[thraway2016]

Why exactly is HackerOne drawing a distinction with this software producer?

The truth is: because a H1 rep went on Risky Business and did not deliver a very good performance.

Patrick, who is absolutely okay with H1 having FiveEye clients like the US DoD, has a very serious problem with them also servicing an obscure spyware application provider. Because, I suppose, being murder-droned by a panopticon hegemony is much better than getting yelled at by an angry spouse?

[kbenson]

The purpose of the DoD is not to spy on people, it is to protect people. That some actions by some programs and and departments may cross the line legally during certain periods is not that same as an entity whose sole, or majority of goods or services are for, or marketed as being for, an illegal action.

[nickpsecurity]

"The purpose of the DoD is not to spy on people, it is to protect people. "

To protect the elites as the other commenter said. Start with the claims of a person who led a bunch of wars after getting Medal of Honor:

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

The same patterns kept happening over and over from there. The politicians got to play politics. The big, war contractors made billions. Their CEO's millions. After the drafts, the eventual "volunteer" army of mostly poor or working class kept dying for their BS about protecting "freedom" and "democracy." Look up Operation Ajax and compare to how that event is treated today to know plenty about what DOD does in the world. ;)

[miopa]

In the first case, you have an entity that has a proven record of breaking the law (on purpose) using technology. I can also argue that the purpose of DoD now is to protect the elites, from the people, but that's another story.

In the second, the legal line is not crossed. It may be crossed at some point by an adult person that can bear responsibility for his actions.

I would not work with both; I can understand how can one not be a hypocrite by choosing to work with the latter and not the former, but not the other way around.

Is it the right moral choice to protect the privacy of a cheater? Maybe, I don't know, I'm struggling to answer that to myself, let alone judge others.

[Chris2048]

> Is it the right moral choice to protect the privacy of a cheater?

Is this spyware used to find out if someone is cheating? If so, it means you'd install it, and violate their privacy, without knowing if they are a cheater, so the point is moot.

[miopa]

I was not referring to the app, but in general to discover a cheater you'll most likely violate their privacy.

My point is that privacy in a relationship is a relationship thing, and the moral choice for me would be to not interfere in other peoples relationships. This includes not judging you if you use spyware on your wife.

[Chris2048]

> to discover a cheater you'll most likely violate their privacy

I'm not sure this is true. There are often clear boundaries, like secretly observing them in public versus accessing their private phones.

> privacy in a relationship is a relationship thing

but it's also a privacy thing. Is domestic abuse a relationship thing? That would also interfere with a relationship.