Comment by hiisukun

This argument reminds me of when I dealt with telecommunication providers in a law enforcement context.

Their argument was often that the complexities and volume of data, messages, devices just made it impossible for them to help law enforcement even when justified. Almost as if they were apologetic -- they simply cannot help!

But I was in a room once with a very senior police official, prosecutor and several telco reps when the simple question was asked: why is it not impossible then also to do billing?

Every time the conversation moved away from this point, it was forced to return by the non telco members: they knew it would cost money for the telco to help. And any argument against that was simply foregoing that cost at the expense of the safety or well-being of the public, and was unacceptable.

You may feel (in my example) their are many arguments against state surveillance, but the core truth is that all of these ad providers could indeed have systems that at least attempt to prevent this kind of activity -- it would just reduce profits to do so.

Lastly on the zero click lack of detail: it's kind of irrelevant. The exploit might be complicated, but the vector is clear -- the ad network.