5 ms·

> The problem is: how do you run a business that has offices and physical assets in <insert power country>, without being at least partially beholden to the <in

> The problem is: how do you run a business that has offices and physical assets in <insert power country>, without being at least partially beholden to the <insert powerful country> government? The problem with this kind of Mad Libs argument is that it falsely implies the substitutions are equivalent when they're not. Also your quote shears away the context of the original statement that made it meaningful.

alimov 5y ago
Please explain how they are not equivalent. Just because two governments are on good terms or are in some kind of partnership does not guarantee that one or the other will not take actions that benefit only them. What am I missing here?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > explain how they are not equivalent Press. Political competition. Courts. Broadly, the rule of law. Nobody is perfect at any of these. But if the FSB wants a code change in Kaspersky, they're getting that code change. There is no independent press to report it. No opposition incentivized to call them out on it. No court in which they could lose.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> explain how they are not equivalent > Press. Political competition. Courts. Broadly, the rule of law. Exactly. Mad-libs "arguments" typically boil down to an invitation to ignore salient differences (which the structure cannot call attention to), make a superficial comparison, and finally arrive at a false equivalency.
  - alimov 5y ago
    While the methods may differ, is this not true of any governments intelligence agencies? Whether or not there is press/courts/rule of law. For press to report on an event they have to be aware of it, for courts to intervene they also have to be aware of it, for rule of law to matter then no part of a government can operate outside of it in any manner, so no extrajudicial actions either.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - JabavuAdams 5y ago
      The point of press/courts/rule of law is that at least you have a chance. Without those, no chance. That matters. The US is not some monolithic entity. It's almost weirdly schizophrenic. Yes, the government will e.g. use some super-shaky legal arguments to justify torture ahem "enhanced interrogation", but on the other hand Freedom of Information Act requests still get processed. Yes, the NSA will spy on US citizens, but even they feel the need to come up with some legalistic / procedural cover. Even as the US's checks and balances are tested, and structural inequalities are examined, there is a broad and deep tradition of fighting the government and not going to jail like Navalny. The traditions and norms of a country's populace, and its institutions really really matter, especially when their institutions are being tested. Corruption is everywhere, but this is too simplistic a pattern-match. EDIT> Knight-Ridder did some fantastic and courageous investigative journalism debunking the US casus belli in the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. It didn't stop the invasion, but they were recognized later. Can we imagine that happening in Russia?
      - alimov 5y ago
        > The point of press/courts/rule of law is that at least you have a chance. Without those, no chance. That matters. I agree with you. > Knight-Ridder did some fantastic and courageous investigative journalism debunking the US casus belli in the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. It didn't stop the invasion, but they were recognized later. Can we imagine that happening in Russia? Thanks I’ll check it out
      - kelnos 5y ago
        > Knight-Ridder did some fantastic and courageous investigative journalism debunking the US casus belli in the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. It didn't stop the invasion, but they were recognized later. Can we imagine that happening in Russia? This type of thing is something I wish people would recognize more. In Russia right now, the simple act of participating in a peaceful protest against the war in Ukraine could easily land you in jail. While the US government has at times had a sketchy anti-protest track record, can we really imagine the US federal government attempting to pass a law today that makes it a jail-able offense to speak out against a US military action? (Hint: the answer is, unequivocally, no.)
