago
Unlike a firearm which has no intelligence or software, NSO retains significant control over their product.
- montblanc 5y ago
  U.S drones and F-15s don't have software?
  - fnordfnordfnord 5y ago
    OP said M-16 not F-15.
sangnoir 5y ago
NSO doesn't "sell" cyberweapons - they lease them and provide logistical support (including running the cloud infrastructure). This confers a lot more knowledge on where and how the weapons are used, and adds a lot more culpability. The situation is less "M-16 and rounds sold once-off", and more of a turnkey armed drone (or surveillance drone, if you're charitable) service provided to governments, where the missiles, fuel, and airbases are provided by a private party on an ongoing basis. It's more of a tailored service, than a sale of goods.
dmix 5y ago
It's more like a PMC ala Wagner than selling an M-16. They essentially run the technical side of operations and provide the talent.
- brendoelfrendo 5y ago
  Ah, I like this analogy. NSO's role isn't so much selling a weapon as it is selling "cyberwarfare as a service."
brendoelfrendo 5y ago
Weapon merchants get flack all the time for selling their wares to... we'll call them "rivals," but it could be any state or organization not in the US's sphere of influence. NSO gets particular flack because they're inextricable from the weapon they sell. If an M-16 is used to shoot someone, provenance is probably harder to prove; weapons change hands all the time, or are smuggled to ne're-do-wells via the black market. But everyone using Pegasus, as far as we know, is an NSO client; NSO made the choice to provide that software, including NSO support and NSO services.
sva_ 5y ago
> For better or worse, NSO's product is a weapon. How is it any different from an M-16? Where is the outrage towards the people who used this weapon against the State Department? It is highly unlikely that NSO group actually gives out their exploits, based on what we know about previous exploitations that have become known. It's more like they offer an interface to execute their exploits on a given target. The fact that they can block entities from using their service, after having had access to it (like they supposedly did in this case), very strongly supports this hypothesis. Hence they're offering a service, to use weapons for (or rather, in the name of) some (government) entity that pays them money to do so. Imagine bombing-as-a-service, as an instance. That's much more like it, and your argument doesn't hold in that case.
- tsol 5y ago
  Hacking as a service is a good way to put it
tschwimmer 5y ago
Perhaps you are unaware of the nature of global arms control and how much work goes in to prevent scenarios exactly like this. Small arms proliferation is much harder to control, but yes there has been extensive reporting on Operation Fast and Furious where US gun sellers were allowed to sell to Mexican cartels under ATF supervision. [0] Those guns were used against both US and Mexican citizens, including fatally against 1 US Border Patrol Agent in 2010. Looking farther back, during the Falklands war in the early 80s there was much controversy over the Exocet anti-ship missile, which was manufactured and sold by France. When these missiles were successfully used against British warships near the Falklands, Britian successfully lobbied for France to stop selling them to the Argentinians.[1] So yes, it's actually very common to put the responsibility of how their products are used on arms manufacturers. It's a good thing and it keeps the world safer. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17256975 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17256975

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

walrus01 5y ago

It's my understanding that NSO runs centralized command and control servers that their "clients" are granted access to, for both the on-device payload installation and also data exfiltration. They do not give the software to their clients to go use somewhere in the world fully independently (self hosted payload dropper, C&C, etc) They're a direct participant in the network traffic. Unlike a dumb purely offline piece of hardware like a M4 rifle or similar.

montblanc 5y ago
So selling an F-15 to the Saudis (like the U.S is doing in droves) is more morally justifable because what exactly..? After the plane is sold the Saudis are independent with it? (they aren't really btw. I'm sure there's maintenance and buying parts etc).
- walrus01 5y ago
  I am also not in favor of selling advanced weaponry to the saudis or pretty much any non-democratic regime. The US has a very poor historical track record of supporting strongmen that do brutal things. Pinochet. Suharto. MBS. I could write a very long list.
- phatfish 5y ago
  None one else was talking about F-15s or drones in this thread. The only mention was of weapons that even civilians can buy is some countries and do not come with a support contract attached. IMO the US selling F-15s or drones to the Saudis is very similar. The US shouldn't be supporting the Saudis murdering civilians with F-15s, and Israel should not be supporting hacking tools that enable other governments (or private organizations) to murder people they dont like.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
montblanc 5y ago
I find it very unlikely they knew about state department phones. Why bring up M4 rifles all the time? That's not how the U.S or any other arms seller makes money at all. The big money comes from planes, drones, etc. 350 billion worth over 10 years just to Saudi Arabia alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_arms_deal#:~:text=On%20May%2020%2C%202017%2C%20U.S.,%24350%20billion%20over%2010%20years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States%E2%80%93Sau....

