3 ms·

Regardless what the original story behind the Kaspersky ban was, if you genuinely don't think that a Russian antivirus company represents a state-controlled thr

by leoc 2y ago

Regardless what the original story behind the Kaspersky ban was, if you genuinely don't think that a Russian antivirus company represents a state-controlled threat to US organisations, public and private, in 2025 then I don't know what to say to you.

wqaatwt 2y ago
Not if US and Russia become “allies”. Then UK/EU companies will become a bigger “threat”. It should go even further e.g. you don’t want ARM installing backdoors on their chips and giving hostile foreign organizations like the MI6 access to vital American infrastructure, intelligence data etc. do you? It might be the time to consider switching to Elbrus or at least mandating that all devices used by US government agencies have to use Intel’s chips.
TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
I think the argument is that non-cooperation represents a much greater long term threat to everyone involved than cooperation, collaboration.
- rectang 2y ago
  Increased collaboration between the Russian state and the American state is bad for the ordinary citizens of both — and for freedom-loving people in Ukraine, Europe, and everywhere else.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    The US and Russia are the biggest nuclear powers in the world. Positive relations here are good for absolutely everybody. Positive relations do not mean one has to approve of the political system, ideology, or whatever else of the other side. See: Saudi Arabia which remained a key ally for many decades in spite of being wayyyyyy further off the spectrum (relative to the US) than Russia could ever be. Overtly adversarial relationships trend towards violence, sooner or later, and that's not a path we ever want to go down.
    - rectang 2y ago
      The US has turned towards enabling Russia’s imperialist war, and the Pentagon article explains how it will unilaterally disarm in the face of Russian cyberwarfare, leaving Russian criminal groups to run rampant in Europe and even the US. Abetting conquest and criminality is not the sort of collaboration we should cheer.
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        Wars are largely started because of poor relations. The US overtly supported and encouraged an effort within Ukraine to overthrow a democratically elected president because he moving more towards Russia than the West. Russia then ended up invading Ukraine for fears of having NATO not only right on their doorstep, but right in their geographic Achille's Heel. If the US and Russia were on good relations none of this would have happened, Germany's economy would still be booming, and just about everybody would be so much better off today. And no, the article does not say the Pentagon will "unilaterally disarm." It ordered a halt to offensive operations against Russia - e.g. the Russian government which is certainly going to be reciprocated. Criminal elements are a different topic, but I do expect as relations between US and Russia warm, they will no longer be looking the other way when these groups target the West.
        simion314 2y ago
        Bullshit, after Ruzzia invaded Ukraine in 2014 you still have the ability to pretend Ukrainians did not really want to join EU and NATO and USA, Israel and Illuminaty caused the Ukrainians to protest their president that promised the West and then betrayed the people by going East. Typical Zed propaganda where Eastern Europeans are all brainwashed to hate the good, kind Ruzzian empire. if you are USaians then go and fix your history and stop consuming MAGA and Zed propaganda.
        somenameforme 2y ago
