Comment by croes
2 days ago
Most of the time the country of the creator is named if it’s about spyware.
The misuse of such tools outweighs the legitimate use cases, so people want to know who is so reckless to sell these programs
2 days ago
Most of the time the country of the creator is named if it’s about spyware.
The misuse of such tools outweighs the legitimate use cases, so people want to know who is so reckless to sell these programs
I don't understand what's the difference if Italy develops its own or buys it from somewhere else.
Comparably, phone tapping equipment is being sold world wide for almost a century and is used similarly
The fact that some countries that gets these tools starts listening to journalists is concerning, but at least I want to believe it happens less in functioning countries
But I don't see any issue with taking remote control of a drug dealer, terrorist or mafia phone
>I don't understand what's the difference if Italy develops its own or buys it from somewhere else.
because the one who sold it quite likely also gets a hold of all information captured by it's user.
Check your other posts for examples of ongoing mass public surveillance programs.
a functioning country can become dysfunctional with one election
Some spyware like Pegasus is notorious.
It’s always shady if someone uses it because of its high misuse potential.
It’s the computer equivalent of a ABC weapon.
> The misuse of such tools outweighs the legitimate use cases, so people want to know who is so reckless to sell these programs
Do you have any evidence of this?
Cause my guess is the misuse is the stuff you hear about because it eventually makes the news. But the thousands or millions of legitimate use cases in which it prevented terror attacks or just, y'know, helped solved crimes, are just routine and don't get a mention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
5eyes(spying agreement between US, UK, CAN, NZ, AU) utilizing a loophole to spy on each other's citizens.
Tons of cases with PEGASUS being used to target activists and journalists, usually ones investigating government corruption(EU, Mexico from top of my head).
You know what would also help solve crimes? if every action that everyone did was always observed and recorded. Would you be willing to live in such world? i would rather not.
It's simple math.
What happens more often terror attacks which aren't easy to plan and do or journalists and activists do something the people in power don't like.
And how often are tools that were promised to be used only to combat serious crimes such as terrorism and child abuse used for the worst of all crimes: Copyright piracy
It's not simple math, because you're ignoring my point - that you don't actually know how often the tools are used in ways you find morally correct, because those don't get publicized.
I'm not saying I have a clue what the answer is - I'm certainly very skeptical of invasive technologies. But I think pretending there's no upside to them is wrong. Like most technologies there are pros and cons. Probably the system in most Western democracies works relatively well - there are adverserial members of the system trying to prove and/or refute the idea that the tool use is necessary, a judge has to sign off, there are checks and balances (including free press) on abuse, etc.
1 reply →
[dead]