<story><title>Kaspersky is declared a US national security threat and is banned by the FCC</title><url>https://hothardware.com/news/kaspersky-declared-us-national-security-threat-banned-fcc</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>JabavuAdams</author><text>The problem is: how do you run a business that has offices and physical assets in Russia, without being at least partially beholden to the Russian government? They have demonstrated that they are not shy about using gangster tactics.&lt;p&gt;One could say that the same is true in the US, but I believe the degree matters. Although the US government and intelligence agencies will and do try to overreach, there is a strong legal and cultural tradition of exposing, resisting, and fighting these overreaches in the US. I don&amp;#x27;t see that in Russia.&lt;p&gt;So, I would not be surprised to see the US strong-arming US companies, but they would do this with sham&amp;#x2F;flimsy legal cover. The result of non-compliance would be at worst asset seizure and&amp;#x2F;or imprisonment. Both of these can be examined and contested. I imagine that the penalty for non-compliance in the Russian system would max out at having an unfortunate accident. Gangsters all, but the level of gangsterism and possibilities for investigation&amp;#x2F;redress matter.&lt;p&gt;All that said, I&amp;#x27;m not a US citizen (although in a Five-Eyes country), so I do worry about using US-hosted services.</text></item><item><author>Maursault</author><text>Ok, let&amp;#x27;s cut the crap. Is Kaspersky a dirtbag or not? I suspect not, but it is an unfortunate accident he was born in and runs his company from Russia, the government of which is a dirtbag, so, correct me if I am wrong, Kaspersky must be a dirtbag by association, but especially for discovering Stuxnet. Believable, but I think the real reasons Kaspersky is persona non grata is due to having discovered Stuxnet, and Kaspersky Lab suspected of uncovering secret US cyberweapons in the future.&lt;p&gt;I am a patriot, but even I don&amp;#x27;t appreciate being lied to by my government. It would be good if the next best cyber security firm and software was half as good as Kaspersky&amp;#x27;s. But I suspect not.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>PoignardAzur</author><text>&lt;i&gt;&amp;gt; One could say that the same is true in the US, but I believe the degree matters. Although the US government and intelligence agencies will and do try to overreach, there is a strong legal and cultural tradition of exposing, resisting, and fighting these overreaches in the US.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;That point would be a lot stronger if the US government hadn&amp;#x27;t demonstrated shocking callousness and disregard for international law in their efforts to catch notorious whistleblowers Snowden and Assange.&lt;p&gt;I remember when Belarus downed a plane to catch a political dissident and all western countries acted shocked, even though these countries had tried to do &lt;i&gt;the exact same thing&lt;/i&gt; to Snowden on the US&amp;#x27;s behalf, with a presidential plane no less.</text></comment>
<story><title>Kaspersky is declared a US national security threat and is banned by the FCC</title><url>https://hothardware.com/news/kaspersky-declared-us-national-security-threat-banned-fcc</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>JabavuAdams</author><text>The problem is: how do you run a business that has offices and physical assets in Russia, without being at least partially beholden to the Russian government? They have demonstrated that they are not shy about using gangster tactics.&lt;p&gt;One could say that the same is true in the US, but I believe the degree matters. Although the US government and intelligence agencies will and do try to overreach, there is a strong legal and cultural tradition of exposing, resisting, and fighting these overreaches in the US. I don&amp;#x27;t see that in Russia.&lt;p&gt;So, I would not be surprised to see the US strong-arming US companies, but they would do this with sham&amp;#x2F;flimsy legal cover. The result of non-compliance would be at worst asset seizure and&amp;#x2F;or imprisonment. Both of these can be examined and contested. I imagine that the penalty for non-compliance in the Russian system would max out at having an unfortunate accident. Gangsters all, but the level of gangsterism and possibilities for investigation&amp;#x2F;redress matter.&lt;p&gt;All that said, I&amp;#x27;m not a US citizen (although in a Five-Eyes country), so I do worry about using US-hosted services.</text></item><item><author>Maursault</author><text>Ok, let&amp;#x27;s cut the crap. Is Kaspersky a dirtbag or not? I suspect not, but it is an unfortunate accident he was born in and runs his company from Russia, the government of which is a dirtbag, so, correct me if I am wrong, Kaspersky must be a dirtbag by association, but especially for discovering Stuxnet. Believable, but I think the real reasons Kaspersky is persona non grata is due to having discovered Stuxnet, and Kaspersky Lab suspected of uncovering secret US cyberweapons in the future.&lt;p&gt;I am a patriot, but even I don&amp;#x27;t appreciate being lied to by my government. It would be good if the next best cyber security firm and software was half as good as Kaspersky&amp;#x27;s. But I suspect not.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mjevans</author><text>I live in the USA, therefore I need to consider it as part of my threat model mostly in the blunders &amp;#x2F; withholding exploits (thanks CIA ~.~) senses.  For everything else I try to vote informed and support a combination of the EFF, ACLU, and other organizations that can be better informed experts on the law and it&amp;#x27;s applications.</text></comment>