  - syshum 5y ago
    hmm FISA, Gag orders, National Secrecy laws, etc all exist in US law, so tell me again how they are different? Also, as an American Citizen, who has more power to put me the individual in a cage, the FSB or NSA?
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Who has more practical power to force code into a security product that runs in a privileged context, without anyone finding out? I think it’s not the NSA.
      - syshum 5y ago
        Why do you believe that, the NSA had access to Cisco PIX systems for years and it was only disclosed once those systems started to be replaced with ASA and other newer hardware. I dont believe the NSA, CIA or even the FBI really have any actual legal limits.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      I think it's reasonable to acknowledge that, due to my citizenship and physical residence location, the NSA is probably more of a threat to my personal freedom than the FSB, but also acknowledge that, all things being equal, the FSB is a shadier organization than the NSA, with fewer legal restrictions on its behavior.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        There are no relevant legal restrictions on the NSA behaviour. We know that the NSA breaks the law without any consequences. This idea that Western intelligence is any less corrupt and morally bankrupt, and indeed any less willing to interfere with people outside their borders as anyone else is frankly entirely ridiculous.
makomk 5y ago
There definitely seems to be at least a little truth to that argument, though. Over the years Kaspersky has found and documented a whole bunch of seemingly US government linked malware whilst their Western competitors just haven't, and I think there's at least some evidence this is intentional on the part of those other companies.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  It may be, or his company is really that good above others (I don't think he personally was involved in any of this, but hired good enough people to do so). I tend towards former but have no proof either way. I still have a serious and (since Russia-started a war in Ukraine) permanent problem with him - as pointed elsewhere [1] he went through KGB school - voluntarily, he was actually active KGB intelligence just like Putin. At those places, your objective morals go down the drain very fast and for good. And obviously both are still very close, he approves overall totalitarian direction of Russia and often spoke against 'too much freedom' in the west and on internet. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140423055434/http://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky https://web.archive.org/web/20140423055434/http://www.wired....
- kelnos 5y ago
  > There definitely seems to be at least a little truth to that argument, though. Of course there is, but as this thread is trying to point out, that "little truth" is completely insufficient when assessing risk. The degree to which a particular government can interfere with companies headquartered there matters. The legal culture in those countries matter. The ability to contest and redress this interference matters. An estimate of the worst that can happen to an individual who resists this interference matters. I'm a US citizen living in the US, so I'm certainly biased, but I do believe my data (and my person, and if I ran a company, my company too) is much safer being in the US than in Russia. It's certain that all major world powers engage in various forms of cyber warfare. It's completely expected that countries (and companies within them) that are allied will (most of the time) not expose other allies for cyber attacks and malware distribution. It's also completely expected that antagonistic countries (and their companies) will do so. Back to the point of this article: of course Kaspersky is a US national security threat, precisely because it (as a Russian entity) will try to expose the US government's cyber warfare capabilities. Whether or not Kaspersky is a threat to the cybersecurity of individuals in the West isn't the issue here. (I would expect they probably are, to some extent, though!)

