Supreme Court Seeks Biden Views on WhatsApp 'Pegasus' Spyware Dispute (reuters.com) 30
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked President Joe Biden's administration to weigh in on whether the justices should hear a case on whether Meta Platforms' WhatsApp can pursue a lawsuit accusing Israel's NSO Group of exploiting a bug in the messaging app to install spy software. From a report: The justices are considering NSO's appeal of a lower court's decision allowing the lawsuit to move forward. NSO has argued that it is immune from being sued because it was acting as an agent for unidentified foreign governments when it installed the "Pegasus" spyware. WhatsApp has said the software was used for the surveillance of 1,400 people, including journalists, human rights activists and dissidents. The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Justice Department to file a brief offering its views on the legal issue.
Simple I Think (Score:3)
Either they cough up whom they were working for or they are not immune from prosecution. You don't get to have secret immunity from civil lawsuits. Also, I'm not sure that sovereign immunity transfers to suppliers or contractors. IE, if the FBI or CIA did something to harm you, you can't sue them, unless a court decides that they were not acting within their purview. If they hire a private detective to follow you around and they run your car off the road, I'm pretty sure they don't get immunity.
Prediction - immunity. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe a limited immunity which functionally is immunity with spin.
Why?
The company won't admit who their clients are which likely could be the USA and SCOTUS is forcing Biden to at least hint US involvement and US capabilities by ANY response (or non-response) he gives them.
Furthermore, Israel is involved and they get extra special status with the USA since they have the fullest access to Intelligence which is likely why every critical politician ends up on their side unless they have zero secrets to hide from Israel. Biden may have to shield for Israel; like the USA always has to do.
Possibly (Score:2)
That could be. However, from how I understand immunity works, based on my admittedly limited understanding based on legal podcasts I listen to on the subject, you have to be able to point to a particular law that sets out circumstances similar enough to yours that a judge would grant you immunity. As NSO is a foreign company, they would have to point to a specific treaty that would confer immunity to them. For that to happen, they would have to say whom they were working for. They can't just say "some gover
Re:Possibly (Score:5, Informative)
There are a ton of exceptions carved out, but the default position is immunity. There is baked in deference to the Executive branch to protect the Judicial branch from stepping on the Executive's plenary prerogative in conducting foreign policy.
This doesn't mean NSO's claim will pass succeed (it could very well fall into one of the exceptions), but the Court is doing its standard due diligence to find out what the foreign policy implications are.
Re: (Score:1)
C'mon man...!
Re:Prediction - immunity. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, such as allowing Israel to continue with their apartheid policies against Palestinians and their occupation and subjugation of Palestine as a whole.
The U.S. will eagerly call out China for its policies against Uighurs, but will roll over and play dead when it comes to Israeli policies. This is what happens when your government is bought and paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Israel can't buy the USA government; but they sure have access to powerful information that can do far more than money ever could.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could be that Foreign Country affairs and relationships fall under the Executive Branch and the Judicial is asking before stepping into that space. Its not unusual. If the US is involved behind the scenes, they can't block a Judicial inquiry; only ask that it be covered under national security (loss of public review). If it was the latter, we wouldn't know that SCOTUS was asking POTUS.
Re: (Score:1)
That might be the reason that the Supreme Court bothers to consult with the Biden government at all.
Normally I'd say "what, they spy for a foreign government and claim that gives them immunity? Fuck them harder!". But if it is indeed a close ally, the government may choose to shield them. Or if the US government was complicit in the whole affair, using NSO for plausible deniability.
My personal guess is that the government will throw them under the bus. Dropping allies when it becomes convenient has traditio
Re: (Score:2)
You can't throw Israel under the bus. Another possibility is to let them rule whatever they wish and completely circumvent and ignore them. It's not like the NSA or CIA practice much restraint already.
Re: (Score:2)
Either they cough up whom they were working for or they are not immune from prosecution.
Not merely that.. They should need to point to specific Law that indicates Immunity against claims should be granted in a certain circumstance; Assert which facts and circumstance mean they should have immunity against the claims in the case, and if the facts they're claiming are disputed show the court evidence for those facts.
Seems to make since until you think about FBI agen (Score:2)
I absolutely agree with the first half. If they are going to claim they fall under the government's immunity, they need to specify which government.
> IE, if the FBI or CIA did something to harm you, you can't sue them, unless a court decides that they were not acting within their purview. If they hire a private detective to follow you around and they run your car off the road, I'm pretty sure they don't get immunity.
That seems like it makes sense at first. Then you realize "the FBI" can't drive. An agent
Re: (Score:2)
If NSO wins in being declared immune cos they supply governments, basically anyone who supplies anything to any government can ask to be considered immune.
I am an agent of my government who is supplying them with stationary. Some of that may even end up with defence related departments. So I am immune!
