Show HN: iOS App Size Analysis Tool for macOS (apps.apple.com)
2 points by elpakal 3h ago 0 comments
Show HN: LocoStudio - A better UI for Ollama (locostudio.ai)
5 points by simmy345 17h ago 0 comments
Jury orders NSO to pay $167M for hacking WhatsApp users
223 Bender 126 5/7/2025, 12:54:19 AM arstechnica.com ↗
This makes me think that NSO is effectively frozen out of the US banking network, and therefore the whatsapp judgement is ineffective to go after US assets in US jurisdictions. So, no disgorgement outside of what banks may have frozen before this lawsuit (if anything) as a result of the Entity list addition.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSO_Group
Sometimes I wonder what's so special about Israel that they keep getting away with everything.
But we know why they are special and get away with things that any other country would be in serious shit for. AIPAC does not fuck around. They play to win. And the evangelicals support it because of their belief about the second coming of christ.
its not merely because of a few lobbyists and evangelicals' wacky eschatology
At one point Israel even handled all of the wiretaps for the US.. so if a US government agency needed a wiretap, it would have to go through Israel.
Then there's the active spying..
Stuff like this: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/mar/06/internatio...
And when they get caught, nothing ever happens
Both sides agree it was an accident.
>Israel apologized for the attack, saying that USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship.[5] Both the Israeli and United States governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity.[6]
Israel wanted the US involved and conducted a false flag operation:
“Some intelligence and military officials dispute Israel's explanation.[79] Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State at the time of the incident, wrote: I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.[80]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
If the attack was due to mistaken identity, wouldn't you expect the Israelis to go all out? I also skimmed the section and there's not much in the way of arguments besides that and "Israel pressured US to admit it was an accident".
They were targeting lifeboats and engaging in other dishonorable behavior we've since seen repeated in Gaza as well. "Going all out" is not warfare, it is sadism in violation of the Geneva Convention.
https://web.archive.org/web/20211111095447/https://www.haare...
What evidence is of this? The article you linked only has an "anonymous source", and hearsay supposedly from a diplomat. If this is the bar for believing that a conspiracy is real, you should probably believe the moon landing is faked as well.
It's ridiculous. But the world we live in is also ridiculous, and the internet has enabled idiots to meet in numbers that have never been possible before.
I'm sure we can come up with a ridiculous conspiracy hypothesis around what we're actually seeing when we think we're seeing the moon. Might need to involve time travel to explain historical records.
> Sometimes I wonder what's so special about Israel that they keep getting away with everything.
A doctrine of full spectrum dominance, lack of ethical constraints and aggressive propagandizing would make anyone unstoppable.
There is more to it, not only that but they believe that the Jewish state of Israel is needed for Jesus to return to earth.
This belief comes from Thessalonians 2:1-4
"1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be easily disconcerted or alarmed by any spirit or message or letter seeming to be from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has already come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed. 4 He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."
So the "temple" is required for the anti-Christ to arise, and for Jesus to return.
Now as to if that actually means the physical Third Temple of Solomon... this is up for theological debate. Some Church Fathers held that the anti-Christ would indeed arise from a physical Third Temple. While other Church Fathers held that the 3rd Temple in Christianity was technically the Church, and so the anti-Christ would arise from her.
Either way, if you side with the first view there is no qualification for a state to be present in order to rebuild the physical Third Temple.
Protestant Evangelicals in America by and large take the first stance I mentioned, and are pretty stalwart in their belief the State of Israel is the vehicle through which this will be achieved.
For those who want additional information, it is called dispensationalism.
Evangelical beliefs and others start to be more of a political topic, subject to survey? A basis of the practice is that it is done in the open and lawfully, so Church leaders might be fairly plain about what they actually believe, when asked?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism
This story does not end well for Israel or the people who live there.
It looks to me that it is correlated with whatever this survey defines as "traditionalist": https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2005/04/15/american-eva...
Traditionalist applies across denominations with different traditions and theology so no idea whether it has a consistent meaning.
No comments yet
The crusades were a reaction to the Arab and Turkish Empires, which by then (between them) invaded at some point (and mostly conquered) Spain, France, southern Italy, most of the Mediterranean, North Africa, Italy, Anatolia, and the Levant, and more.
I had not noticed the Palestinians aggressive expansionist empire.
No comments yet
The legitimisation lies in the alternatives having been (historically) the Soviet Union, and (now) China.
Their death toll, such as it is, is not even a tenth of the incredible casualty rate of the British. It does not need to be said that they're nowhere near as demonised, except in India. The scope and depth of a civilisation's deaths is not actually all that relevant to how much people hate it.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/jul/18/revealed-murder...
Why not? There are significant negative externalities to not enforcing cybercrime laws.
For the same reason banks should have a decent vault for cash they aren’t using at this exact moment, since they shouldn’t just depend solely on any robbers getting caught.
EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) will soon impose legal security requirements on a wide class of software binaries sold in the EU.
No crime in the world can be made physically impossible. Why would hacking be any different?
https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/WhatsApp-v-N...
https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/WhatsApp-v-N...
https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/WhatsApp-v-N...
https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/WhatsApp-v-N...
(I reregistered recently and was banned for being "inauthentic" -- the URL they linked to which was supposed to detail what part of the policy I broke was broken.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20250506235016/https://about.fb....
https://web.archive.org/web/20250506235104/https://about.fb....
https://web.archive.org/web/20250506235302/https://about.fb....
https://web.archive.org/web/20250506235441/https://about.fb....
All that said NSO didn't just distribute/sell the exploits (that would be giving away their secret sauce). Instead they offered what was essentially a managed service for executing the exploits against user selected targets.
> The jury also awarded WhatsApp $444 million in compensatory damages.
Unfortunately, 99% of nations prioritize having quick & easy access to weapons.
And for many nations, selling weapons is also a lucrative way to exert influence.
What?
There are 200 or so nations on our planet.
How many of those nations have governments which believe that their own army, air force, & navy should be unable to buy (say) guns, bombs, and torpedoes? Vs. having to hire engineers to design them, then build weapon factories, then build all of their own weapons.
My assertion is that zero-ish of those governments want such legal restrictions.
(And obviously, actual legal restrictions on the sale of spyware might be similarly unpopular, with the people who actually write the our world's laws.)
Still, I believe there is a difference. First, it feels like anyone willing to pay enough will convince NSO to "help" them. It's not the same with firearms (in 99% countries in the world): you can't just pay a private company to go rob a bank with firearms.
Then for the police and the military, it's usually restricted to professionals. In my country, if a police officer gets their gun out (I'm not talking about firing), an investigation follows. If they fire their gun, a bigger investigation follows, they make the news, and the officer may lose their job (or be affected to a desk job for the rest of their career).
It seems a lot easier to get access to NSO than to actually fire a gun, and to me that's a good thing. I don't want a police like in the US. To the point where I do believe that it should be as hard to access NSO as it is to use firearms.
The victims are probably not citizens of the US so they would be outside of this jurisdiction. That's between those two countries. The reason it's going to the US court is because it occured in US cyberturf (Meta's servers)
The demand is there and the suppliers exist. without companies like NSO, the price of exploits goes up and it becomes more lucrative for malicious actors to sell them to even more nefarious actors. The exploit brokers become more anonymous. And when they sell to the really bad actors, it will require deanonymizing market places on Tor instead of having law suits like this.
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.
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.
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.
It's not hard to phish and hack a single individual as a large organization. It's just a matter of resources and slipping up eventually. With that being said, the exploits they find are interesting and I wish they would publish them in a white hat manner instead.