How come the more I hear about what Israel or Israeli companies can do with our devices makes me just not want to use a device at all? Maybe my tinfoil hat is too tight? Why are they so bold with their abilities while other countries are not? Are they just that much better, or are other nation states just better at keeping quiet?
Reminds me how at some point the U.S. was so strong that it didn’t even have to show up to dick swinging contests anymore. No military parades and the like, which feels antiquated and kind of embarrassing when you see the Russians or North Koreans doing it.
Though the Americans are into military parades again… hmmm…
Something similar could be said of Israeli strategy. They have not achieved anything of note except inflicting a Holocaust against the Palestinians. Perhaps because of some misguided idea that this makes them feel strong.
I think that is why they keep sabotaging the talks that would have seen all the hostages returned by now.
You don't understand what modus operandi means. Hamas and Iran can't function using disproportionate violence; they don't have fighter jets or stealth bombers, there isn't an October 7th every month. Their manner of fighting is dramatically underproportionate and still manages to threaten civilians less than Israel.
It should horrify you when the war on terror has killed more civilians than the terrorists ever did. Netanyahu knows violence won't bring hostages home, and everyone else knows Israel will fulminate until they're sanctioned into the stone age. Hamas and Iran are both winning the pissing contest by doing absolutely nothing.
>Something similar could be said of Israeli strategy. They have not achieved anything of note except inflicting a Holocaust against the Palestinians. Perhaps because of some misguided idea that this makes them feel strong.
It's pretty consistently noted in the media that Netanyahu's actions in Palestine are to placate his far-right coalition partners, who would otherwise bring down his government. No need to invoke "this makes them feel strong" here.
I guess it might depend on what the goal is for staying in office, and to what ends one will go to do so. Is all of this truly because he believes this will make Israelis safer? Or is it because he wants to hold power, and what’s the motivator for holding that power? Avoiding consequences?
I wonder if for people like Netanyahu, Trump, Putin, etc. (and the people who are successfully swayed to support them…) it’s less about feeling strong and more about avoiding feeling weak.
I'd say the jury is actually still out on whether al-Aqsa Flood will turn out to have been a brilliant strategic gambit. IDF still suffers frequent "security incidents" in Gaza, and Israel's popular support now consists of a dwindling core of hardliners and online Hasbara bots.
I think the boldness is a combination of 1) marketing to governments and organizations around the world and 2) knowing there will be no consequences either domestic or international for what they do.
A state (or a carrier, in theory), doesn't need RCEs to do this. In every phone, the "actual phone", what talks to cell towers, is a separate system called the Baseband. It is a full computer, storage, memory, encryption, ... and it is under the control of carriers and through them of law enforcement and the like. It is also where the microphone and mostly the cameras are connected. The baseband then passes them through to the UI, like android or IOS. It's how carriers enforce disabling wifi when mobile data is active unless you pay extra, for example.
But it can copy the sound of a phone call to separate channels, or copy the data being sent (even on wifi), or it can activate emergency messages or broadcasts. It can also transmit audio and video when the phone is not actually in a call. That sort of thing.
In practice there are a great many different basebands and of course most states couldn't be bothered to actually write a decent system to use them (well, they tried forcing carriers to do it for them, but anyone who ever worked at a large carrier on a big project can tell you how that went), so only lowest common denominator features are in practice accessible. That means location and getting audio. But nothing is stopping countries from implementing more. I bet the NSA has something with a lot more features, for example.
No, the only part where carriers can run arbitrary code is on the sim card, which can only run javacard applets.
>It can also transmit audio and video when the phone is not actually in a call.
Source? AFAIK both iPhones and Pixels have discrete modems, which means the baseband is separated from the main processor and communicates with it via some sort of bus. It's unclear how the baseband would be able to get arbitrary audio/video when it's isolated in this manner.
Look obviously the baseband is under control of carriers. That's required since they manage spectrum, you know AT&T's "one phone could disrupt service for an entire neighborhood" argument. Which is true, btw.
This includes the power to upload code to decide which channels and timing to use.
Then it was decided to use this for law enforcement, and so audio was routed through the baseband. Other things were for carriers, like SMS management (including deleting SMS that were already shown to the user). Both to prevent apps from listening without the baseband's agreement AND to listen in without agreement from the apps.
The limit on this is that there's already many different basebands, and of course neither carriers nor states could be bothered to actually implement the backend necessary. I'd bet good money the NSA has one though.
If factories filled with civilians are fair game for conventional attacks in total war. Why not cyber attacks on cell phones and electronics needed by the civilians to do those same jobs?
The later.
While I applaud Israel capabilities the are not unique. USA and china has more mony, talent and access to the hardware/software that is actually used to build the networks
In the verbally given version of the speech that isn't shortened to a tweet (https://www.nbcnews.com/video/shorts/israel-pm-says-they-use...) this is explicitly directed "to the jailers of our hostages", and in that context, it seems pretty reasonable.
That's alluding to Nazi and Palestinian criminals that Israel hunted all over the world for decades. One by one, setting up their meetings with the creator.
There was even a movie about one hunt it's called "Munich", directed by Spiellberg - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408306/ . Great movie!
