a Better Bubbleโ„ข

Aggregator

Israeli Police (Mostly) Cleared Of NSO-Related Wrongdoing While NSO Issues Legal Threats To Calcalist Over Cover-Up Claims

3 years 3 months ago

This won't change much for NSO Group, but at least it helps the Israeli Police rehab its image a bit. An "initial investigation" has (mostly) cleared the Israeli police of wrongdoing in one of the latest surveillance scandals tied to NSO's malware.

The Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 said a police investigation ordered by Israel’s public security minister, Omer Barlev, had concluded that of 26 individuals named in recent reports as having been targeted using NSO Group’s Pegasus software, three named individuals were targeted, with the police successfully hacking only one of the phones.

The investigation apparently is still ongoing, so these early positive results might be undone after further examination. Fortunately, the Israeli police aren't investigating themselves. Instead, the federal police agency is being scrutinized by officers from Israeli intelligence agencies Shin Bet and Mossad.

This doesn't mean Israeli police haven't targeted Israeli citizens with NSO hacking tools. It just means that what's been discovered so far has been lawful, contradicting earlier reports that suggested targets were subjected to attempted (or successful) hacking without the proper paperwork in hand.

Of course, earlier reports also said the police were able to do this by exploiting a "loophole" in the law. And that means the spirit of the law can be violated without anyone engaging in anything that's actually illegal. This is how state-ordained surveillance programs work: by playing right up to the edges of what the law permits.

But that doesn't mean nothing illegal happened.

The only possible illegal hacking was regarding Shlomo Filber, a former director-general of the Communications Ministry and longtime confidant of Netanyahu, according to Hebrew-language television reports.

The Israeli police are apparently hoping that this illegal hacking will be excused because law enforcement never accessed or made use of the data and communications obtained with the use of phone hacking tools. But the police have admitted investigators went beyond what was authorized in the court order.

Police brass told justice officials that the data was downloaded accidentally and was never given to investigators in the Netanyahu cases.

This possibly illegal hacking was discovered during the course of another investigation entirely unrelated to the current investigation about police use of NSO phone exploits.

Filber’s phone was reportedly accessed in 2017, and had the entirety of its content drained using unnamed spyware. The discovery that Filber’s phone had been targeted was made in the course of an unrelated investigation, ordered by the attorney general, into alleged police abuse of the controversial NSO Group’s Pegasus software, though a different technology was used to access Filber’s phone.

NSO Group, for its part, has decided it's time to start suing. Calcalist -- which has broken news of NSO-related hacking several times -- released a list of alleged Israeli targets of NSO malware. This report -- along with a follow-up by Calcalist -- has triggered legal threats from NSO.

Calcalist on Monday published specific, but unsourced, allegations of hacking against 26 targets by police. The bombshell report said NSO Group’s Pegasus program was deployed against senior government officials, mayors, activist leaders, journalists and former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s family members and advisers, all without judicial authority or oversight.

To be clear, NSO doesn't deny the listed names were targets of NSO malware. Instead, it is taking issue with Calcalist's claim that NSO provided customers with malware deployment tools that could be configured to prevent the creation of data logs during deployment and use, thus preventing the creation of digital footprints that could indicate the use of NSO's Pegasus spyware. NSO denied this allegation in a letter threatening legal action, stating that it never provided customers with systems that offered plausible deniability as undocumented feature.

In response to Thursday’s report, NSO wrote to Calcalist that the relevant systems “include full documentation of the actions performed in them,” and that the records are kept for legal purposes and to prevent tampering with evidence. It further denied the newspaper report’s claim that it had sold client software that does not include the documentation feature or only in a limited way.

We'll see what becomes of this legal threat. NSO is already defending itself against two lawsuits brought by US tech companies. It may not be wise to press forward with one of its own and roll the dice on discovery for a third time. Given the nature of NSO and the those it has chosen to sell to, it's not all that unreasonable to believe it may have offered cover-up solutions to certain customers at a comfortable markup.

Tim Cushing

Daily Deal: FlashBooks Business Book Summaries

3 years 3 months ago

FlashBooks publishes top self-help and business book summaries you can read or listen to in about 20 minutes or less. Formatted for every device: Kindle, iPhone, Android, iPad, iPods, and more. The audiobooks are formatted as downloadable MP3 files so that you can listen to them' on the go via your favorite mobile device. Get more knowledge on the go, in less time. With hundreds of non-fiction book summaries & new titles added to the library each month, you'll always have something new to sharpen your skills and expand your knowledge. This unlimited subscription is on sale for $100.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Daily Deal

Melissa & Richard's Love Story

3 years 3 months ago
Our Love Story: The Couple: Melissa & Richard from Jerseyville Date Met/Started Dating: August 4, 2014 Briefly Describe First Date: We went to Carlinville and spent the weekend together. Date Married: August 4, 2018 Name Something You Enjoy Doing Together: We enjoy spending time with our family, we love music, we own a DJ business together and we enjoy working side by side, we love going on vacation and planning float trips and being around our friends, but most of all just spending time together. Share Advice For A Happy Relationship: Never go to bed angry, always put yourself in the other person's shoes before you do something drastic that might affect your relationship, be faithful, kiss like teenagers, complement each other, and always remind your partner how much you love them and never stop slow dancing.

