Reflects the broad spectrum #spyware harms happen.
But *also* and critically, situations where vendors should expect that their product, once sold, will inevitably be abused.
#Pegasus factor: Ouch. NSO again would get dinged.
7/ I initially expected #SpywareEO to look like a allow/deny aka "blacklist" of spyware sellers..
But the EO's conduct based definitions = constant shell game of vendors corporate identities is blunted.
Even applies to companies that haven't been formed yet.
Probably better.
8/ Lots of spyware companies absolutely know what they are doing.
What's especially interesting is the term "remove" to describe risks.
Not the milquetoast & unverifiable "mitigate."
#SpywareEO is saying: cancel the contracts & more.
And you may still be toast. Do it now.
9/ Reports in the past that USG entities may have occasionally facilitated spyware purchases / acquisition by other governments.
If the #SpywareEO abuse/natsec/counterintelligence triggers are met... that door now closes.
10/ How does the USG know if #spyware vendors hit the #SpywareEO's triggers?
The EO contains a robust set of reporting requirements around misuses from the Intel community & procurement reporting.
Seems intended to prevent vendors from slipping through the cracks.
11/ Use of the "operational use" term is interesting.
And creates carve outs for things like testing & analysis.
Analogy: USG can buy an anti-tank missile from a shady entity to test it against armor, but can't reward the vendor by equipping the whole military with them.
12/ Takeaway: The #SpywareEO is the first comprehensive action by any government on #spyware.
It was clearly drafted to pump the breaks on proliferation & is written with a good understanding the slippery nature of the industry.
It closes many loopholes.
13/ Whenever the USG regulates there's always temptation to speculate about protectionism for American companies.
But reading the #SpywareEO...these provisions hit US-based spyware companies just as hard if they meet the triggers / contribute to proliferation.
Good.
14/ Every government wants to not tie their hands too tightly, so there is a waiver provision.
But what's interesting is how restricted this is. This is a very high bar.
The #SpywareEO is not designed to be easily circumvented by someone in a corner of the USG bureaucracy.
15/ I've spent over a decade researching commercial spyware.
The #spywareEO is one of the most consequential actions to blunt proliferation that I've seen a government take.
So, where do we go from here?
16/ While the #SpywareEO addresses federal procurement, it doesn't hit state & local agencies.
And we know these are targets for sales by NSO Group & others.
This is going to be a really important area in coming years.
UPDATE: @Plaid for AI happened faster than I warned.
We are in a historic transformation around AI agents.
Disruption will extend to the core of your privacy.
Companies know the appeal of agentic AI & are working to lock consumers into ecosystems designed to maximize data extraction.
It's not too late, but it might be soon.
But the thing about transformative moments is that new possibilities often open simultaneously with the risks.
We need to build, experiment with & use good private + open AI tools, local models that respect privacy by default & confidential inference that prevents companies from mining the data they process.
Do that & give us a fighting chance for future that respects our freedom, and our boundaries.
Sleep on the challenge of building openly & we relinquish the playing field to the same companies and dynamics that already degrade our autonomy...only faster & everywhere.
2/ What's the deal with @Plaid?
I find people are dimly aware about something involving connecting banking accounts.
I bet you don't know that Plaid helps themselves to mountains of your financial data in exchange for the convenience.
3/ Basically, by providing 'rails' @Plaid has managed to get an absolutely gods-eye-view on peoples financial behavior.
In real time.
That data is available to other companies. And governments.
YIKES: @perplexity_ai is flexing that they have OS-level access to 100M+ Samsung S26s.
Zero mention of:
Privacy
Security
Encryption
What will Perplexity do with this growing stash of personal data from deep inside Samsung phones? What jurisdictions will it live in? Who will it get shared with?
Here's the thing: Android's current security & privacy model involves sandboxing 3rd party apps from each other. TikTok can't read your private notes, for example.
Sandboxing is good & it narrows the attack surface against your private stuff.
But this #Perplexity integration breaks that baseline sandbox model, making a kernel-adjacent data bridge for Perplexity into your personal stuff.
Will users understand the structural shift in privacy?
Meanwhile, the risk of prompt injection & other attacks against an agentic AI that has OS-level access to personal stuff is also real.
Lots of speed, no signs of caution.
2/ Multiple agents & flows each with their own distinct security & privacy issues and levels of OS-level access to private stuff.
I doubt users have the cognitive spare room to parse privacy & security downsides each time they want to ask a question.
NEW: When Kenyan cops arrested activist & presidential candidate @bonifacemwangi they took his devices.
When he got his personal phone back, the password was gone.
We @citizenlab found they'd abused @cellebrite to break into it.
Here's why this abuse matters 1/
2/ Your phone holds the keys to your life, and governments shouldn’t be able to help themselves to the contents just because they don’t like what you are saying.
But everywhere you look, cops are getting phone cracking technology from companies like @cellebrite.
Many abuse it.
3/ @Cellebrite's abuse potential is clear.
Now, Cellebrite says that they have a human rights committee & do due diligence...
Because even Cellebrite knows that if you sell phone cracking tech to security services with bad oversight, you have a problem.
So why are there so many sales to questionable security services?