4 ms·

> It is much better for everyone involved to tolerate companies like NSO and regulate them. That's what this is. That's what a lawsuit is. This is them being r

by dqv 1y ago

> It is much better for everyone involved to tolerate companies like NSO and regulate them. That's what this is. That's what a lawsuit is. This is them being regulated. They aren't being ordered to shut down, they're being ordered to pay damages.

notepad0x90 1y ago
no, there is no regulation or law for what they do. This is a civil suit between two companies, it is not a regulation. had they actually violated the law, it would have been a criminal prosecution. civil damages are not government regulation. if you can simply be anonymous, you won't even break the law as you sell to any party.
- dqv 1y ago
  > no, there is no regulation or law for what they do Yes, there is: the CFAA. Corporations and the government have even weaponized criminal complaints against individuals under the law. > This is a civil suit between two companies, it is not a regulation The venue in which regulation is enforced does not change its status as a regulation. The distinction between criminal and civil is irrelevant here. (Notwithstanding the possibility of a corrupt judge) Meta would not have been able to continue their suit had there not been a regulation. > had they actually violated the law, it would have been a criminal prosecution No, had a prosecutor wanted to pursue an indictment, it would have been a criminal prosecution. A prosecutor's willingness to enforce a law and bring trial is at their discretion. In the same way that charges don't necessarily indicate criminality, a lack thereof doesn't necessarily indicate the absence of wrongdoing. > civil damages are not government regulation. Civil laws are regulation. The judge is the regulating authority who enforces the penalty for being out of compliance with those laws, which comes in the form of ordering money damages in this situation. > if you can simply be anonymous, you won't even break the law as you sell to any party Yes and maybe the fact that they're anonymous brings it it to the level of criminality in a prosecutor's eyes. That desire to conceal their identity could the turn preponderance of the evidence (civil) into beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). Or it could always stay in the civil system. The criminal system is political just like anything else. See above.
  - notepad0x90 1y ago
    CFAA is criminal law with specific parameters. the accused must have attempted or conspired to attempt to bypass a restricted system. Demonstrating how to steal money from a bank vault for example is not a crime, neither is teaching others how to do so for a fee or providing them with tools that can aid them in that endeavor. Especially when the other party is a government, it is reasonable to assume they will operate within the bounds of their own law. Red teamers, pentesters, security researchers, security training providers couldn't exist if the CFAA prohibited this. It isn't like their customers come to them and ask "hey, we're gonna spy on a journalist, can we buy pegasus". At the very least, it needs to be established that it is reasonable to presume pegasus will be used to break a law, it could be used for lawful reasons (which exist) and I'm sure they'll make their clients sign waivers to protect themselves fro such presumption. Anonymity isn't a crime (at least not yet), and it alone cannot be used to presume criminal intent. It isn't a crime to offer services anonymously. Perhaps not paying your taxes (if income could be proven) is something they can go after (and fail). The civil system can be used, if it is the government that is the plaintiff. Random companies suing is not enforcement since companies act in their interest, not in the interest of public policy and regulation. Waiting for events that align with corporate interests is not regulation, it is coincidence.

by dqv 1y ago

notepad0x90 1y ago

no, there is no regulation or law for what they do. This is a civil suit between two companies, it is not a regulation. had they actually violated the law, it would have been a criminal prosecution. civil damages are not government regulation. if you can simply be anonymous, you won't even break the law as you sell to any party.

dqv 1y ago
> no, there is no regulation or law for what they do Yes, there is: the CFAA. Corporations and the government have even weaponized criminal complaints against individuals under the law. > This is a civil suit between two companies, it is not a regulation The venue in which regulation is enforced does not change its status as a regulation. The distinction between criminal and civil is irrelevant here. (Notwithstanding the possibility of a corrupt judge) Meta would not have been able to continue their suit had there not been a regulation. > had they actually violated the law, it would have been a criminal prosecution No, had a prosecutor wanted to pursue an indictment, it would have been a criminal prosecution. A prosecutor's willingness to enforce a law and bring trial is at their discretion. In the same way that charges don't necessarily indicate criminality, a lack thereof doesn't necessarily indicate the absence of wrongdoing. > civil damages are not government regulation. Civil laws are regulation. The judge is the regulating authority who enforces the penalty for being out of compliance with those laws, which comes in the form of ordering money damages in this situation. > if you can simply be anonymous, you won't even break the law as you sell to any party Yes and maybe the fact that they're anonymous brings it it to the level of criminality in a prosecutor's eyes. That desire to conceal their identity could the turn preponderance of the evidence (civil) into beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). Or it could always stay in the civil system. The criminal system is political just like anything else. See above.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  CFAA is criminal law with specific parameters. the accused must have attempted or conspired to attempt to bypass a restricted system. Demonstrating how to steal money from a bank vault for example is not a crime, neither is teaching others how to do so for a fee or providing them with tools that can aid them in that endeavor. Especially when the other party is a government, it is reasonable to assume they will operate within the bounds of their own law. Red teamers, pentesters, security researchers, security training providers couldn't exist if the CFAA prohibited this. It isn't like their customers come to them and ask "hey, we're gonna spy on a journalist, can we buy pegasus". At the very least, it needs to be established that it is reasonable to presume pegasus will be used to break a law, it could be used for lawful reasons (which exist) and I'm sure they'll make their clients sign waivers to protect themselves fro such presumption. Anonymity isn't a crime (at least not yet), and it alone cannot be used to presume criminal intent. It isn't a crime to offer services anonymously. Perhaps not paying your taxes (if income could be proven) is something they can go after (and fail). The civil system can be used, if it is the government that is the plaintiff. Random companies suing is not enforcement since companies act in their interest, not in the interest of public policy and regulation. Waiting for events that align with corporate interests is not regulation, it is coincidence.