Re: I’m selling my Mac
Really? You think Lenovo X1 Carbon is a lovely replacement for Catalina? That's like replacing your car because you are disappointed with your petrol station.
28 posts • joined 10 Jul 2017
It's not about whether Huawei is spying on us today, but about the risk of them abusing the infrastructure we are to build. Huawei has ties with the Chinese government, the Chinese government has been spying on us and wants to dominate us. Do we deliver our next generation communication platform into their hands? I say "no", regardless of whether they have already been caught spying. If they can, they will do it ... 100% certain.
Actually, having the national Army run theft units that steal IPR and pass it to national companies is not the norm ... especially not for countries with such favoured economic status as was afforded to China. The scale on which China is doing this is unprecedented.
Yes, companies steal from companies, and governments spy on governments, but this is something completely different.
Specifically, they have the right to prepare the way for an enemy cyber attack on the US by deploying enemy enabled infrastructure.
If you ask me, Kaspersky might even end up in jail, if he insists of these rights.
Kaspersky cannot work on special projects for the FSB, be a personal friend to Putin and expect to be treated as not a risk Security is about reducing risks and getting rid of Kaspersky makes sense, from a risk management perspective. After all, if there is a cyber attack, and Kaspersky is involved, all those ignoring the warnings should go to jail.
These comments are becoming so boring, they tell us that the iPhone is not worth having, while obviously yearning to own one.
If you want one, buy one, if you think others are better, buy whatever you like best.
Existing Apple users value these products, and are willing to pay. If you are not, who is forcing you to purchase Apple gear? There are competing manufacturers dying to sell you an alternative. Go in peace, enjoy your choice, and let others live.
"It's likely that the Kaspersky detection of NSA tools was somehow responsible for FSB targeting the contractor's home computer, but it doesn't mean the company was complicit,"
Except that Kaspersky detects NSA tools in the wild, but does not detect FSB tools in the wild.
Come on people, let's be realistic about this, for all practical purposes Kaspersky IS FSB, just as the Russian Mafia IS Putin, although they are both formally separate and unrelated.
Years back, I paid that much for a Nokia 8810 and was happy with it before it broke. The iPhone X certainly has much more to offer than Nokia 8810 ever did, so what if you can buy a cheaper phone, even from Apple?
It's like saying a Bugatti is just overprice, because you can get a cheap Kia that drives you around in comfort. What sort of argument is this?
This is supposedly a tech rag, yet the neural network in silicon means nothing to the author, a $200 premium is all they are willing to discuss. This is like reading the advertising rag slipped under my door by the local supermarket.
I really cannot understand the logic here. Putin is wageing cyberwar against the West, FSB has control over Kaspersky and we are meant to tolerate this ... because our own intelligence services have access to our companies?!? We are to give our infrastructure: water, electricity, traffic, telecoms to an enemy nation ... because our own intelligence services have the same access?!?
This is like saying we must allow robbers into the house because policemen can also enter.
Russia is fact waging cyberwar on us, and Kaspersky works on secret projects with the intelligence services that are waging that war. The latest Kaspersky product is an "infrastructure OS" that they want us to install in all of our infrastructure that the Kremlin would like to bring down in the event of a conflict.
Now, how stupid need one be to allow such as thing? And why is this rag advocating opening all the doors to an enemy attack? Bizarre.
Offering to show the source is actually a sign of a scam. The source need not be identical to the actual build, and antivirus software updates daily, which means that it could be a clean platform with the abilitz to go cyberwarfare on demand.
This makes sense as Putin is already waging war on us, and Kaspersky could be one of their intended "cyber carriers". Kaspersky is too close to Putin, too compromised to be acceptable. You need a vendor that is visibly above reproach, someone who would have no interest in working with the Putin war machine. Kaspersky is not such a company.
I believe they should be purged from all government agencies in the West, as well a important civilian infrastructure. They are just too risky.
With Putin actively waging cyberwar against the US and the West, this is an understandable move. I expect more to follow. You can be certain that security companies working for the Pentagon are not welcome e.g. in Iran.
Kaspersky needs to be purged throughout the West from government, as well as civilian infrastructure which are targets of Putin's cyberwar efforts.
I think Kaspersky needs to be purged from all government agencies and civilian infrastructure, such as electricity, water, communications, transport etc. All of these are targets from the Russian cyberwar efforts and Kaspersky is just to high a risk to contemplate.
AV software is the best possible agent to carry a cyberwar payload, and there is no way to check this by looking at the current code.
The article skirts the issue, which is whether APIs need to be available to everyone by saying that APIs are copyrightable, so they are the same as the rest of the code. Legally, this may be so, but as tech people we cannot accept this argument.
The whole basis for copyright law hinges on the constitutional requirement that it must "promote the progress of science and useful arts". It is clear to technology people that open APIs promote progress of science and useful arts much better than having APIs treated as the rest of the implementation. APIs are created for the sole purpose of isolating the copyrighted implementation from the open outside environment, they just cannot be considered the same.
The problem is that copyright law is antiquated, not only does it fail to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", it is actually used to prevent the progress of science and useful arts, and is thus essentially unconstitutional. However, vested interests and technological ignorance by judges has prevented the concept of copyrights and patents to be correctly applied to the software industry. By "correctly", I mean in such a way that they "promote the progress of science and useful arts" instead of achieving the opposite effect.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020