Continue Reading

Josh & Ashley's Love Story

3 years 3 months ago
Our Love Story: The Couple: Josh & Ashley from Shipman Date Met/Started Dating: September 2, 2011 Briefly Describe First Date: Went out for dinner & drinks. Name Something You Enjoy Doing Together: Family trips, camping, concerts, and breakfast dates. Share Advice For A Happy Relationship : There is no love without forgiveness & there's no forgiveness without love.

Continue Reading

Chesterfield model with Down syndrome meets Rihanna at LA party

3 years 3 months ago
LOS ANGELES - A model with Down syndrome from Chesterfield, Missouri was part of a new product launch for Fenty Beauty owned by Rihanna, and the two met at a party in Hollywood on Friday. Grace Strobel was featured in the May 2021 launch of "Bright Fix" undereye concealer. Fenty Beauty hosted a launch party [...]
Monica Ryan

Illinois Department Of Revenue Highlights Senior Citizens Tax Deferral Program Ahead Of Tax Deadline

3 years 3 months ago
CHICAGO – The Illinois Department of Revenue today highlighted the Senior Citizens Real Estate Tax Deferral Program which allows qualified seniors to defer all or part of their property taxes and special assessment payments on their principal residences. Seniors needing assistance paying their property taxes have until March 1st to apply for the program. The program, which works like a loan, allows qualified seniors to defer a maximum of $5,000 per tax year (including both first and second installment payments). Deferred amounts are borrowed from the State of Illinois, who pays the tax bill to the County Collector’s Office. Interest on the amount paid by the State accumulates and a lien is placed on the property for all deferred tax payments and interest, payable upon death of the homeowner, at the time the home is transferred to a new owner, or sooner, if the program participant chooses to pay off the deferred tax payments and interest. “I encourage all eligible

Continue Reading

Alton Community Service League Accepting Grant Applications

3 years 3 months ago
ALTON - The Alton Community Service League, a nonprofit group focused on volunteerism, is now accepting grant applications from not-for-profit organizations interested in applying for monetary grants. Forms are available by contacting Carol Morris at cmorris191@sbcglobal.net , calling 530-2276 or 462-4063, or mailing your request to Alton Community Service League, P.O. Box 211, Alton, Il. 62002. Completed forms must be postmarked by March 14, 2022. Grant recipients will be announced in May. Alton Community Service League has raised funds for area beautification and non-profits for over 64 years. The ACSL was able to have their main fundraiser this year--Gift Wrapping at the Mall. A special thanks to all who supported us. The last fundraiser of the year is TJ’s Pizza. Contact any ACSL member if you would like to place an order. Anyone who would like to donate to the Alton Community Service League may do so at: Alton Community Service League, P.O. Box 211, Alton, IL. Available

Continue Reading

1st MidAmerica Credit Union Announces Julius Sims As New Regional Manager

3 years 3 months ago
BETHALTO — 1st MidAmerica Credit Union is pleased to announce Julius Sims as the new Regional Manager. Sims comes to the credit union with over 15 years of experience in financial services. With his previous experience as a market manager, Sims will be an excellent addition to the operations team at 1st MidAmerica. Through the years, Sims has held both member-facing and back office positions at financial institutions that will lend him a unique perspective in his role. “I’m excited to get started at 1st MidAmerica. I’m looking forward to helping and coaching the leaders of the operations team,” Sims said. Sims resides in Florissant. He volunteers with the National Black MBA Association, with his church and other various organizations. 1st MidAmerica Credit Union has a mission of exceeding member expectations. Additional information can be found at www.1stMidAmerica.org .

Continue Reading

EARN ITs Big Knowledge 1st Amendment Problem

3 years 3 months ago

We've talked about so many problems with the EARN IT Act, but there are more! I touched on this a bit in my post about how EARN IT is worse than FOSTA, but it came up a bit in the markup last week, and it showed that the Senators pushing for this do not understand the issues around the knowledge standard required here, and how various state laws complicate things. Is it somewhat pathetic that the very senators pushing for a law that would make major changes impacting a wide variety of things don't seem to understand the underlying mechanisms at play? Sure is! But rest assured that you can be smarter than a senator.

First, let's start here: the senators supporting EARN IT seem to think that if you remove Section 230 for a type of law-violating content (in this case, child sexual abuse material, or CSAM), that magically means that website will be liable for that content -- and because of that they'll magically make it disappear. The problem is that this is not how any of this actually works. Section 230 expert and law professor Jeff Kosseff broke the details down in a great thread, but I want to make it even more clear.

Today's EARN IT Act markup had a lot of discussion about what mens rea would be necessary for platforms to face civil liability for distributing CSAM. The discussion wasn't terribly clear, so I'm going to try to break down what we do know about the legal standards.