alimov 5y ago

Please explain how they are not equivalent. Just because two governments are on good terms or are in some kind of partnership does not guarantee that one or the other will not take actions that benefit only them. What am I missing here?

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> explain how they are not equivalent Press. Political competition. Courts. Broadly, the rule of law. Nobody is perfect at any of these. But if the FSB wants a code change in Kaspersky, they're getting that code change. There is no independent press to report it. No opposition incentivized to call them out on it. No court in which they could lose.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> explain how they are not equivalent > Press. Political competition. Courts. Broadly, the rule of law. Exactly. Mad-libs "arguments" typically boil down to an invitation to ignore salient differences (which the structure cannot call attention to), make a superficial comparison, and finally arrive at a false equivalency.
- alimov 5y ago
  While the methods may differ, is this not true of any governments intelligence agencies? Whether or not there is press/courts/rule of law. For press to report on an event they have to be aware of it, for courts to intervene they also have to be aware of it, for rule of law to matter then no part of a government can operate outside of it in any manner, so no extrajudicial actions either.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - JabavuAdams 5y ago
    The point of press/courts/rule of law is that at least you have a chance. Without those, no chance. That matters. The US is not some monolithic entity. It's almost weirdly schizophrenic. Yes, the government will e.g. use some super-shaky legal arguments to justify torture ahem "enhanced interrogation", but on the other hand Freedom of Information Act requests still get processed. Yes, the NSA will spy on US citizens, but even they feel the need to come up with some legalistic / procedural cover. Even as the US's checks and balances are tested, and structural inequalities are examined, there is a broad and deep tradition of fighting the government and not going to jail like Navalny. The traditions and norms of a country's populace, and its institutions really really matter, especially when their institutions are being tested. Corruption is everywhere, but this is too simplistic a pattern-match. EDIT> Knight-Ridder did some fantastic and courageous investigative journalism debunking the US casus belli in the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. It didn't stop the invasion, but they were recognized later. Can we imagine that happening in Russia?
    - alimov 5y ago
      > The point of press/courts/rule of law is that at least you have a chance. Without those, no chance. That matters. I agree with you. > Knight-Ridder did some fantastic and courageous investigative journalism debunking the US casus belli in the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. It didn't stop the invasion, but they were recognized later. Can we imagine that happening in Russia? Thanks I’ll check it out
    - kelnos 5y ago
      > Knight-Ridder did some fantastic and courageous investigative journalism debunking the US casus belli in the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. It didn't stop the invasion, but they were recognized later. Can we imagine that happening in Russia? This type of thing is something I wish people would recognize more. In Russia right now, the simple act of participating in a peaceful protest against the war in Ukraine could easily land you in jail. While the US government has at times had a sketchy anti-protest track record, can we really imagine the US federal government attempting to pass a law today that makes it a jail-able offense to speak out against a US military action? (Hint: the answer is, unequivocally, no.)
- syshum 5y ago
  hmm FISA, Gag orders, National Secrecy laws, etc all exist in US law, so tell me again how they are different? Also, as an American Citizen, who has more power to put me the individual in a cage, the FSB or NSA?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Who has more practical power to force code into a security product that runs in a privileged context, without anyone finding out? I think it’s not the NSA.
    - syshum 5y ago
      Why do you believe that, the NSA had access to Cisco PIX systems for years and it was only disclosed once those systems started to be replaced with ASA and other newer hardware. I dont believe the NSA, CIA or even the FBI really have any actual legal limits.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    I think it's reasonable to acknowledge that, due to my citizenship and physical residence location, the NSA is probably more of a threat to my personal freedom than the FSB, but also acknowledge that, all things being equal, the FSB is a shadier organization than the NSA, with fewer legal restrictions on its behavior.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      There are no relevant legal restrictions on the NSA behaviour. We know that the NSA breaks the law without any consequences. This idea that Western intelligence is any less corrupt and morally bankrupt, and indeed any less willing to interfere with people outside their borders as anyone else is frankly entirely ridiculous.

makomk 5y ago

There definitely seems to be at least a little truth to that argument, though. Over the years Kaspersky has found and documented a whole bunch of seemingly US government linked malware whilst their Western competitors just haven't, and I think there's at least some evidence this is intentional on the part of those other companies.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
saiya-jin 5y ago
It may be, or his company is really that good above others (I don't think he personally was involved in any of this, but hired good enough people to do so). I tend towards former but have no proof either way. I still have a serious and (since Russia-started a war in Ukraine) permanent problem with him - as pointed elsewhere [1] he went through KGB school - voluntarily, he was actually active KGB intelligence just like Putin. At those places, your objective morals go down the drain very fast and for good. And obviously both are still very close, he approves overall totalitarian direction of Russia and often spoke against 'too much freedom' in the west and on internet. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140423055434/http://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky https://web.archive.org/web/20140423055434/http://www.wired....
kelnos 5y ago
> There definitely seems to be at least a little truth to that argument, though. Of course there is, but as this thread is trying to point out, that "little truth" is completely insufficient when assessing risk. The degree to which a particular government can interfere with companies headquartered there matters. The legal culture in those countries matter. The ability to contest and redress this interference matters. An estimate of the worst that can happen to an individual who resists this interference matters. I'm a US citizen living in the US, so I'm certainly biased, but I do believe my data (and my person, and if I ran a company, my company too) is much safer being in the US than in Russia. It's certain that all major world powers engage in various forms of cyber warfare. It's completely expected that countries (and companies within them) that are allied will (most of the time) not expose other allies for cyber attacks and malware distribution. It's also completely expected that antagonistic countries (and their companies) will do so. Back to the point of this article: of course Kaspersky is a US national security threat, precisely because it (as a Russian entity) will try to expose the US government's cyber warfare capabilities. Whether or not Kaspersky is a threat to the cybersecurity of individuals in the West isn't the issue here. (I would expect they probably are, to some extent, though!)