back to article Judge green-lights Facebook, WhatsApp hacking lawsuit against spyware biz NSO, unleashing Zuck's lawyers

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 …

  1. HildyJ Silver badge
    Pint

    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?”

    1. james 68

      Re: My head hurts

      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.

      1. Marketing Hack Silver badge

        Re: My head hurts

        And Zuck doesn't want WhatsApp to get a reputation as a conduit for government surveillance. FB's surveillance, that's OK though.

  2. IGotOut Silver badge

    Is it possible..

    ..the both lose? Please?

  3. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Can't they just not show up?

      Look up Spamassassin.

      In case you hadn't noticed, the US legal system applies to the whole world, but of course not vice versa.

  4. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge

    I love this sort of boilerplate...

    "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.

  5. TechHeadToo

    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.

    1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

      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.

      1. LDS Silver badge

        He was saying exactly NSO makes "weapons" too. Thus in his opinion FB should go after those using NSO "weapons" the wrong way, not NSO itself.

        Yet, could I sue FB anytime any code from it runs on my systems without my permission to collect any data it could?

    2. jilocasin
      Meh

      Bad analogy

      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.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020