The US Supreme Court allowed on monday to Meta's WhatsApp to file a lawsuit accusing the Israeli group NSO of exploiting a bug in the messaging app WhatsApp to install spyware that allowed surveillance of 1.400 people, journalists, human rights activists and political dissidents.
Judges rejected NSO's appeal against a lower court ruling and WhatsApp's lawsuit can go ahead. NSO argued that it was immune from prosecution because it was acting as an agent for unrecognized foreign governments when it installed the “Pegasus” spyware.
President Joe Biden's administration, on the other hand, urged the justices to reject NSO's appeal, noting that the US State Department had never previously recognized a private company as acting as an agent of a foreign state. Thus NSO is not entitled to immunity.
WhatsApp in 2019 sued NSO seeking injunctive relief and damages, accusing it of accessing the company's servers without permission for six months earlier before installing the Pegasus software on its victims' mobile devices.
What the average citizen should take away from reading the above (and all the related ones that have been in the limelight lately) is that, for a long time, maybe close to 5 years, a (no exaggeration) global war of interests has been going on where the boundaries between each other are completely indistinguishable.
At the same time, due attention should be paid to the NOT EASY JUDGMENT and criticism of what we learn, read, are revealed, since there are not a few times when people of "one side" act as strongholds of the other, either wanting to muddy the waters (of the other side ) or by exercising internal "opposition" to the interests of their own side.
Particularly. It would be good not to rush to judge Elon positively (from his revelations about censorship on Twitter), Zuki positively (for his lawsuits against NSO) since we should not forget who is who and their prehistory.
Finally, not believing in conspiracies, but also densely - often not finding "press" to say and think: yes, this was said was nonsense, it was conspiracy, I would suggest to my fellow readers to think about whether it is possible that the case "wishes ” one side to present “its own” as wealthy and potentially spotless future rulers of “we need a global government and we need it now”, against the “other side” (which it also wishes to patronize "hers" on her own terms) ...
Perhaps a far-fetched guess, but perhaps not. But, if such reasoning is considered far-fetched, in the end, was not almost all of what was mentioned in the Orwellian 1984 verified? And even for this Orwell himself, who can lay his hand on the gospel for functioning as a "funnel" of resistance and uprising of the masses and not as a pre-smoother of situations?
Happy new year all over the world, with thought AND consideration, with judgment and prudence and above all with minimal (up to zero) impulsiveness.