> It was the largest genocide against Jews since the Holocaust
Is genocide now basically hate crime in American English? Was Osama bin Laden bent on genocide? Does the Westborough Baptist Church have genocidal aims against the gay community?
"After the deadly offensive by Hamas against Israel in October 2023, Ismail Haniyeh, who replaced Mashaal as head of the Hamas political bureau in exile, again invoked religious rhetoric. “Today, the enemy has had a political, military, intelligence, security and moral defeat inflicted upon it, and we shall crown it, with the grace of God, with a crushing defeat that will expel it from our lands, our holy city of al Quds, our al Aqsa mosque, and the release of our prisoners from the jails of the Zionist occupation,” he said." [1]
Excerpts from the Hamas Covenant [1]:
"Article 8:
Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes."
"Article 15:
The day that enemies usurp part of Muslim land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised."
Hamas' *literal* goal is the extermination of Jews and the Jewish people. That's literally genocide.[2][3]
...now don't get me wrong — I don't side with Netanyahu or what his government have been doing — but that doesn't change the fact that Hamas' goal is the eradication of the only Jewish state in the world, and it's people — actual genocide.
The attacks on October 7, 2023 were much more than a "hate crime" as you mistakenly claim... and your whataboutism is just immature, and isn't conducive to actual discourse.
Maybe not doing everything we can to legitimise Hamas by dehumanising the entire Palestinian people would be a start. Back a dog into a corner then euthanise it for biting you... Disgusting
You legitimated Hamas when Starmer recognised a Palestinian state
- *in the middle of a war*
- nearly two years after October 7
- while Hamas still have hostages
...it ABSOLUTELY legitimises them, and rewards them for their attacks on October 7 and beyond.
Sounds more like you're "dehumanising the entire Palestinian people" by calling them a dog... and accusing Israel of "euthanising" the Palestinian people.
Hamas' literal goal — which you've conveniently decided to avoid commenting on — is the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world, and the destruction of the Jewish people.
If Netanyahu wanted to wipe Hamas from the face of the earth with no thought for civilians or collateral damage, the IDF could've turned Gaza into sand and glass on October 8.
Yes, how Netanyahu and his government have acted is wrong... but have you gotten daily emergency notifications from incoming Hamas missiles and drones? Have you ever had to live in the only country in the world that literally requires an Iron Dome defence system to protect it from attacks from Hamas and their ilk? Where buildings and public streets are literally required to have strongrooms and shelters as places of safety, and people can have to take shelter from attacks on a daily basis? — and this was going on long before the current war. In the 90's, when Hamas were just getting on their feet, it was Hezbollah firing rockets at Israel... then, when Hamas got its numbers and weapons up, Hezbollah supported _them_.
What's disgusting is you making such an asinine comment without evidently knowing the history or experiencing life in that area of the world, on either side of any manmade line in the sand...
A Palestinian state shouldn't be recognised with terrorists at the helm — that's like deciding to just give annexed parts of Ukraine up as "New South Russia". Hamas need to be removed from terrorising and controlling the local population and acting as an oppressive so-called government... and the Palestinian Authority should be installed as the legitimate government for a Palestinian state.
When you award that status to a proscribed terrorist group (which Hamas was made in the UK in 2001, nearly a quarter-century ago, FYI), while they are the active aggressors of this war, given October 7 —— and while they still hold hostages and oppress their own supposed people — it legitimises them more than anything else.
Mind you don't get arrested supporting PA in Westminster... getting an S13 charge under Terrorism Act 2000 wouldn't look good... but then you've ignored facts and missed the point altogether with your own disgusting rhetoric.
Speaking of disgusting... it's Russia's speaking slot at the UN today. Do you think there will be a mass walkout when their representative goes to the podium to speak? I suspect if there isn't, there's some rather antisemitic hypocrisy going on...
> You legitimated Hamas when Starmer recognised a Palestinian state
Nope. Palestine isn't Hamas.
> Sounds more like you're "dehumanising the entire Palestinian people" by calling them a dog...
"No u?" I didn't call anyone a dog, I used a metaphor to illustrate a situation.
> Hamas' literal goal — which you've conveniently decided to avoid commenting on — is the yada yada yada
Yeah because I'm not talking about Hamas. And honestly I haven't seen a single reasonable word in your comment this far so I don't think I'll be reading any further.
Oh wow haha you've even got all the "anti-Semitic" buzzwords in there. You know the UN has recognised the genocide? Is there a genocide taking place in Ukraine? Why do you equate these things?
Sorry, don't even answer that, this exchange will go nowhere. But I'm glad you wasted your time
> The prime minister’s office also claimed that the Israeli army had taken over mobile phones in Gaza to broadcast his message, though AP journalists inside Gaza saw no immediate evidence of Netanyahu’s speech being broadcast on phones there.
Every phone in Israel got a special message when missiles from Iran were fired.
No application, no nothing, just by the virtue of being connected to to an Israeli phone cell tower (it worked even on imported phones)
My understanding that it is a standard feature, this is how earthquake warning works in Japan.