        You're having an anachronism. The events in Crimea only came after 'their president' was overthrown, and were directly and indisputably caused by it. The reason I say 'their president' is because Crimea is majority ethnic Russian and before them it was Tatars. It's never been Ukrainian in ethnicity or even close to such. And the event that was exploited into a crisis point was Yanukovych signing an economic agreement with Russia instead of the EU. The US wasn't just doings things behind the scenes. This [1] is John McCain at a rally in Kyiv. Imagine if during the BLM (or January 6th or whatever) protests/riots if China/Russia/etc had sent high level officials to overtly rally people to try to overthrow the government. It's a completely surreal sight if you really think about what you're seeing. The US is right there saying 'Yeah, we're gonna overthrow you in plain sight - try to do anything about it and you'll be wishing that's all that happened.' And if you think there was nothing going on behind the scenes on top of that stuff that overt in front of the cameras, then I'd say you're not arguing in good faith! In any case, none of this happens with good relations. A simple agreement to economically save Ukraine shouldn't have been an adversarial East vs West thing, but just another agreement to the benefit of Ukrainians. But that poor country's strategic positioning, and easily exploitable nationalist minority, means it was doomed to inevitably just end up as little more than a rope being tugged on by two giants. The giants will be fine regardless of what happens - it's just the rope that ends up in tatters. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg
somenameforme 2y ago
After the initial US allegations they moved their infrastructure and customer data over to Switzerland intentionally leaving them subject to both EU and Swiss customer data protection laws, and also opened up various hubs to enable interested parties to review their source code on demand, if desired. I don't think every Russian company is conspiring against the US anymore than I think every US company is conspiring against Russia. In this case there's a clear and malicious motive for the US to want to block them that has nothing to do with threats, and they've gone way beyond any sort of reasonable standard to make it clear they have no ill intentions whatsoever. Of course the problem is that proving you're not a witch is basically impossible, which is why innocent until proven guilty is a standard across the world, except when it comes into geopolitics when allegations are proof, leaving the accused parties to prove a negative.
aa-jv 2y ago
I think the more prudent approach in the modern age is to simply assume that all states control organizations within their midst with the intention of posing a threat to citizens - foreign and domestic - and a misplaced trust in ones own state above all others is not only naive, but super dangerous. If you're not holding your own government to the standards you apply to other states, you're putting yourself in danger. Especially given the fact that the USA and its partners operates the largest, by far, information gathering/human rights abusing apparatus with well-known subversive purposes, by a long margin..
- rectang 2y ago
  I agree with this, but would extend the distrust to all concentrations of power. Supremely wealthy corporations and individuals, although on their own lacking the state’s monopoly on violence, eventually co-opt the state through regulatory capture or other means (although they can ruin lives even without the state’s power). See Elon Musk for a particularly vivid contemporary example.
  - aa-jv 2y ago
    This is clear, long before Elon Musk came along - although previously, these corporate-capture individuals have worked to hide their malign influence, and in Musks' case, he seems more inclined to make it obvious and open. Although it has to be stated, I don't think Elon has been calling for the bombing of innocent human beings at the same rate as his predecessors.