montblanc 5y ago

[flagged]

Tronno 5y ago
Israel is ostensibly a Western ally, yet they sell weapons that are used to attack Western nations and their citizens. Can you see why some people might consider that a problem? Your accusations of anti-semitism are unwelcome and without merit.
- mola 5y ago
  Uganda is not a US enemy. NSO is a disgusting money grab and a threat for democracies. But, they never sold to any nation which is a US enemy. Uganda is not a US enemy. Israeli government, which grants the export licenses is not that dumb. Allies spy on eachother all the time. that's a given any sovreign state knows and takes into account.
- ryneandal 5y ago
  There are also numerous instances of their intelligence forces spying on us, an ally. - https://apnews.com/article/israel-jonathan-pollard-espionage-united-states-37bc3324e69faba12aad551a4c1585a4 https://apnews.com/article/israel-jonathan-pollard-espionage... - https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house-spying-devices-1491351 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house...
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Everyone spies on everyone, no one is actually shocked by that. The US does it too (see the interception of Angela Merkel's phone calls...) The key is you don't get caught doing it, because it removes plausible deniability.
    - ryanlol 5y ago
      The important detail is to not get caught publicly, generally nobody will raise a stink if western counterintel catches spies from a friendly state.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> don't understand the focus on NSO in these stories. If U.S State Department personnel in Uganda were shot from an M-16, would the headline mention "an American arms manufacturer"? No, because it's ridiculous. No, because it isn't novel, it's not wide reaching, it's not at arm's length and it cannot be stopped. Stuxnet, a novel American-Israeli cyber weapon, purpose built to hit Iran, was absolutely billed as such. And it was received differently, by Iran, than would be e.g. an American-made gun fired by Iraqis at Iranian surrogates. NSO is making and selling cyberweapons. They're doing it now. These weapons are hitting the U.S. government and its allies to an unknown extent. And they can be turned off, right now, if Jerusalem orders it. U.S. persons being shot in Uganda by Kalashnikovs are none of these things. It's not novel. Nobody wonders if the Ugandans are going to show up, guns blazing, in Arlington. And Moscow can't remotely disable the guns.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

snowwrestler 5y ago

U.S. weapons manufacturers receive a lot of criticism too, both domestically in the U.S. and internationally. The comments here focus on NSO because the story is about what NSO did. This is computer tech kind of community so you’re going to see more computer weapon stories here than stories about improper use of rifles.

montblanc 5y ago
The U.S sells super sophisticated weapons such as attack drones, F-15s or nuclear submarines. The tech behind these things is probably super interesting and there's a lot of software involved. If you look at the comments here, around 90% of them don't care about the tech at all but focus on bashing Israel. This isn't a tech story.
- azernik 5y ago
  And Israel also sells super sophisticated weapons like AWACS radars and surface-to-air missiles. But there are clear understandings that e.g. nothing goes to China, and no fancy radars go even to untrustworthy places like Myanmar. NSO is still in a gray zone.
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  An Israeli company selling hacking services to every dictatorship and or corporation willing to pay? I hope you can see why that's bad. And yes I'm acutely aware that the CIA literally ran torture training camps in the 1970s but two wrong don't make something right.
- chucksmash 5y ago
  It would certainly be a news story if someone used a U.S. built submarine to attack the U.S. State Department.
  - montblanc 5y ago
    You do realize it was Ugandans who actually ordered the hack yes?

octopoc 5y ago

Unlike an M-16, hacks can be conducted remotely, they can be used to plant evidence, conduct blackmail, and lots of other things where most people would never know a hack was involved. Also, there's outrage towards NSO because Israel is supposedly an American ally. Israel needs American support, and yet Israel freely allows Israeli corporations to sell services American enemies. And this isn't an isolated company--there are other Israeli hacking companies that target Americans, such as Black Cube.

azernik 5y ago
This isn't being sold to an American enemy - in fact, the US sells and donates (!) weapons to the same government. The US doesn't care much about Israel (a Major Non-NATO Ally) or Turkey (a NATO member) selling artillery pieces and APCs to Uganda. It's all about the specific class of weapon. There are general understandings about who can get sold what weapon without the US getting mad. No radars or surface-to-air missiles for China or Russia or for random tiny dictatorships; but it's totally okay to sell them to India or Latin America. Dumber things like artillery pieces can go anywhere, even places under US sanctions like Myanmar, without crossing any lines. But this isn't written in treaties; it's all implicit understandings and learned patterns of retaliation. For this new class of weapon, both sides are still feeling out the rules. The US is laying down precedents that put NSO's products much closer to the rules for radars and missiles, while Israel is pushing the limits to see how far the US can live with.
montblanc 5y ago
Uganda is not an American enemy.

