NSO complained in a court filing that “the injunction jeopardizes NSO’s principal product, Pegasus, which represented 100 percent of NSO’s sales in 2025.”
NSO complained in a court filing that “the injunction jeopardizes NSO’s principal product, Pegasus, which represented 100 percent of NSO’s sales in 2025.
Why wouldn't they continue to defy those courts? What are they going to do? Issue an injunction? A sternly worded decision? Frown upon NSO's actions? Because let's be real about what the politics of this situation actually allows: the US posturing and not much else.NSO is malicious, “continues to defy US courts”
and even that is highly unlikely.Why wouldn't they continue to defy those courts? What are they going to do? Issue an injunction? A sternly worded decision? Frown upon NSO's actions? Because let's be real about what the politics of this situation actually allows: the US posturing and not much else.
That's how the legal system works. The other alternative is to go full William Gibson and hire a team of ninjas to take out NSO headquarters, and we aren't there yet.Just checking my comprehension level today.
Meta is filing a court action based on what NSO Group is doing to force NSO Group to obey a court-ordered injunction to not do what they were doing before, and are doing now?
Dafuk's the point? If they're not obeying the original injunction, what, you think they're going stop swiping cookies from that cookie jar because another injunction was issued?
Does anyone bother explaining logic to these fuckwits?
That's how the legal system works. The other alternative is to go full William Gibson and hire a team of ninjas to take out NSO headquarters, and we aren't there yet.
Why wouldn't they continue to defy those courts? What are they going to do? Issue an injunction? A sternly worded decision? Frown upon NSO's actions? Because let's be real about what the politics of this situation actually allows: the US posturing and not much else.
A court can award damages and order that payments from an American customer or that otherwise pass through American jurisdiction be seized to cover those damages.Just checking my comprehension level today.
Meta is filing a court action based on what NSO Group is doing to force NSO Group to obey a court-ordered injunction to not do what they were doing before, and are doing now?
Dafuk's the point? If they're not obeying the original injunction, what, you think they're going stop swiping cookies from that cookie jar because another injunction was issued?
Does anyone bother explaining logic to these fuckwits?
Too indirect for the USAn mind, unfortunately.I am cautious about making any comment as I am not anti-semitic and yet under the IHRA Definition - widely accepted, and being pushed here in Australia as being the operating definition of anti-semitism - any comment about State-level behaviour or endorsement of Israeli spy apparatus would or could fall under "anti-Semitic".
This is because the IHRA Definition includes example clauses of anti-Semitism as "Applying double standards [to Israel] not expected of any other democratic nation" or "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination".
These products are about protecting the State of Israel, including its foreign exchange earnings.
With that in mind, on balance it would appear that Meta is perhaps the bad actor here.
Careful - frowning too hard could make you anti-semitic.Why wouldn't they continue to defy those courts? What are they going to do? Issue an injunction? A sternly worded decision? Frown upon NSO's actions? Because let's be real about what the politics of this situation actually allows: the US posturing and not much else.
Maybe their flaunting the court order will qualify as "particularly egregious" now? Though I doubt NSO will ever pay a penny of the judgment, given their ties to US 3-letter agencies.“In this case, the court does not have a sufficient basis for determining that defendants’ behavior is ‘particularly egregious,’ which means the punitive damages ratio is capped at 9/1,” [U.S. District Judge Phyllis] Hamilton wrote.
So... Nothing. Their customers are probably all governments and shell companies. And what they can do vs. what they will do are worlds apart. Pegasus works against judges too.A court can award damages and order that payments from an American customer or that otherwise pass through American jurisdiction be seized to cover those damages.
Israel can either be a religious ethno-state or it can be democratic. There is no world in which it is both. And the moment it decides to invade other nations and subjugate other people, it firmly ends any pretense of the nature of representation within its government. I would greatly welcome genuine democratic reformation of Israel, just as I would of my native United States.I am cautious about making any comment as I am not anti-semitic and yet under the IHRA Definition - widely accepted, and being pushed here in Australia as being the operating definition of anti-semitism - any comment about State-level behaviour or endorsement of Israeli spy apparatus would or could fall under "anti-Semitic".
This is because the IHRA Definition includes example clauses of anti-Semitism as "Applying double standards [to Israel] not expected of any other democratic nation" or "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination".
These products are about protecting the State of Israel, including its foreign exchange earnings.
With that in mind, on balance it would appear that Meta is perhaps the bad actor here.
Facebook is at least as dangerous as NSO and AIPAC and should probably demonstrate that to the NSO directly, but yes, this is a necessary shot across the bow in stupid rich people land first.That's how the legal system works. The other alternative is to go full William Gibson and hire a team of ninjas to take out NSO headquarters, and we aren't there yet.
Translation: You can't do that - we make a living by breaking the law!NSO complained in a court filing that “the injunction jeopardizes NSO’s principal product, Pegasus, which represented 100 percent of NSO’s sales in 2025.”
Who isn't?That's how the legal system works. The other alternative is to go full William Gibson and hire a team of ninjas to take out NSO headquarters, and we aren't there yet.
I vote for cut off all foreign aid and military cooperation with Israel until they learn to play nice.Why wouldn't they continue to defy those courts? What are they going to do? Issue an injunction? A sternly worded decision? Frown upon NSO's actions? Because let's be real about what the politics of this situation actually allows: the US posturing and not much else.
that's kind of hilarious. It's like a bank robbers asking you to not impound their getaway car because it reduces their ability to rob banks.A federal judge reduced the award to $4 million but granted the injunction, which NSO has since been trying to overturn. NSO complained in a court filing that “the injunction jeopardizes NSO’s principal product, Pegasus, which represented 100 percent of NSO’s sales in 2025.”
what makes you think the majority of Israelis don't back invading other nations and subjugating their people?Israel can either be a religious ethno-state or it can be democratic. There is no world in which it is both. And the moment it decides to invade other nations and subjugate other people, it firmly ends any pretense of the nature of representation within its government. I would greatly welcome genuine democratic reformation of Israel, just as I would of my native United States.
Just a reminder that Meta has deployed its own spyware on countless websites and in countless 3rd party apps, as well as in its own apps. I guess that the main difference is that Meta's spyware is mostly consensual and NSO group's isn't. Both companies are despicable.Spyware maker Meta today accused spyware maker NSO Group of violating a court order that barred it from targeting users of WhatsApp.
You don't get a vote. They already voted otherwise.I vote for cut off all foreign aid and military cooperation with Israel until they learn to play nice.