— Jeff Kosseff (@jkosseff) February 10, 2022

As a reminder, Section 230 has never been a "get out of jail free" card, as some of its critics suggest. It's a procedural benefit that gets cases that would otherwise lose on 1st Amendment grounds tossed out at an earlier stage (when it's much less costly, and thus, much less likely to destroy a smaller company).

So, here, the senators supporting EARN IT seem to think, falsely, that if they remove Section 230 for CSAM that (1) it will make websites automatically liable for CSAM, and (2) that will somehow spur them into action to take down all CSAM because of the legal risk and that this will somehow make CSAM go away. Both of these assumptions are wrong, and wrong in such stupid ways that, again, EARN IT would likely make problems worse, not better. The real problem underlying both of these is the question of "knowledge." The legal folks like Jeff Kosseff dress this up as "mens rea" but the key thing is about whether or not a website knows about the illegal content.

This impacts everything in multiple ways. As Kosseff points out in his thread, Supreme Court precedent (which you would know if you read just the first chapter of his Section 230 book) says that for a distributor to be held liable for content that is not protected by the 1st Amendment, it needs to have knowledge of the illegal content. Supporters of EARN IT counteract with the correct, but meaningless, line that "CSAM is not protected by the 1st Amendment." And, it's not. But that's not the question when it comes to distributor liability. In Smith v. California, the Supreme Court overturned a conviction of Eleazar Smith (his bookstore sold a book the police believed was obscene), noting that even if the book's content was not protected by the 1st Amendment, the 1st Amendment cannot impose liability on a distributor, if that distributor does not have knowledge of the unprotected nature of the content. Any other result, Justice Brennan correctly noted, would lead distributors to be much more censorial, including of protected speech:

There is no specific constitutional inhibition against making the distributors of good the strictest censors of their merchandise, but the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of speech and of the press stand in the way of imposing a similar requirement on the bookseller. By dispensing with any requirement of knowledge of the contents of the book on the part of the seller, the ordinance tends to impose a severe limitation on the public's access to constitutionally protected matter. For if the bookseller is criminally liable without knowledge of the contents, and the ordinance fulfills its purpose, he will tend to restrict the books he sells to those he has inspected; and thus the State will have imposed a restriction upon the distribution of constitutionally protected as well as obscene literature. It has been well observed of a statute construed as dispensing with any requirement of scienter that: 'Every bookseller would be placed under an obligation to make himself aware of the contents of every book in his shop. It would be altogether unreasonable to demand so near an approach to omniscience.' The King v. Ewart, 25 N.Z.L.R. 709, 729 (C.A.). And the bookseller's burden would become the public's burden, for by restricting him the public's access to reading matter would be restricted. If the contents of bookshops and periodical stands were restricted to material of which their proprietors had made an inspection, they might be depleted indeed. The bookseller's limitation in the amount of reading material with which he could familiarize himself, and his timidity in the face of his absolute criminal liability, thus would tend to restrict the public's access to forms of the printed word which the State could not constitutionally suppress directly. The bookseller's self-censorship, compelled by the State, would be a censorship affecting the whole public, hardly less virulent for being privately administered. Through it, the distribution of all books, both obscene and not obscene, would be impeded.

While there are some other cases, this remains precedent and it's difficult to see how the courts would (or could) say that a website is strictly liable for content that it does not know about.

This creates a bunch of problems. First and foremost, removing 230 in this context then gives websites not an incentive to do more to find CSAM, but actually to do less to find CSAM, because the lack of knowledge would most likely protect them from liability. That is the opposite of what everyone should want.

Second, it creates various problems in how EARN IT interacts with various state laws. As we've pointed out in the past, EARN IT isn't just about the federal standards for CSAM, but it opens up websites to legal claims regarding state laws as well. And the knowledge standards regarding CSAM in state laws is, literally, all over the map. Many do require actual knowledge (which again, reverses the incentives here). Others, however, have much more troubling standards around "should have known" or "good reason to know" or in some cases, they set a standard of "recklessness" for not knowing.

Some of those, if challenged, might not stand up to 1st Amendment scrutiny, such as what's found in Smith v. California, which should require actual knowledge, but either way the law would create a huge mess -- with it mostly incentivizing companies not to look for this. And considering that the sponsors of the bill keep saying that the whole reason of the bill is to get companies to do more looking for CSAM, they've literally got the entire law backwards.

What's most troubling, is that when Senator Blumenthal was pushed on this point during the markup, and it was mentioned that different states have different standards, rather than realizing one of the many (many) problems with the bill, he literally suggested that he hoped more states would change their standards to a potentially unconstitutional level, in which actual knowledge is not required for liability. And that's just setting up a really dangerous confrontation with the 1st Amendment.

If Senator Blumenthal and his legislative staffers actually cared about stopping CSAM, they would be willing to engage and talk about this. Instead, they refuse to engage, and mock anyone who brings up these points. Perhaps it's fun for them to generate false headlines while fundamentally causing massive problems for the internet and speech and making the CSAM problem worse while pretending the reverse is happening. But some of us find it immensely problematic.

Mike Masnick