British Judge Rules Dissident Can Sue Saudi Arabia For Pegasus Hacking (theguardian.com) 10
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A British judge has ruled that a case against the kingdom of Saudi Arabia brought by a dissident satirist who was targeted with spyware can proceed, a decision that has been hailed as precedent-setting and one that could allow other hacking victims in Britain to sue foreign governments who order such attacks. The case against Saudi Arabia was brought by Ghanem Almasarir, a prominent satirist granted asylum in the UK, who is a frequent critic of the Saudi royal family. At the centre of the case are allegations that Saudi Arabia ordered the hacking of Almasarir's phone, and that he was physically assaulted by agents of the kingdom in London in 2018. The targeting and hacking of Almasarir's phone by a network probably linked to Saudi Arabia was confirmed by researchers at the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, who are considered among the world's leading experts in tracking digital surveillance of dissidents, journalists and other members of civil society. Saudi Arabia is known to be a former client of NSO Group, whose powerful Pegasus hacking software covertly penetrates and compromises smartphones.
Saudi Arabia's attempt to have the case dismissed on the grounds that it had sovereign immunity protection under the State Immunity Act 1978 was dismissed by the high court judge. In the ruling, against which Saudi Arabia is likely to appeal, Justice Julian Knowles found that Almasarir's case could proceed under an exception to the sovereign immunity law that applies to any act by a foreign state that causes personal injury. He also found that Almasarir had provided enough evidence to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that Saudi Arabia was responsible for the alleged assault. Saudi Arabia's claim that the case was too weak or speculative to proceed was dismissed. [...] The decision could have profound implications for other individuals targeted or hacked by NSO's spyware within the UK. They include Lady Shackleton and Princess Haya, the former wife of Dubai's ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum. Both were hacked by the sheikh using NSO spyware during lengthy court proceedings between Haya and her former husband in London. In a statement praising the decision, Almasarir said: "I no longer feel safe and I am constantly looking over my shoulder. I no longer feel able to speak up for the oppressed Saudi people, because I fear that any contact with people inside the kingdom could put them in danger. I look forward to presenting my full case to the court in the hope that I can finally hold the kingdom to account for the suffering I believe they have caused me."
Saudi Arabia's attempt to have the case dismissed on the grounds that it had sovereign immunity protection under the State Immunity Act 1978 was dismissed by the high court judge. In the ruling, against which Saudi Arabia is likely to appeal, Justice Julian Knowles found that Almasarir's case could proceed under an exception to the sovereign immunity law that applies to any act by a foreign state that causes personal injury. He also found that Almasarir had provided enough evidence to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that Saudi Arabia was responsible for the alleged assault. Saudi Arabia's claim that the case was too weak or speculative to proceed was dismissed. [...] The decision could have profound implications for other individuals targeted or hacked by NSO's spyware within the UK. They include Lady Shackleton and Princess Haya, the former wife of Dubai's ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum. Both were hacked by the sheikh using NSO spyware during lengthy court proceedings between Haya and her former husband in London. In a statement praising the decision, Almasarir said: "I no longer feel safe and I am constantly looking over my shoulder. I no longer feel able to speak up for the oppressed Saudi people, because I fear that any contact with people inside the kingdom could put them in danger. I look forward to presenting my full case to the court in the hope that I can finally hold the kingdom to account for the suffering I believe they have caused me."
I'm still surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm surprised that Apple hasn't fixed the vulnerabilities that allowed this spyware to be used in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, no one knows what the vulnerabilities are. Apple doesn't know, so it's just fixing them in the blind and hoping.
These are the top level multimillion dollar hacks that are closely guarded by whoever has them. At best, Apple could break them by fixing something in-between, but the secrets to it are kept very close and very quiet.
And a company selling them vets their clients very ca
Re: (Score:3)
And a company selling them vets their clients very carefully to make sure that the vulnerability used isn't accidentally disclosed because they're rare and valuable.
That's exactly how Stuxnet was exposed by the Israelis. They changed the parameters on the malware to make it too aggressive & that's how it got discovered. The management who make these decisions are alpha-male, dick-swinging-contest dickheads who think they know better than the experts who work for them. They're effectively unaccountable & just as bad in govt as they are in corporations. These arseholes ARE the clients & there's no vetting process that can prevent it without your spyware compa
Re:What does he hope to accomplish ? (Score:5, Interesting)
What it does was stated in the first sentence, which you apparently ignored;
"could allow other hacking victims in Britain to sue foreign governments who order such attacks"
Previously this was not established, which is pretty amazing.
"could have profound implications for other individuals targeted or hacked by NSO's spyware within the UK"
Re:What does he hope to accomplish ? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, it used to be Bandar bin Sultan's job to retaliate or pressure foreign govts with threats of terrorism, e.g. the USA, UK & Russia. It's not exactly a secret that the Saudi royals are among the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world. Terrorism is their favourite form of resistance & international diplomacy, "Nice country you have there, shame if something were to happen to it." I'm not sure if it's still "Bandar Bush" who plays this role (he's 73 & has had mental health problems for some time) or someone else has taken over.
The UK & the west have stepped up their anti-terrorism game in the last couple of decades to reduce the impact of these threats so let's see if this is true & how it plays out.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, people do care about doing what they can to punish the brutal, primitive Saudis. Assholes like you, maybe not...but PEOPLE do.
Re: (Score:3)
If he wins against SA he could go after their assets in the UK to recover whatever money he is awarded. Off hand I don't know what assets they have in the UK, but they are likely to be significant. London is the money laundering capital of the world and many foreign oligarchs keep wealth here in the form of property and other "investments".
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you say nobody cares? Haven't you read any articles about it? At least all those authors care, plus many of their readers. Maybe that's still a minority of people compared to the general public, but it's certain that some people care.
That said, you're right that winning such a lawsuit cannot fix all this person's problems that were mentioned in the summary, but maybe he can get some compensation and maybe more people will care.