Meta awarded $167 million in damages from Israeli cybersecurity firm
Live Events
The Israeli cybersecurity firm NSO Group was ordered on Tuesday to pay $167 million in damages to Meta , capping a six-year legal battle after NSO hacked 1,400 WhatsApp accounts belonging to journalists, human-rights activists and government officials.In December, Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that NSO Group had broken cybersecurity laws by using its popular Pegasus spying software to target phones with WhatsApp installed in 20 countries. Meta owns WhatsApp, an encrypted messaging app with more than 2 billion users, as well as Facebook and Instagram.In March, Meta filed a brief seeking damages from NSO Group, and last week a jury heard arguments about potential penalties. The jury awarded the damages Tuesday after two days of deliberations."The jury's verdict today to punish NSO is a critical deterrent to the spyware industry against their illegal acts aimed at American companies and our users worldwide," Will Cathcart, the head of WhatsApp, said in a statement. "This is an industrywide threat, and it'll take all of us to defend against it."WhatsApp said it would donate the damages to digital rights organizations that defend people."We will carefully examine the verdict's details and pursue appropriate legal remedies, including further proceedings and an appeal," said Gil Lainer, NSO Group's vice president for global communication. "We firmly believe that our technology plays a critical role in preventing serious crime and terrorism and is deployed responsibly by authorized government agencies."WhatsApp sued NSO Group in 2019, accusing it of gaining access to WhatsApp servers without permission. The trial, during which NSO Group executives testified in court for the first time, shed light on the company's ability to install its Pegasus software on the mobile devices of targets without their knowledge. Its executives argued that Pegasus helped law enforcement and intelligence agencies fight crime and protect national security. Apple similarly sued NSO Group for hacking its devices in 2021, but dropped its suit in September. Also in 2021, the Commerce Department blacklisted NSO Group, saying the company acted "contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States."Spyware, a type of software installed on phones, laptops and other electronic devices to spy on unsuspecting victims, is a growing field. NSO Group's early spyware required that people click on text messages or images sent via WhatsApp for it to be unknowingly downloaded on their phones.According to evidence presented at the trial, new versions could hack into a phone through a sent text message, requiring no action by the receiver. The trial also revealed that NSO Group had developed technology to hack into other messaging apps.John Scott-Railton, an outside expert who helped WhatsApp inform people that NSO Group spyware had targeted them, said Tuesday's decision would damage the company."NSO's business is based on hacking American companies," and then "dictators can hack dissidents," said Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at Citizen Lab, a cybersecurity watchdog group at the University of Toronto. "This verdict sends a clear signal."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
43 minutes ago
- Mint
Resource war: How commercial assets turned into front line weaponry
Chennai: Recently, J.D. Vance, the US vice president, confirmed what the world feared. He termed the competition between the US and China in developing artificial intelligence (AI) as an 'arms race'. Policy makers in both the countries believe that whoever wins this race will dominate the world, going forward. At the core of this battle is computing power and this has given a fresh impetus to the chip war that began between the US and China five years ago. In May 2020, during his first term as the president of the US, Donald Trump fired the first salvo. The US commerce department added Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies to the 'Entity List', a measure which prevented the company that sells smartphones, telecom equipment and cloud computing services from accessing advanced computer chips produced or developed using US technology or software. The reason? The US feared that Huawei's attractively priced products, backed by Chinese government subsidy, would soon dominate the next generation telecom networks, ending American clout in the field. The move had a debilitating impact on Huawei. Its global expansion took a hit and revenue crashed. 'A corporate giant faced technological asphyxiation," Chris Miller, in his book Chip War, wrote. According to him, this development reminded China of its weakness. 