Apple Sues Israeli Spyware Maker, Seeking To Block Its Access To iPhones 33
Apple sued the NSO Group, the Israeli surveillance company, in federal court on Tuesday, another setback for the beleaguered firm and the unregulated spyware industry. From a report: The lawsuit is the second of its kind -- Facebook sued the NSO Group in 2019 for targeting its WhatsApp users -- and represents another consequential move by a private company to curb invasive spyware by governments and the companies that provide their spy tools. Apple, for the first time, seeks to hold NSO accountable for what it says was the surveillance and targeting of Apple users. Apple also wants to permanently prevent NSO from using any Apple software, services or devices, a move that could render the company's Pegasus spyware product worthless, given that its core business is to give NSO's government clients full access to a target's iPhone or Android smartphone.
Apple is also asking for unspecified damages for the time and cost to deal with what the company argues is NSO's abuse of its products. Apple said it would donate the proceeds from those damages to organizations that expose spyware. Since NSO's founding in 2010, its executives have said that they sell spyware to governments only for lawful interception, but a series of revelations by journalists and private researchers have shown the extent to which governments have deployed NSO's Pegasus spyware against journalists, activists and dissidents. Apple executives described the lawsuit as a warning shot to NSO and other spyware makers. "This is Apple saying: If you do this, if you weaponize our software against innocent users, researchers, dissidents, activists or journalists, Apple will give you no quarter," Ivan Krstic, head of Apple security engineering and architecture, said in an interview on Monday.
Apple is also asking for unspecified damages for the time and cost to deal with what the company argues is NSO's abuse of its products. Apple said it would donate the proceeds from those damages to organizations that expose spyware. Since NSO's founding in 2010, its executives have said that they sell spyware to governments only for lawful interception, but a series of revelations by journalists and private researchers have shown the extent to which governments have deployed NSO's Pegasus spyware against journalists, activists and dissidents. Apple executives described the lawsuit as a warning shot to NSO and other spyware makers. "This is Apple saying: If you do this, if you weaponize our software against innocent users, researchers, dissidents, activists or journalists, Apple will give you no quarter," Ivan Krstic, head of Apple security engineering and architecture, said in an interview on Monday.
Corporate Chess (Score:2)
Apple can't do much about people getting their phones and hacking them. By suing, they can claim they are "doing something" about it.
If things get too hot for the NSO Group, the company will likely change their name and/or split up into multiple smaller companies that change their name yearly. These services have proved profitable. As long as there are buyers, a lawsuit won't stop this stuff.
As a consumer, I welcome the cat and mouse. If Apple is truly trying to be super secure, they need a company l
Re: (Score:3)
Apple can however make life pretty hard for NSO and vendors like it. Usually their stuff relies pretty heavily on Apples libraries to do things.
These products are usually a bundle of exploits + some interface components which are all bit on top of iTunes libraries for all but the most rudimentary functions like photo transfer that have some standards around them.
If Apple gets the courts to enforce their shrink-wrap agreements on iTunes and MacOS while i might not be hard road block for these guys it does me
Re: (Score:2)
not sure what this accomplishes (Score:2)
Suing an Israeli company in US court for things done outside the US, when all they really need is to be able to buy retail phone to continue doing their thing.
It does do one thing, thought; it gives Apple something to point to when they say, "We're trying to keep you safe! Just read out lawsuit!"
Re: (Score:2)
It’s not quite as simple as getting their hands on a piece of hardware. The NSO group needed to set up some Apple IDs to distribute the spyware they were using on iOS (not sure how they distributed the same spyware on Android, given that they had it there as well). In agreeing to the TOS, they agreed to be governed by the laws of California and it’s likely Apple will seek some form of punitive damages that may be sufficient to bankrupt the company. And even if they don’t win them, Apple wi
Re: (Score:1)
Apple had better win (Score:5, Informative)
This is a fascinating case. Will courts allow Apple to stop a surveillance tool that governments clearly love? Will the US government come out in favor of Apple or NSO group?
Without a doubt, NSO group needs to be wiped out of existence because it clearly empowers monsters and dictators against civil rights activists, journalists and citizens outside of their countries' jurisdictions. The NSO group is indisputably allowing repressive regimes to consolidate their power and even to manipulate international trade. As such, the company must be wiped out of existence, and the Israeli government must be held to account for supporting and protecting the NSO group.
It is a forgone conclusion that Apple will sue the Israeli government, too, once the Israeli government's role is made clear during discovery. Of course, Apple will have a huge bargaining chip. Apple's main chip design center is in Hertzliya, Israel. So, the Israeli government must weigh the small revenues and huge influence that NSO group brings in against the blockbuster investment that Apple is making in the Israeli tech sector.
It's a no brainer, but governments tend to act stupidly in such situations.
Re: (Score:2)
This will be an interesting case.
I would argue that the actions The NSO Group are taking are nothing new. What is different here is that this is a corporation, staffed by X cyber-spies from world governments, operating as a legit company. Nation States have been doing this type of work forever, and generally, before The NSO group, they were more difficult to contract with.
If this lawsuit is successful, the only thing this will accomplish is driving the "NSO group" underground. It may make these headline
NSO will move jurisdiction very fast (Score:3)
We can be sure that its ownership and control will be beyond the reach of both US and Israel very soon. The trade off is whether those governments prefer to have SOME influence on the organisation, or whether they will accept its disappearance from sight.
