3 ms·

I think it's a very interesting timeline you've laid out. The piece I don't follow is the conclusion. > Take all of that, and ask yourself this. Would the US g

I think it's a very interesting timeline you've laid out. The piece I don't follow is the conclusion. > Take all of that, and ask yourself this. Would the US govt, which already had suspicion to remove them, and had been getting the ball rolling since at least May or before then, ask them to spy on behalf of the US in Russia, and if they balk, remove their funding and damage their reputation? To me that's real reason: they wouldn't play ball. I'm no expert at this, but I can't think of any circumstance where US intelligence would both simultaneously believe they are a branch of the Russian govt and ask them to spy in Russia on their behalf. Almost with 100% certainty if the US is spying in Russia it is against their geo-political foe Russia's interest. You wouldn't pass your secretly gathered intelligence through a branch of the Russian govt before returning it stateside. The secret intelligence is almost certainly about the Russian govt - no way you'd pass it through them to get it back to you. At minimum they'd know what you know, at maximum they'd manipulate it to deceive you. Again this is all speculation on my part here, but I don't see it supporting that conclusion. Clearly something changed to cause the sudden urgency to eliminate Kaspersky from govt computers. Additionally the urgency to me speaks more to eliminating a threat (of espionage or else) rather than retaliation. 30-90 days in govt time is pretty much as immediate as it gets. I think something else changed or was discovered. An option is US intelligence found out evidence of escalation of alleged actions by Kaspersky either in the recent past or plans for the near future. Again I've got no evidence of this - but is what seems like it better fits the points we've seen so far.

ams6110 9y ago
> I can't think of any circumstance where US intelligence would both simultaneously believe they are a branch of the Russian govt and ask them to spy in Russia on their behalf. Turning a spy is espionage 101, chapter 1.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  Yes, but you don't then punish the entire company for not complying. Turning a spy would be a covert action. Saying "your company better spy for us, or else we'll pull our contracts" is absolutely not. The previous poster was arguing the latter was what is going on.
  - peterwwillis 9y ago
    If your company hires someone who openly flaunts a lifestyle which is "morally repugnant" to some ranking member of a committee which oversees a government budget, and the company realizes this, they have a decision to make. If the company keeps the employee, the contract could be pulled, and they lose millions. If they simply lose the employee, the company stays in business. This is never an official policy, but it is a de-facto one, in the intelligence community anyway. Companies sometimes self-police to prevent these situations. But they will absolutely act to protect their interests, in one way or another.
peterwwillis 9y ago
> Clearly something changed to cause the sudden urgency to eliminate Kaspersky from govt computers This isn't sudden, this has been in the works for at least half the year. Congress and the FBI have been investigating Kaspersky since at least May, probably before then. In June, the House and Senate approved legislation to ban Kaspersky's software from use by the military. Legislation introduced by, you guessed it: John McCain. It might not be about spying at all - they might just be wagging the dog. It's weird enough that the military and intelligence services are working in tandem (how often do you see that happen?) to cast doubt on and kick out Kaspersky. With Trump under scrutiny about potential collusion with the Russians, could it be that someone needs to look tough against a Russian entity and provide in return some favor, like 100 billion extra bucks in the DOD budget? The newly passed FY18 military budget is 696 billion, up from 582 billion in 2017 - an almost 20% increase. What really amazes me is 60% of Democrats voted for this, which is an incredible concession considering how gigantic the cuts to their programs will be.

ams6110 9y ago

> I can't think of any circumstance where US intelligence would both simultaneously believe they are a branch of the Russian govt and ask them to spy in Russia on their behalf. Turning a spy is espionage 101, chapter 1.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago
Yes, but you don't then punish the entire company for not complying. Turning a spy would be a covert action. Saying "your company better spy for us, or else we'll pull our contracts" is absolutely not. The previous poster was arguing the latter was what is going on.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  If your company hires someone who openly flaunts a lifestyle which is "morally repugnant" to some ranking member of a committee which oversees a government budget, and the company realizes this, they have a decision to make. If the company keeps the employee, the contract could be pulled, and they lose millions. If they simply lose the employee, the company stays in business. This is never an official policy, but it is a de-facto one, in the intelligence community anyway. Companies sometimes self-police to prevent these situations. But they will absolutely act to protect their interests, in one way or another.

peterwwillis 9y ago

> Clearly something changed to cause the sudden urgency to eliminate Kaspersky from govt computers This isn't sudden, this has been in the works for at least half the year. Congress and the FBI have been investigating Kaspersky since at least May, probably before then. In June, the House and Senate approved legislation to ban Kaspersky's software from use by the military. Legislation introduced by, you guessed it: John McCain. It might not be about spying at all - they might just be wagging the dog. It's weird enough that the military and intelligence services are working in tandem (how often do you see that happen?) to cast doubt on and kick out Kaspersky. With Trump under scrutiny about potential collusion with the Russians, could it be that someone needs to look tough against a Russian entity and provide in return some favor, like 100 billion extra bucks in the DOD budget? The newly passed FY18 military budget is 696 billion, up from 582 billion in 2017 - an almost 20% increase. What really amazes me is 60% of Democrats voted for this, which is an incredible concession considering how gigantic the cuts to their programs will be.