'In nearly every step of the process of producing semiconductors, China is staggeringly dependent on foreign technology, almost all of which is controlled by its geopolitical rivals—Taiwan, Japan, South Korea or the US," he wrote. China began investing billions of dollars to develop its own semiconductor technology in a bid to free itself from America's chip choke, he added. But the US is in no mood to make this endeavour easy for China. It has progressively tightened restrictions on China's semiconductor sector. The 'Entity List' has since grown to include over 140 Chinese companies—fabrication units, semiconductor tool companies and even investment companies that operate in the sector. Restrictions have extended from chips with high bandwidth memory to semiconductor manufacturing equipment and software tools. China, which sees US restrictions as an attempt to deny it the technological greatness it deserves, has retaliated. It began imposing restrictions on export of critical and rare earth minerals that are crucial for production of weapons, semiconductors and electric vehicles. There are 17 rare earth minerals and China has absolute control on most of them (see chart). In October 2023, it introduced export permits for graphite needed to produce lithium ion batteries. In December that year, it banned transfer of rare earth minerals extraction and separation technologies and the technology to make magnets. China, over the years, has mastered these technologies. In the same month, it banned the export of antimony, gallium and germanium apart from imposing stricter review of graphite exports to the US. In February 2025, in response to Donald Trump imposing 10% tariffs on all Chinese products, the middle kingdom added five more critical minerals— tungsten, indium, bismuth, tellurium and molybdenum to the export control list. This meant that companies require special export licenses to export the minerals. On 4 April, after Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, China further added seven more minerals and magnets to the export restrictions list. There is no clarity whether these restrictions have been suspended after the recent US and China trade talks in Geneva. The US is now scrambling to find alternate sources for these minerals. All of a sudden, economic resources which were till recently seen predominantly as commercial assets, have acquired new edge as strategic instruments. They are no longer controlled just by the market— geopolitics has a greater say over them. A short history Demand for resources began to rise after the Industrial Revolution in 1760 which introduced the use of metals such as iron and steel. The rise of mechanized factory systems increased output and thus, demand for resources. As the demand rose, countries such as Great Britain, France and Belgium began colonizing the world in search of resources. 'Colonization was all about exploitation of natural resources," said S. Gurumurthy, writer and a corporate advisor. The British empire met its demand for cotton, tea, leather, coal and iron ore from India for almost two centuries, he added. Post World War II, resources were seen as market instruments. They were freely traded for a price. According to the World Trade Organization, between 1950 and 2024, global trade volumes grew by 4,500%. 'It was also a period when countries used trade to increase co-dependence in the hope that it would enhance peace and welfare," Dhruva Jaishankar, executive director, Observer Research Foundation — America, said. Europe bought gas from Russia in the hope that the latter would leave them alone. The US built a strong economic relationship with China on the assumption that the Asian nation could integrate with the global economy, eliminate poverty, and embrace democratic principles. Of course, trade in resources has not been entirely free. Nations have imposed restrictions. In the last 75 years, the US is the biggest culprit. As a sole super power, it denied various countries technology and resources that it deemed were dual use—for both civil and military applications. As the US-China rivalry intensifies, the weaponization is spilling beyond dual use technologies. China, it appears, is not loath to leveraging the domination it has built in the global economy. The new normal China accounts for more than 30% of global manufacturing output. This is the highest concentration of manufacturing in one place," said Jaishankar. The US had a similar share for a short period of time immediately after World War II when the protracted war had destroyed much of production facilities in mainland Europe and Japan. 'China has managed to achieve this without a war," he said, adding 'it is now trying to use its manufacturing power as a strategic leverage." It is not just manufacturing. Consider China's domination in the shipping space. It controls over 100 ports across 63 nations. As of 2022, it had 96% share in container production, 48% of global ship building orders and 80% of ship-to-shore cranes. It has similar domination across many sectors. 