4 ms·

Shouldn't this lead to a broader question of whether spyware should be allowed to be sold to governments? Especially repressive ones which will obviously use it

by Ahmd72 2y ago

Shouldn't this lead to a broader question of whether spyware should be allowed to be sold to governments? Especially repressive ones which will obviously use it for nefarious reasons?

_mlbt 2y ago
I’m not a lawyer, but at least in the United States at the minimum probable cause and a warrant should be required prior to their use per the 4th Amendment… “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
- s4mw1se 2y ago
  The only time the U.S has cared about spying on their citizens is when snowden dropped the big leak and they were pissed they got caught with pants down. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disclosures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_di...
- hulitu 2y ago
  > I’m not a lawyer, but at least in the United States at the minimum probable cause and a warrant should be required prior to their use per the 4th Amendment… You do realize that FAANG are collecting user data and are more than happy to supply it to the government, don't you ? /s
  - _mlbt 2y ago
    Yes, but that is legally different than a government agency breaking the encryption on our devices without a warrant.
    - hulitu 2y ago
      Legally, yes. But the government does not break the encryption. Neither your favourite online provider. You just agreed to let them spy on you (TOS) and gave them access to your passwords. Yes, they (companies) promise they won't sell your data and only give it to government with a warrant.
dunekid 2y ago
Which government would qualify as repressive though? Pegasus is made in a place, where apartheid is the norm. The only qualifying criteria for that regime is if the other government is against them or not? And would they give pretty penny for it?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
How would you define spyware in a way that doesn’t require state approval to have overseas users for any application or service?
- hulitu 2y ago
  Your privacy is very important for us. /s Works like a charm.
washadjeffmad 2y ago
Or, what's the provision that allows these companies and actors to be exempted from CFAA? If this was used on any US citizen who has been killed and the Fed doesn't prosecute because it's been tacitly approved as an armament in war, isn't that akin to another "collateral murder" situation?

by Ahmd72 2y ago

Shouldn't this lead to a broader question of whether spyware should be allowed to be sold to governments? Especially repressive ones which will obviously use it for nefarious reasons?

_mlbt 2y ago

I’m not a lawyer, but at least in the United States at the minimum probable cause and a warrant should be required prior to their use per the 4th Amendment… “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

s4mw1se 2y ago
The only time the U.S has cared about spying on their citizens is when snowden dropped the big leak and they were pissed they got caught with pants down. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disclosures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_di...
hulitu 2y ago
> I’m not a lawyer, but at least in the United States at the minimum probable cause and a warrant should be required prior to their use per the 4th Amendment… You do realize that FAANG are collecting user data and are more than happy to supply it to the government, don't you ? /s
- _mlbt 2y ago
  Yes, but that is legally different than a government agency breaking the encryption on our devices without a warrant.
  - hulitu 2y ago
    Legally, yes. But the government does not break the encryption. Neither your favourite online provider. You just agreed to let them spy on you (TOS) and gave them access to your passwords. Yes, they (companies) promise they won't sell your data and only give it to government with a warrant.

dunekid 2y ago

Which government would qualify as repressive though? Pegasus is made in a place, where apartheid is the norm. The only qualifying criteria for that regime is if the other government is against them or not? And would they give pretty penny for it?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

How would you define spyware in a way that doesn’t require state approval to have overseas users for any application or service?

hulitu 2y ago
Your privacy is very important for us. /s Works like a charm.

washadjeffmad 2y ago

Or, what's the provision that allows these companies and actors to be exempted from CFAA? If this was used on any US citizen who has been killed and the Fed doesn't prosecute because it's been tacitly approved as an armament in war, isn't that akin to another "collateral murder" situation?