My head hurts
Zuck's lawyers as a force for good? A force for privacy?
"Would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?”
Facebook won a significant legal victory on Thursday when the judge hearing the lawsuit against Israeli spyware maker NSO Group declined to dismiss the case – and allowed the crucial discovery process to move forward. Last October, Facebook and its WhatsApp subsidiary sued NSO Group, and its Q Cyber Technologies affiliate, in …
Don't worry, the world hasn't gone topsy turvy. Like most who are obscenely rich or hold power over the peons he couldn't give a flying zuck about the privacy concerns of the masses, what worries him is that his own personal communications could be compromised. That's why he wants this nipped in the bud, any fallout that benefits us normal folk is purely accidental.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Our technology is used to save lives and prevent terror and crime worldwide, and we remain confident that our conduct is lawful."
Standard boilerplate bulls**t. Notwithstanding that it is more than highly likely that they have sold their software to end users with the sole aim of being to profile, spy on and oppress their citizens or opposition targets; you would have thought that they would have put a bit more effort in to assure themselves of their legal position, rather than being just "confident" that their conduct is lawful.
Only in America
Where it is a Good Thing to make handguns and pass them out like sweeties, and makers are not sued for providing weapons that kill people.
as opposed to a company that makes software.
Why then, is Facebook not being sued by all the people who have suffered at the hands of material posted on it? The incitements to self harm, to suicide, to hate speech and acts?
One rule for the Feds, one rule for for the peasants.
No gun nut, but why would a maker of something be liable for how some random customer uses it?
Are kitchen knife makers liable when someone is stabbed using one of their knives? Are van manufacturers liable when some loon decided to mow down pedestrians on a bridge?
Pretty much anything can be used as a weapon; that doesn't make the manufacturer responsible when used as such. Even weapon manufacturers.
Want to blame someone for ease of gun availability in the US? Blame successive US governments and legislators for allowing it to continue.
Gun makers can be sued if they create a gun that injures the owners, as in it was defective. What they can't be sued for is if someone uses that gun to kill someone else. Much like Ford can't be sued when someone in an F-150 pickup truck drives drunk and kill someone, or Verizon can't be sued if someone orders 100 kilos of cocaine over their fios connection.
What the NSO group is being sued for, is not the fact that they wrote and sold software that one of their customers might have misused, but that they hacked into Facebook servers in order to help their customers. They maintained an active hand in the use of their software (so more software as a service). If they had simply sold some software to whomever and said "good luck", they wouldn't be in a California court being sued.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020