'What is worrying is that China has revealed its intention to weaponize goods, logistics or the entire supply chain," said an Indian government official who did not want to be identified. There is a conscious attempt by China to make the world depend on it. Simultaneously, it is reducing its dependence on the world. The restriction on export of rare earth minerals is just a beginning, he added. The resentment For more than four decades, China had silently focused on growing its economy. It eased rules to attract manufacturing taking advantage of its low wage costs. It invested in infrastructure—power, roads, ports and airports. It enabled building factories at unheard of scale which substantially reduced the cost of production. Global brands rushed to China to take advantage of it. Until a few years ago, 85% of all iPhone produced by Apple were assembled in China. At one point in time, almost all of Nike's shoes were produced in China. There were warnings within the US about this excessive dependence. Michael Pillsbury's book, The Hundred-Year Marathon, detailed China's secret desire to upstage the US as a global superpower. He, indeed many others, pointed out that China harboured a deep resentment and a sense of injury for losing its status as a middle kingdom when it dominated the world—economically, culturally and militarily. In the early 1700s, China (and India) had a large share of the world economy. On the eve of the Industrial Revolution, in 1760, it accounted for a third of the global economy. In the two centuries that followed, it lost out significantly. By 1979, China's share of the global economy was just 2%. Chinese consider the period between 1839 and 1945 a 'century of humiliation' that saw political fragmentation, decline and subjugation by foreign powers such as Russia, Japan and the West. The Chinese yearned to regain this lost glory. Today, China has 19% share in the global GDP, fast catching up with the US' 27%. Late wakeup call Policy makers in the US, for years, took a benign view of China's growth. Pillsbury pointed out that they saw their China policy as a commercial win and ignored the strategic dimension. Only when China began to assert itself, did they realise the depth of US' dependence on China and its real motive. It is not a surprise that Pillsbury, as Trump's advisor, is the architect of US' China policy now. Today, the US and China are engaged in a contest. The US is playing to its strength by denying advanced technology to China. By focusing on the massive $295 trade deficit (in 2024) and imposing massive tariffs, the Trump administration wants to reduce its dependence. China, for its part, is thinking long term to upstage the US. Lizzi Lee, a fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute's Centre for China Analysis, best described its strategy in a recent Financial Times article. He wrote: 'Xi is not looking to win the trade war in a conventional sense. He's positioning China for a drawn-out, grinding, contest by building domestic capacity, hardening supply chain and rooting out perceived vulnerabilities to foreign pressure." India play As the US and China fight for supremacy, India needs to have a strategy to deal with the fallout. 'Countries, be it China or the US, have exclusive rights over their resources. Weaponizing such resources is the new normal," said Ajay Srivastava, founder, Global Trade Research Initiative, a trade focussed think tank. India needs to put in place policies to minimise the impact of such decisions. India should identify and develop resources that the world would need and use it as a bargaining chip, he added. 'India may lack such resources now but we need to identify those and invest now," Gurumurthy added. China, Jaishankar said, does not have all the resources within its nation. It had worked assiduously to tap these critical minerals across the world, especially from African nations. China's strength, he added, is in developing the ability to process them in an effective manner. 'India needs to follow a similar strategy. We should strike deals with nations which have these resources and import the mineral for processing in India. That will give us control over it," he explained. India has already drawn up a list of critical minerals and has taken steps to secure them. It is part of the Mineral Security Partnership, a multi-nation initiative led by the US comprising 40 countries. It has struck, or is close to striking, a few deals in Latin America and Africa. But processing the minerals is easier said than done. It is capital intensive and requires a long lead time. Investors don't support such projects unless there is a strong business case. Experts have also suggested that India should frame policies to suit its strengths. Some have questioned pushing electrification of vehicles in a big way. With India lacking the raw material to make batteries, the rise in electric vehicles will shift India's energy dependence from West Asia to China. Others have recommended that India should invest heavily in taking a lead in green hydrogen. India is blessed with abundant sunlight and focus on storage systems can help it use solar power to drive green hydrogen efforts. India's efforts, such as production-linked incentives, have cut its dependence on China for solar cells and modules. More needs to be done if India has to become self-sufficient. To make all this possible, the country, particularly its private sector, would need to invest in research and development. If there is one thing that can come in India's way is its hubris, warned experts. 'What is needed is a long term vision and a step-by-step approach to achieve it," GTRI's Srivastava said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump at PA rally: 'No President has ever fought for American steelworkers like I have'