user-the-name 5y ago

> No, because it's ridiculous. Is it really.

dang 5y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You've been doing it a lot, unfortunately, and we ban that sort of account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- user-the-name 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - jaclaz 5y ago
    > And I will not stop calling it out when I see it. None of my business, but it seems to me that you are perfectly free to call out anything, the point, as I see it, is that: > Is it really. is not "calling out" or actually "anything else" that adds anything to the discussion, only a (BTW of difficult interpretation) unsubstantiated comment.
  - dang 5y ago
    Every passionate ideologue thinks that both the community and the moderators are biased in favor of their opponents. Your counterparts are just as certain that it's all biased in favor of you: Typical modern leftist ideology. Very disappointed with HN lately. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25955953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25955953 Hacker News has a progressive Silicon Valley bias https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26402235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26402235 this site is heavily biased towards the left https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26610757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26610757 the status quo here is California liberalism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26719247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26719247 HN, where the SV/SJW group think prevail https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26731079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26731079 a mod who curates comments based on what's politically expedient according to leftist valley dweebs https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26866955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26866955 Ssshh.. You can't say that on HN. You might anger the WOKE mob! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27227591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27227591 HN is best thought of as a machine for deepening the delusions of the left https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27242324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27242324 pure commie propaganda https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27269114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27269114 Democrat cultists https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27308327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27308327 HN is very, very authoritarian left https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27507112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27507112 90% of the HN audience supports communism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27816841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27816841 HN is populated by the very liberal types https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27939890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27939890 this website (like most of the internet), is controlled by the far left https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28037354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28037354 This site is sadly run by militant commies https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=k33n https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=k33n This site is ran by the most radical socialist lefties San Francisco has to offer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28203889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28203889 all non-leftie viewpoints are banned here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28237072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28237072 HN moderation got outsourced to affiliates of the Democratic Party https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28291108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28291108 a total invasion of commies to HN over the past decade https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28065194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28065194 blue for how liberal it is [...] red for how commie it is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29022117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29022117 insane how hard-left this forum has gotten https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29100962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29100962 HN doesn't like it when you criticize the US left https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29176196 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29176196 That's a small sample, and of course there is an equivalent list of complaints saying the opposite. They can't all be right, and I don't think the odds are very high that yours are right while theirs are wrong (or vice versa)—the comments are too isomporphic and the logic too identical. Rather, some deeper mechanism is generating them, one that you/they have in common. What might that be? Well, there's one variable that has complete predictive power here: the ideological passions of the observer. Since the entire phenomenon is predictable from that, I assume it's being generated by it. Moderation is far from perfect - for one thing, there's far too much content for us to see it all, and for another we make mistakes. But that's a far cry from "breeding a community full of extreme opinions, generally $ideology" and all the rest of it. Note that the one thing such complaints never come with is specific examples of all these horrendous things that moderators do or don't do.

bell-cot 5y ago

In National Security contexts, the "get angry at the weapon seller" response is very strongly correlated with how advanced (in technology, power, and scarcity) the weapon is perceived to be. For an "average soldier" weapon, such as an M-16 - $Company isn't likely to catch much grief - unless they're selling a considerable quantity of them, or to an extremely notorious buyer. Similar for a cyberweapon - but an "everyday" one, which wouldn't be a big surprise for a C-list ransomware group to use. Vs. NSO's stuff seems to be the sort of top-tech goodies which A-list nation states use to maintain & enjoy their A-list status. Whether any actual harm results from this incident... publicly letting a bunch of "the wrong sorts" into that exclusive clubhouse is getting NSO into really deep do-do with "the regulars".

azernik 5y ago
Yup. If decently up to date surface-to-air missiles were fired at State Department helicopters in X country, the US would be very very angry at whoever let those get sold so loosely.

eecc 5y ago

Nope, that’s a bad analogy. A manufacturer that produces and sells thousands if not millions of items won’t be deemed as complicit as one building a nuke that somehow lands in your enemies’ lap. That’s pretty obvious and it’s disingenuous that you’re trying to steer the conversation in that direction

Sporktacular 5y ago

Speak plainly. Are you suggesting this is a company being unfairly singled out just because it's Israeli?

