4 ms·
This isn’t really a comment about Kaspersky, because I don’t know if the implication that they are involved in Russian cyberespionage is true or not. However, i
by mekanisksympati 9y ago
This isn’t really a comment about Kaspersky, because I don’t know if the implication that they are involved in Russian cyberespionage is true or not. However, in general, the FBI is very involved in tracking the different groups associated with nation state cyberespionage. One of the most common ways that a large company in the private sector finds out that it has been compromised is via FBI notification. Not even close to the same situation here, but it does illustrate that domestic network security falls within the scope of their operations.
Whether the federal government should be lobbying against a private companies’ products is a more complicated issue. I think, if it could be demonstrated that there is sufficient evidence to link them to unethical behavior, it might be appropriate.
- exelius 9y agoWith the oligarchy in Russia being what it is, it's not a stretch to think that any large company based in Russia is a proxy for the government. At the very least, the executives of that company could be pressured by the state security apparatus. Pretty much anyone with money in Russia crosses the Putin government at their own peril. There are numerous cases of Russian billionaires in opposition to Putin losing their companies to supposedly trumped-up charges of tax evasion and subsequently dying in jail under suspicious circumstances.
- jacquesm 9y ago> Pretty much anyone with money in Russia crosses the Putin government at their own peril. Having money is not a prerequisite, and in some cases even being in Russia is not a prerequisite.
- 4bpp 9y agoMy impression was that the charges are rarely trumped up; it's just that everyone remotely successful does it (so it's hard to be competitive without) and the law is enforced very selectively.