Yeay me! /s
Tough one... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't like Metastasize (Evil Incarnate)
I don't like NSO (also, Evil Incarnate)
Saying that a bug in someone else's software is a feature of yours...
I'd say let the case move forward... as it protects more than just Meta - but Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, IBM, Google, Oracle, all of which are companies that folks love to hate.. but it also protects the entire FOSS / LINUX community.
Re: (Score:1)
It wasn't just Meta. It targeted dozens and dozens of apps, including one I worked on (evidence from crash reports). (Side note: As a developer, it's really disconcerting seeing a hacked version of a library I worked on floating around and being installed on users' phones)
Normally I don't support Meta, but this is not OK, and there's no way in hell that NSO should have immunity from lawsuits.
Read here for a partial list of applications analyzed by Lookout as targets of the NSO Pegasus spyware
https://info.lo [lookout.com]
I love how headlines are written (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline writes "Supreme Court Seeks **Biden** Views on ..." It is written as if they cared what Joe Biden think; or likely what the president thinks. But really they are seeking input from the justice department because it is one of the interested party. All courts tend to seek the input of interested parties.
headlines did the same thing in the previous administration "Trump does X" and when you look at it, the headline should have been "A minor official in the Trump administration does X".
It is annoying how anything done by the government is written up as Biden does X, or Governor whatshisname does Y.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, a request from SCOTUS to the executive branch is addressed to Biden as the point of contact who then may or may not pass it to subsidiaries. SCOTUS. SCOTUS doesn't generally presume how the executive branch has organized itself (even if that organization has been stable for generations) until after the president has said, on a specific issue, "Go here for further interactions on this topic."
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Not that the Judicial Branch is impartial in anyway mind you. That went out the window with the McConnell appointments to both the Supreme Court and the various Federal Appellate Courts. This story is just confirmation that the new subverted courts are "correctly" taking and seeking their marching orders from their
Re:I love how headlines are written (Score:4, Informative)
That American is you.
The executive branch has plenary power of conducting foreign policy, therefor laws which deal with it, and whenever the Court may step its toes into it, it must, constitutionally speaking, make sure it is moving forward with the consent of the executive.
The majority matters not to the Supreme Court. Just constitutional law.
Re: (Score:1)
Last I checked the Constitution does NOT give the Executive Branch absolute power over foreign policy. In fact one of it's stated goals is to create friction between the Executive and Legislative Branches when dealing with foreign policy. Allowing neither side absolute power.
In the words of the U.S. Senate (so a bit biased): Under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution, the Senate must advise and consent to ratific [senate.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Question, do you know what the word "plenary" means? It's means unqualified / absolute.
Yup.
Last I checked the Constitution does NOT give the Executive Branch absolute power over foreign policy. In fact one of it's stated goals is to create friction between the Executive and Legislative Branches when dealing with foreign policy. Allowing neither side absolute power.
Read again. I'll quote for you.
The executive branch has plenary power of conducting foreign policy
Like it or not, we live in a post-United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. country, where the Executive's power over executing foreign policy is plenary.
I'll quote the Court.
It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations–a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.
When last you checked, who was it who interpreted the meaning of the Constitution? You, or the Supreme Court?
While the Congress does have certain powers of its own that make it indirectly powerful with regard to foreign policy (most specifically, the power of the purse), and of course- ultimat
Re: (Score:2)
There's an additional complication, as this case involves foreign sovereign immunity, which means it potentially tramples upon another plenary power of the Executive- conducting foreign policy.
The Court is asking "The Administration", which it would directly confer with via the DOJ, to give, ultimate
Re: (Score:2)
In English (and in other languages) it's a common to figuratively use a sub-part to refer to a whole (c.f. synecdoche [wikipedia.org]) and vice versa.
The wikipedia page has lots of examples, but governments are a particularly common use of synecdoche. The UK (and Netflix) will often refer to the opinion of "the crown" to mean the regent and royalty in general (obviously not a inanimate headpiece) and "the White House refused to comment" is read to be the executive branch refusing, not a building itself staying mum.
Perhaps
Re: (Score:2)
For the SCoUS, you might want to refresh yourself on a pre-existing British concept from a fellow named Blackstone, a fun fellow named John Milton, and pretty much EVERYTHING that our founding fathers took from Roman law. The UN is kinda useless these days, but there's a lot of good reading there on treatment of journalists . .
Or, yo
Re: (Score:2)
Depend on whose ox is getting gored (Score:4, Interesting)
This current justice department is arguably politically biased on who gets investigated and prosecuted. So, if they think NSO enabled spying on people they like, they're likely to water-down whatever opinion they have because they don't want to have a political weapon taken away.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Pegasus client list has as much possibility of becoming public as Jeffrey Epstein's client list.
It will only happen if a Trump name is on the list.
Gues who else was "only following orders?" (Score:2)
NSO has argued that it is immune from being sued because it was acting as an agent for unidentified foreign governments when it installed the "Pegasus" spyware.
We were only following orders!