Point being there is no "hacking" involved. Standard feature
You don't have to hack anything if you control ip routes. A simple redirect like a captive portal could accomplish something like this. Israel can either own the gateways or own the spectrum.
Besides the reality of this or not, the order of events is misleading. If they were able to do so, then the taking of control happened long ago (and maybe not just in Gaza), and used this opportunity to send that message to them. And that wasn't the main goal of taking control.
I think it is more likely that the Israeli government would have abused Gaza's wireless emergency alert system to send a link to a live stream to every cell phone. AFAIK, emergency alert systems are limited to text messages but smartphones will recognise URLs to allow users to tap to open them.
But a user would have needed to actively tap on the link to open the stream.
In the UK we recently had a test of the emergency alert system. Most people had an alarm and a message on screen, with phones locked. There were a few incidents of motorists ending up in road traffic accidents in the immediate aftermath, and some phones reportedly spoke the announcement rather than just beep loudly.
Since the 'beep' is just an audio file, my hunch is that some A/B testing was going on, with most people getting the 'beep' and some getting the message read out.
I imagine that broadcast capability is fully built in, so that mobile phones can replace what we had in the olden days when the government could take over the TV and radio to broadcast whatever they thought was important. I can't remember the last time that the U.S. President spoke to the people in this way, but it used to be fairly common.
I don't think that calling every phone is plausible. In a competitive telecoms market, no provider would build that out. Instead they would keep capacity just above what they know is needed on a daily basis.
Not because it would be impossible, although the "every phone" is a bit of a stretch given how hard it would be to build an exploit that reliably works on all the messed up versions of Android that vendors put out.
But because if you had a capability like this, you wouldn't burn several full exploit chains just to broadcast a speech.
Doing something on the network side (either compromising existing infrastructure, simply being the infrastructure provider, or providing fake base stations) and then simply calling each phone - sure.
Pushing emergency alert cell broadcast messages with a link to the stream - sure.
This. How can you know you hacked EVERY phone. I have friends with flip phones (no screen). There must be at least a small amount of optimistic thinking here.
IMHO someone was likely given a task such as "disseminate the message to 100% of the population" and they found a way to claim they accomplished the task (with reasonable credibility).
Pegasus is just the commercial stuff, too. The IDF certainly has it's own panoply of exploits/payloads in addition to their profoundly privileged CIA access.
Sounds like boomer-speak for they sent one of those full-screen SMS messages (aka 'flash SMS') with a link to a livestream.
You guys read too much Tom Clancy.
If spammers can do it and send me links to phishing sites so can one of the most technologically-proficient governments. You really think they would waste multiple 0-days on some bullshit like this?
Isn't this is the nation that planted explosives into pagers? I think they're the ones reading too much Clancy.
> so can one of the most technologically-proficient governments.
How would you feel if China did this to your nation? Would you marvel at their proficiency or perhaps focus on the complete lack of diplomacy it displays?
> the responsible adult that was in charge of my protection
So you're infantilizing an entire nation to make this point?
> So he should surrender and spare us the war.
Do you have any measure on this sentiment among the population currently? If it is, as it is in so many places, that the leaders actions are detached from the will of the voters, then what should we make of this?
Should they be allowed to surrender to a _neutral_ party?
Should they be allowed to keep their state?
Is there any reason not to presume a peaceful negotiation under these terms? Is there any reason to attempt to assassinate the party trying to coordinate this?
> How would you feel? Insulted?
Violated. These are _our_ emergency broadcast services. They should be used for the intended purpose and not to force an angry political message on a powerless population.
Do you not have any good faith in yourself for this topic?
Your comment is all over the place, but it is very telling. You are a confused westerner. First is you feeling "violated", how is that constructive in any way? functioning adults, while they might feel violated, will search for a course of action that will remedy the situation. It can be a big thing, it can be a small thing, it can be anything in between: It can be a tiktok post about our bad enemies and ask for donation, it can searching for a gun to kill one of the enemies, it can be doing a course about network management and blocking them next time. It can also be a tiktok post about voicing the need to surrender, it can be joining the locals that rising up against the leadership, it can be collaborating with with the said enemy.
As a member of a society, that is in a war for the last 2 years, with no prospect of wining, a war the my leadership started, I know what I will choose.
One of the main reasons that this war is being drugged on is confused westerns like you, you don't really care about the suffering of the population, you just don't want the "bad guys" to win no matter the cost of lives. When will you pressure them to surrender?! how do you sleep at night? seriously?
And as measure of sentiment among the population you should watch this [0] starting about 1:40 into the interview
Putin has treaty rights to attend the General Assembly, same as Netanyahu. Neither are under legal threat in the U.S. as we never signed the Rome Statute that established the ICC.
He's the head of state of a member country. Afaik, all member countries have a slot to give a speech at the general assembly. There's probably a slot for observer states and other acknowledged non-member states as well.
I don't see why Putin would be prohibited from making a speech in the time alloted for speeches either? He's the head of state of a member country as well. And it's one of the permanent members of the security council, so among equal peers, it's more equal. Russia's slot is currently listed as Saturday morning [1], I don't know who will speak.
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-pm-76a155d0-9b02-11f...
reply