montblanc 5y ago
It being Israeli is definitely a big part of why this story is so huge. Why do you think it's making huge headlines then - what's your theory? The fact that 8 American diplomats got their phones hacked?
- Sporktacular 5y ago
  Because they are amoral pieces of shit who'll sell to dictatorships and use state export regulations as a fig leaf. Because they fight back, lobbying in an attempt at regulatory capture. Because of how many innocent people's phones their software has provably ended up on. Because it's so closely connected with state funded and trained hackers from Unit 8200. Because they lie, simultaneously denying involvement, yet, disabling the relevant accounts. Just a theory. Follow the industry long enough and you'll know how Hacking Team (Italy), Finfisher (Germany), Gamma International (UK), smaller and larger firms have rightfully attracted their fair share of condemnation. Journalists pile on when a story gains momentum, this round was started by the published list of targets and Citizen Lab. We can't call this anti-semitism yet. Defending it just because it's Israeli would be as unjustifiable as attacking it just because it's Israeli.

jimbob45 5y ago

I'm in agreement with you. I don't see any indication that the Israelis specifically made this weapon to target US interests, nor do I see any indication that the Israelis are discriminating between the US and any other nation, nor do I see anything that leads me to believe that we aren't potentially using this ourselves against other nations. Fuck NSO, for sure. But I'm just not sure Israel should be held accountable for the actions of a private corporation with no apparent political motivations, just as in your M-16 example.

tomjakubowski 5y ago
The Israeli state regulates the export of NSO Group's software. So yeah, they do have some responsibility here. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/tech-news/israel-will-review-defense-export-regulation-after-nso-allegations-lawmaker-says-1.10019274 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/tech-news/israel-will-re...
- jimbob45 5y ago
  If it's specifically, then I'd agree with you. If it's just broadly (such as how the US unilaterally doesn't trade with countries currently in the midst of war), then I'm not so sure.

fnordfnordfnord 5y ago

Unlike a firearm which has no intelligence or software, NSO retains significant control over their product.

montblanc 5y ago
U.S drones and F-15s don't have software?
- fnordfnordfnord 5y ago
  OP said M-16 not F-15.

sangnoir 5y ago

NSO doesn't "sell" cyberweapons - they lease them and provide logistical support (including running the cloud infrastructure). This confers a lot more knowledge on where and how the weapons are used, and adds a lot more culpability. The situation is less "M-16 and rounds sold once-off", and more of a turnkey armed drone (or surveillance drone, if you're charitable) service provided to governments, where the missiles, fuel, and airbases are provided by a private party on an ongoing basis. It's more of a tailored service, than a sale of goods.

dmix 5y ago

It's more like a PMC ala Wagner than selling an M-16. They essentially run the technical side of operations and provide the talent.

brendoelfrendo 5y ago
Ah, I like this analogy. NSO's role isn't so much selling a weapon as it is selling "cyberwarfare as a service."

brendoelfrendo 5y ago

Weapon merchants get flack all the time for selling their wares to... we'll call them "rivals," but it could be any state or organization not in the US's sphere of influence. NSO gets particular flack because they're inextricable from the weapon they sell. If an M-16 is used to shoot someone, provenance is probably harder to prove; weapons change hands all the time, or are smuggled to ne're-do-wells via the black market. But everyone using Pegasus, as far as we know, is an NSO client; NSO made the choice to provide that software, including NSO support and NSO services.

sva_ 5y ago

> For better or worse, NSO's product is a weapon. How is it any different from an M-16? Where is the outrage towards the people who used this weapon against the State Department? It is highly unlikely that NSO group actually gives out their exploits, based on what we know about previous exploitations that have become known. It's more like they offer an interface to execute their exploits on a given target. The fact that they can block entities from using their service, after having had access to it (like they supposedly did in this case), very strongly supports this hypothesis. Hence they're offering a service, to use weapons for (or rather, in the name of) some (government) entity that pays them money to do so. Imagine bombing-as-a-service, as an instance. That's much more like it, and your argument doesn't hold in that case.

tsol 5y ago
Hacking as a service is a good way to put it

tschwimmer 5y ago

Perhaps you are unaware of the nature of global arms control and how much work goes in to prevent scenarios exactly like this. Small arms proliferation is much harder to control, but yes there has been extensive reporting on Operation Fast and Furious where US gun sellers were allowed to sell to Mexican cartels under ATF supervision. [0] Those guns were used against both US and Mexican citizens, including fatally against 1 US Border Patrol Agent in 2010. Looking farther back, during the Falklands war in the early 80s there was much controversy over the Exocet anti-ship missile, which was manufactured and sold by France. When these missiles were successfully used against British warships near the Falklands, Britian successfully lobbied for France to stop selling them to the Argentinians.[1] So yes, it's actually very common to put the responsibility of how their products are used on arms manufacturers. It's a good thing and it keeps the world safer. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17256975 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17256975