3 ms·

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 installat

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

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....