Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure (vice.com) 37
Amazon Web Services (AWS) has shut down infrastructure and accounts linked to Israeli surveillance vendor NSO Group, Amazon said in a statement. From a report: The move comes as a group of media outlets and activist organizations published new research into NSO's malware and phone numbers potentially selected for targeting by NSO's government clients. "When we learned of this activity, we acted quickly to shut down the relevant infrastructure and accounts," an AWS spokesperson told Motherboard in an email.
Now under JEDI cloud contract can they do the same (Score:1)
Now under JEDI cloud contract can they do the same or will stuff like have no activity Limits and DMCA shutdown will be COURT ORDER only?
Re: (Score:2)
Now under JEDI cloud contract can they do the same or will stuff like have no activity Limits and DMCA shutdown will be COURT ORDER only?
JEDI is dead, Jim*
* Joe_Dragon
Re: (Score:1)
NSO needs to get on Israel's JEDI equivalent. [reuters.com] Then there is no option for granular shutdown: it all stays up or none of it stays up, because "military security."
Investigation... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Enough for Amazon not to be Responsible or at least get blamed for more responsibility for any damage it causes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a no win. If they knew what they were doing, then they would be in violation of the privacy trust that suppose to be part of their software. People go with AWS for the sake that it is trusted that Amazon won't be able to poke around and use your data if you don't want them too.
So if Amazon killed NSO too soon, because they knew it was a bad thing, but didn't have proof. NSO may sue Amazon for unfairly targeting them.
Re: (Score:2)
Who will do that audit? NSO?
Re: (Score:1)
How about we throw your sorry arse in the ring and see how long you'd last?
for whom the bell tolls (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:for whom the bell tolls (Score:5, Insightful)
You run on AWS you're under AWS's terms. I have a feeling that they violated AWS's terms somehow, hence they were shut down.
Not any different than Trump getting thrown off of Facebook and Twitter.
My wondering is how the NCO group even thought that this information wouldn't get out somehow.
One thing that Snowden taught us... no data is completely secure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't believe that FB should be allowed to decide what gets published on its website? Interesting. Do you have a website, and if so, how do I get an account to publish on it?
Re: (Score:2)
So you believe places of public accommodation should be able to deny service to anyone they see fit? I happen to agree, but the Civil Rights act of 1964 decidedly does not. And given that we've seen the scope of that Act can be extended whenever the whim strikes, don't be too surprised when the courts decide to act on the whim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's not what the law says. Section 230 is what protects them from reprinting what their users say. Without section 230, sites like slashdot would have to shut down because it'd be too risky to reprint what we're saying if the owners of slashdot could be held liable.
Re: (Score:2)
You may feel that, but the US constitution says that the government cannot compel FB or TW to host content that they don't want to host. If someone doesn't like the 1st amendment then they should work to repeal it instead of asking that the government violate it by forcing FB or TW to host certain content.
Re: (Score:1)
The company makes, sells, and supports with their online infrastructure an illegal tool whose sole use is to illegally hack people's phones. Amazon is practically OBLIGATED to remove service for this, and it is definitely the correct thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm going to be thinking very carefully. Everything outside the domain of my property is beyond my control and is suspect. Even the maker of my tin-foil hats looks suspicious. Whatever is a paranoid to do?
Re:for whom the bell tolls (Score:5, Interesting)
(As a matter of fact, the US Constitutional Amendments apply to the US Government and federal/state-owned/operated legal entities. Being a "shareholder" is not enough; the Government must have a seat at the executive table, i.e. board of directors.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oligarch? Really, Vlad? You can do better than that considering your beloved Putin is the literal definition of an oligarch. Not to mention all those Russian oligarchs raping the Russian people who are on the verge of starvation [uawire.org].
Instead, we have a surveillance state. Freedom is a veneer, a distant memory, a chant by zombies.
At least you got this part right. You do have a surveillance state
Re: (Score:2)
With almost identical arguments, i'm very happy that Amazon had the guts to take this down. Shows that their management is actually sane and acts responsible, in my view, others may have different viewpoints.
I wish more companies had balls to act in a socially- and society responsible manner. They most likely realize they are going into a legal rabbit hole by suspending services.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's very interesting that many on the right in America who were previously quite critical of European concepts of freedom are now supporting them.
The US is very big on freedom from interference. The government can't stop you doing stuff, but also has no obligation to help you do things. In Europe the government is obliged to provide some things, for example shelter, food and medical attention.
Now some people in the US are starting to think that freedom requires that they are provided with a soapbox sometim
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and of course the freedom lovers like to mod you down as a troll. They want a soapbox for themselves, nobody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Candiru: Another Cyberweapons Arms Manufacturer (Score:2)
https://citizenlab.ca/2021/07/... [citizenlab.ca]
Whack-A-Mole?
And promptly re-spun them up under another name... (Score:2)
Guess we're about to see more Bezos leaks (Score:2)