3 ms·

1. Forming companies and getting clients isn't zero cost. 2. Judges are human and can apply appropriate principles.

solardev 4y ago
You're dealing with what is essentially a front for gray-area extrajudicial hacking. The company itself isn't the issue, it's that it gives governments and other entities cover when they want to do shady shit. Same reason we use private military companies. The profitability of any one such company isn't really terribly important (from a privacy standpoint)... when one goes down, another takes its place, and the willing buyers will just buy from a new one instead. Like drug dealers. From the privacy angle, nobody cares about NSO profitability... the point is that even if they go bankrupt, the underlying people, technologies, procedures, and overall shadiness will not only remain but grow stronger and more hidden, learning from this incident. Zero-days will keep getting found and bought and used for surveillance, and that is not something the legal system can solve, because a major customer IS state buyers who are funneling resources to it to purposefully circumvent legal protections. Judges aren't almighty, the law is selectively enforced, and almost always overridden for "national security" purposes.
- tptacek 4y ago
  I mean, this is all fun stuff to noodle about, but, no: NSO was almost sold to L3Harris; legal drama prevented that from happening. You really can just look this stuff up. You don't have to start from first principles and try to reason your way to conclusions.
- worik 4y ago
  > You're dealing with what is essentially a front for gray-area extrajudicial hacking. The company itself isn't the issue, It is a game of whack'a'mole. But a business that gets you sued is radioactive for investors. SO while the technology exists, and means will be found by well funded agencies to exploit it, it will become less and less accessible to private corporations as a business model. That is a good thing. That results from suing them.
EMM_386 4y ago
Let's not kid ourselves here, NSO is no regular "company" and doesn't face any of these issues. This is literally an arm of the Israeli intelligence apparatus. The laws as you and I see them do not apply in any form whatsoever to NSO.
- tptacek 4y ago
  If that's the case, then Israeli intelligence attempted to sell an arm of their own intelligence apparatus to a US defense contractor. Have you spent a lot of time looking into NSO?
brookst 4y ago
2 is critical. Tech people tend to fall for “one simple trick” because they believe there is a highly formal rule system we’re any technical loophole is just “oh well, the rules didn’t apply” But reality is judges and the justice system are intentionally analog and human and fallible, and can use judgment to sledgehammer people trying to use one simple trick.

You're dealing with what is essentially a front for gray-area extrajudicial hacking. The company itself isn't the issue, it's that it gives governments and other entities cover when they want to do shady shit. Same reason we use private military companies. The profitability of any one such company isn't really terribly important (from a privacy standpoint)... when one goes down, another takes its place, and the willing buyers will just buy from a new one instead. Like drug dealers. From the privacy angle, nobody cares about NSO profitability... the point is that even if they go bankrupt, the underlying people, technologies, procedures, and overall shadiness will not only remain but grow stronger and more hidden, learning from this incident. Zero-days will keep getting found and bought and used for surveillance, and that is not something the legal system can solve, because a major customer IS state buyers who are funneling resources to it to purposefully circumvent legal protections. Judges aren't almighty, the law is selectively enforced, and almost always overridden for "national security" purposes.

tptacek 4y ago
I mean, this is all fun stuff to noodle about, but, no: NSO was almost sold to L3Harris; legal drama prevented that from happening. You really can just look this stuff up. You don't have to start from first principles and try to reason your way to conclusions.
worik 4y ago
> You're dealing with what is essentially a front for gray-area extrajudicial hacking. The company itself isn't the issue, It is a game of whack'a'mole. But a business that gets you sued is radioactive for investors. SO while the technology exists, and means will be found by well funded agencies to exploit it, it will become less and less accessible to private corporations as a business model. That is a good thing. That results from suing them.

EMM_386 4y ago

Let's not kid ourselves here, NSO is no regular "company" and doesn't face any of these issues. This is literally an arm of the Israeli intelligence apparatus. The laws as you and I see them do not apply in any form whatsoever to NSO.

tptacek 4y ago
If that's the case, then Israeli intelligence attempted to sell an arm of their own intelligence apparatus to a US defense contractor. Have you spent a lot of time looking into NSO?

brookst 4y ago

2 is critical. Tech people tend to fall for “one simple trick” because they believe there is a highly formal rule system we’re any technical loophole is just “oh well, the rules didn’t apply” But reality is judges and the justice system are intentionally analog and human and fallible, and can use judgment to sledgehammer people trying to use one simple trick.