NSO Group fires back at Facebook: You lied to the court, claims spyware slinger, and we've got the proof Facebook has been accused of lying to a US court in its ongoing legal battle against government malware maker NSO Group. A series of filings from NSO lawyers lay out the Israeli security company's reasoning for its no-show in court on 2 March, including the accusation that Facebook never properly served its lawyers with legal …
Agreed. Nothing looks as trustworthy as a government whose head is under indictment by that government, and whose synchophantic supporters deny all reality. What could possibly go wrong?
I'm not a Facebook fan, but the court should put NSO under a microscope.
This is an Israeli company subject to the laws of Israel not USA/California.
What governments do with their software surely makes that government responsible if they beak international laws not the manufacture.
If so then lots of arms and aero space companies should be held accountable for illegal use of their wares.
Hey I am all in favour of that but not going to happen.
If they have sold to unfriendly governments deemed so by their government (Israel) then they should be held accountable by they laws of their country Israel not the US of A.
Not really true. There are two places laws can be applied:
1. In the nation of the perpetrator.
2. In the nation where the crime took place.
If I am an Australian citizen, but I go to India and commit a crime then leave for Australia, I can be sent back to India to face my charges. The same applies if I am in Australia and use a network to commit a crime in India. So if it can be proven that improper access was obtained to computers in the U.S., then the U.S. courts have a claim to jurisdiction about that crime. Now, there are other provisos about that. For criminal matters, you get into the area of extradition, but this is a civil matter. So, if NSO is found guilty, they can manage not to pay the bill. However, if they don't pay, they may be restricted against operating or storing money in the U.S. as the U.S. can then be required to confiscate the money to pay the judgement.
This rule applies in any country pair. If an American company violates a law in another country, let's use GDPR as an example, they can be sued in the courts where the violation took place. It does not matter if they have a local subsidiary. It does not matter if they have anything physical in that country. It does not matter if any of their employees has ever set foot in that country. If they violated the law there, they can be sued there. The same logic applies to this case.
NSO will very likely not be able to _prove_ their version of events to the level needed to prove "fraud on the court"; that challenge was just thrown out there to ratchet up the rhetoric. The "Hail Mary" that they're trying for is for the court to dismiss with prejudice (so Facebook loses permanently), but that's a very very long shot!
If NSO's claims are factually correct and the service of the subpoena was actually deficient, then the most likely outcome will be that the judgment will be vacated and remanded for further proceedings and the "did Facebook's attorneys knowingly perpetrate a fraud when they claimed that the subpoena had been served?" will be mooted.
Note that the NSO argument is that allegedly 2 days prior to the hearing, Facebook's Israeli attorneys were informed that service was not complete, which seems awfully close, and it seems very likely that Facebook would simply argue that they believed that (a) the subpoena had been served, and/or (b) the suggestion that it may have been deficient was itself deficient (i.e. what we have here is two lawyers arguing about the law, which is normal and what courts are for).
Also note that NSO is also arguing that they are operating under Israeli government sponsorship in producing their malware, and gosh, the Israeli government is the party asserting that the service of the subpoena is incomplete. Golly.
Even from just reading NSO's filing, they acknowledge that they're well aware of the case and it's calendar, and that they're claiming that they aren't subject to the court's jurisdiction. Now, point to ponder: is a California court more or less likely to view a party's filinigs in a favorable light if they make their objections known in a timeley manner, or if they wait until after the court has wasted time issuing a judgment of default?
The simplest (and cheapest) approach for NSO would have been to have an attorney show up in the courtroom, note that they arent waiving jurisdiction claims, but by the way Facebook hasn't managed to serve them yet, so see you in 90 days (or whatever).
To be honest, this looks like NSO is trying to drag things out as long as possible, which is suggestive of, shall we say, a certain awareness of risk...
According to Rachel Maddow this was clarified years ago by the now US AG/Trump Attorney, W Barr.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpopr1qkk0M
Recalling the matter of FIFA corruption, I understood it to be that if at some point goods or services is provided by or via a US based business then it can be taken up by US judicial "system."
That said, any US individual or business that effs up abroad is (seemingly) immune. Crikey, apparently it is even ok to drive on the wrong side of the road and kill someone.
You would think that this would have been sorted by now.
Anyone shed light on this?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