by leoc 2y ago

wqaatwt 2y ago

Not if US and Russia become “allies”. Then UK/EU companies will become a bigger “threat”. It should go even further e.g. you don’t want ARM installing backdoors on their chips and giving hostile foreign organizations like the MI6 access to vital American infrastructure, intelligence data etc. do you? It might be the time to consider switching to Elbrus or at least mandating that all devices used by US government agencies have to use Intel’s chips.

TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago

I think the argument is that non-cooperation represents a much greater long term threat to everyone involved than cooperation, collaboration.

rectang 2y ago
Increased collaboration between the Russian state and the American state is bad for the ordinary citizens of both — and for freedom-loving people in Ukraine, Europe, and everywhere else.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  The US and Russia are the biggest nuclear powers in the world. Positive relations here are good for absolutely everybody. Positive relations do not mean one has to approve of the political system, ideology, or whatever else of the other side. See: Saudi Arabia which remained a key ally for many decades in spite of being wayyyyyy further off the spectrum (relative to the US) than Russia could ever be. Overtly adversarial relationships trend towards violence, sooner or later, and that's not a path we ever want to go down.
  - rectang 2y ago
    The US has turned towards enabling Russia’s imperialist war, and the Pentagon article explains how it will unilaterally disarm in the face of Russian cyberwarfare, leaving Russian criminal groups to run rampant in Europe and even the US. Abetting conquest and criminality is not the sort of collaboration we should cheer.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      Wars are largely started because of poor relations. The US overtly supported and encouraged an effort within Ukraine to overthrow a democratically elected president because he moving more towards Russia than the West. Russia then ended up invading Ukraine for fears of having NATO not only right on their doorstep, but right in their geographic Achille's Heel. If the US and Russia were on good relations none of this would have happened, Germany's economy would still be booming, and just about everybody would be so much better off today. And no, the article does not say the Pentagon will "unilaterally disarm." It ordered a halt to offensive operations against Russia - e.g. the Russian government which is certainly going to be reciprocated. Criminal elements are a different topic, but I do expect as relations between US and Russia warm, they will no longer be looking the other way when these groups target the West.
      - simion314 2y ago
        Bullshit, after Ruzzia invaded Ukraine in 2014 you still have the ability to pretend Ukrainians did not really want to join EU and NATO and USA, Israel and Illuminaty caused the Ukrainians to protest their president that promised the West and then betrayed the people by going East. Typical Zed propaganda where Eastern Europeans are all brainwashed to hate the good, kind Ruzzian empire. if you are USaians then go and fix your history and stop consuming MAGA and Zed propaganda.
        somenameforme 2y ago
        You're having an anachronism. The events in Crimea only came after 'their president' was overthrown, and were directly and indisputably caused by it. The reason I say 'their president' is because Crimea is majority ethnic Russian and before them it was Tatars. It's never been Ukrainian in ethnicity or even close to such. And the event that was exploited into a crisis point was Yanukovych signing an economic agreement with Russia instead of the EU. The US wasn't just doings things behind the scenes. This [1] is John McCain at a rally in Kyiv. Imagine if during the BLM (or January 6th or whatever) protests/riots if China/Russia/etc had sent high level officials to overtly rally people to try to overthrow the government. It's a completely surreal sight if you really think about what you're seeing. The US is right there saying 'Yeah, we're gonna overthrow you in plain sight - try to do anything about it and you'll be wishing that's all that happened.' And if you think there was nothing going on behind the scenes on top of that stuff that overt in front of the cameras, then I'd say you're not arguing in good faith! In any case, none of this happens with good relations. A simple agreement to economically save Ukraine shouldn't have been an adversarial East vs West thing, but just another agreement to the benefit of Ukrainians. But that poor country's strategic positioning, and easily exploitable nationalist minority, means it was doomed to inevitably just end up as little more than a rope being tugged on by two giants. The giants will be fine regardless of what happens - it's just the rope that ends up in tatters. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg

somenameforme 2y ago

After the initial US allegations they moved their infrastructure and customer data over to Switzerland intentionally leaving them subject to both EU and Swiss customer data protection laws, and also opened up various hubs to enable interested parties to review their source code on demand, if desired. I don't think every Russian company is conspiring against the US anymore than I think every US company is conspiring against Russia. In this case there's a clear and malicious motive for the US to want to block them that has nothing to do with threats, and they've gone way beyond any sort of reasonable standard to make it clear they have no ill intentions whatsoever. Of course the problem is that proving you're not a witch is basically impossible, which is why innocent until proven guilty is a standard across the world, except when it comes into geopolitics when allegations are proof, leaving the accused parties to prove a negative.

aa-jv 2y ago

I think the more prudent approach in the modern age is to simply assume that all states control organizations within their midst with the intention of posing a threat to citizens - foreign and domestic - and a misplaced trust in ones own state above all others is not only naive, but super dangerous. If you're not holding your own government to the standards you apply to other states, you're putting yourself in danger. Especially given the fact that the USA and its partners operates the largest, by far, information gathering/human rights abusing apparatus with well-known subversive purposes, by a long margin..

rectang 2y ago
I agree with this, but would extend the distrust to all concentrations of power. Supremely wealthy corporations and individuals, although on their own lacking the state’s monopoly on violence, eventually co-opt the state through regulatory capture or other means (although they can ruin lives even without the state’s power). See Elon Musk for a particularly vivid contemporary example.
- aa-jv 2y ago
  This is clear, long before Elon Musk came along - although previously, these corporate-capture individuals have worked to hide their malign influence, and in Musks' case, he seems more inclined to make it obvious and open. Although it has to be stated, I don't think Elon has been calling for the bombing of innocent human beings at the same rate as his predecessors.