Meanwhile the overwhelming arrogance of US tech firms is once more on display by the fact that they think they can control such an organisation via legal channels. But hey, it's good for a laugh...
Re: (Score:2)
Apple had better win
The NSO is scum but I disagree based on the the premise that corporations should have no say over how you use a purchased product. If they want to revoke your access to Apple online services then that is fine but they shouldn't have any control over how you use the product itself.
I know this is a unique situation but I cannot agree with the idea that a company can say you cannot use their hardware/software/etc. Think about it before you give Microsoft/Google/Apple/Amazon/MPAA/RIAA this kind of obscene pow
Re: (Score:2)
While Apple would doubtless love to do all the things you said, they’re specifically going after NSO for breaching the Apple ID terms of service, i.e. exactly what you said it was fine for them to go after.
Re: (Score:2)
they’re specifically going after NSO for breaching the Apple ID terms of service, i.e. exactly what you said it was fine for them to go after.
You are arguing that NSO is bound by a ToS contract that they are not a party to which is patently absurd. Apple is free to cancel any Apple ID accounts they feel have breached the ToS but have no place forcing it upon those who have not entered the contract. A ToS is a contract, not a law.
Re: (Score:2)
NSO created over 100 Apple ID accounts, so they actually are a party to the contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Then Apple is free to enforce those contracts but in their filing Apple does not cite part of the contract specifying agreed costs for breach of contract. Even if you follow their logic and provide them with $75k as restitution, issuing an injunction is a bridge too far. My understanding is the software uses an Apple ID account provided by the NSO customer, so it's not the NSO's responsibility. In all cases, Apple is not objecting to actions of the NSO but those of the NSO's customers which is why the in
Re: Apple had better win (Score:2)
My point is a pragmatic one. It doesnâ(TM)t seem like governments want to give up this level of surveillance power. So it falls on apple to enforce morality in this instance.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSO group is indisputably allowing repressive regimes to
consolidate their power and even to manipulate international trade.
Sounds pretty typical for the Israeli government,
of which NSO is undoubtedly a subsidiary.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Apple should fix their security issues and wipe out the NSO group that way? If Apple sues the NSO group out of existence, the security vulnerabilities still exist and someone else will eventually find them. Maybe Apple should pay the NSO group to help them secure Apple devices?
Re: Apple had better win (Score:2)
Therein lies the conflict. Nso has a bigger incentive to sell appleâ(TM)s bugs to dictators than to collect the bounty apple offers for bugs. (Apple
Offers huge bounties to hackers, no?) Nso are not friendly hackers they are mercenaries. It may well be the case that nso rejected appleâ(TM)s offer to pay.
NSO offshores within days? (Score:2)
It will be beyond the reach of both US and Israel very soon. The trade off is whether those governments prefer to have SOME influence on the organisation, or whether they will accept its disappearance from sight.
Meanwhile the overwhelming arrogance of US tech firms is once more on display by the fact that they think they can control such an organisation via legal channels. But hey, it's good for a laugh...
Any user probably has standing for a DMCA action (Score:1)
It's very rare that someone's phone doesn't contain something of their own. As such a user, you should decide/remember this: that data of yours is copyrighted, by you.
As it happens, iOS does impose technological measures to control access access to your data, as defined by DMCA [cornell.edu]. So, iOS users, if you decided that you authorize whatever iOS is doing to your copyrighted data, then DMCA is in full force.
And while law enforcement is exempt from the prohibitions against defeating the technological measure which
So why are journalists still using iPhones? (Score:2)
Does NSO Group only target iPhones?
Seems easily sidestepped to me.
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA: "given that its core business is to give NSO's government clients full access to a target's iPhone or *Android* smartphone."
Re: (Score:2)
NSO Execs... (Score:1)
I wonder what phones the execs and other leadership at NSO uses??? Something that is not a smartphone? or do they just roll with it because nothing is safe?
Re: (Score:2)
Some countries have different laws and it may totally be legal for them to access the data on people's phones--even if those people are spies [theguardian.com], rioters [nytimes.com], or terrorists [wikipedia.org]...I mean "journalists, activists and dissidents".
NSO agreed to be governed by California law when they agreed to the Apple ID terms of service, so the laws of other countries are moot in answering the legal questions at play here. And while it’s convenient to label everyone with scare quotes and make generalized statements that imply they’re all spies or worse, many of the targets found so far to have had this spyware installed are simply not as you suggest, so your argument falls apart the moment you actually look at any facts involved in thi
Sueing - that always works (Score:3)
when you're not technically competent enough to plug whatever exploit or vulnerability the spyware maker exploited to get a foothold into the system in the first place, then throw your weight around as a giant corporation with the means to pay a lot of overprices lawyers in court.
Re: (Score:2)
when you're not technically competent enough to plug whatever exploit or vulnerability the spyware maker exploited to get a foothold into the system in the first place, then throw your weight around as a giant corporation with the means to pay a lot of overprices lawyers in court.
To quote Dijkstra [wikipedia.org], “If debugging is the process of removing software bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in.” Anyone suggesting they don’t write bugs or implying someone else is incompetent for the reasons you did is either not a programmer themself or else is so out of touch with reality that they have no idea how buggy their own software actually is (or, in a distant, distant, distant, distant, distant third, is one of these few people who employ mathematical proof
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but I wanted to provide an allowance for someone trying to point out that possible counter example.
" Apple will give you no quarter ..." (Score:2)
"another setback for the beleaguered firm" (Score:2)