During Friday's rally in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, President Trump spoke about his record of support for American steelworkers. Trump also invited steelworkers to the stage during rally to celebrate US steel deal. Show more Show less
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Legacy academic hubs lose ground while new international study destinations rise
The United States is the undisputed leader of global academia, confronting a moment of reckoning. A convergence of volatile visa policies, tightening immigration laws, and surging costs has cast doubt over its long-standing appeal among international students. Recent moves, most notably the Trump administration's attempt to revoke Harvard University's certification to host foreign students, have left many questioning the future of the US as a reliable academic host. Although judicial intervention has temporarily blocked the decision, the uncertainty alone could reshape the global flow of student talent. The decline of traditional study destinations According to US State Department data, a record 1.12 million international students contribute over $50 billion annually to the American economy. Yet this financial magnetism may be faltering. Harvard and other leading research institutions have suffered multibillion-dollar cuts in research funding, diminishing their appeal for postgraduate scholars. Rising tuition, exceeding $100,000 at some institutions, only sharpens concerns about value and return on investment. Meanwhile, other Anglophone countries are implementing immigration and education reforms that dampen their once-robust international enrollment figures. In the UK, the government is considering shortening the post-study work visa from two years to 18 months, per the UK Council for International Student Affairs. Furthermore, restrictions introduced in 2024 now bar most graduate students from bringing dependents, according to the Times Higher Education. Canada, long celebrated for its inclusivity, has instituted a two-year cap on international student numbers. ICEF Monitor reports that foreign students previously comprised 2.5% of the national population. Australia has similarly imposed limits on international enrollments, increased visa application fees, and tightened regulatory oversight, decisions driven more by domestic political pressure than educational strategy, according to Reuters. Emergence of new academic frontiers As legacy destinations recalibrate or retreat, a constellation of emerging education hubs is stepping into the void. These countries, many grappling with demographic decline, are actively courting international students to sustain their university systems and replenish future labor forces. Japan, where the population of 18-year-olds has nearly halved over the past three decades, according to The Hechinger Report, aims to attract 400,000 international students by 2033. South Korea, where one in five residents is now over 65, as quoted by CNN, is targeting 300,000 by 2027. Singapore has eased permanent residency pathways for foreign graduates, while Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Malaysia are also positioning themselves as globally relevant education centers. India, traditionally an exporter of international students, has entered the arena with ambitions to welcome 500,000 foreign students by 2047, capitalizing on its expanding education infrastructure and English-medium instruction. Several European nations are also entering this race. Germany and Spain recently reached record highs in international student enrollment. While many of these countries offer fewer English-taught programs, their affordability is compelling. Annual tuition in Japan, for instance, averages around $4,000, a fraction of US costs. Strategic shifts and institutional adaptation In response to tightening visa rules, even US universities have begun pivoting. Many are launching international branch campuses, enabling global engagement without immigration bottlenecks. Simultaneously, institutions elsewhere are seizing the moment. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology recently pledged to accommodate displaced Harvard admits, offering streamlined admission and academic support to affected students. "The university will provide unconditional offers, streamlined admission procedures, and academic support to facilitate a seamless transition for interested students," the institution stated on its website. A decentralized future of global education The tectonic shifts in global education are forging a less centralized and more competitive academic environment. Traditional powerhouses like the US, UK, and Australia still wield influence, but they no longer hold a monopoly. In an era marked by geopolitical volatility and demographic transformation, students are weighing not only prestige but also policy predictability, financial sustainability, and post-study opportunity. The result is a global recalibration where newer, more agile nations are rising, offering education not just as a service, but as a strategic national investment. Ready to empower your child for the AI era? Join our program now! Hurry, only a few seats left.
