Hacker News Reader

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

The US can damage Kaspersky's reputation, while Russia can arrest Kaspersky executives for treason and/or slip them a polonium cocktail. Which do you think has greater leverage?

> Would the US govt [...] ask [Kaspersky] to spy on behalf of the US in Russia

Why would they? Wouldn't they just ask Microsoft instead? I don't see what particular value or access Kaspersky would bring to the table here. They have no particular "spy" channels into the Russian government, they just make software.

Former Russian spies work for Kaspersky (Kaspersky has admitted this), they are based in Moscow, and their founder was trained by the KGB and worked for Russian military intelligence.

Not true. Euegene attended a KGB sponsored college. Also, military service was mandatory, and his military service was not related to intelligence.

"At the age of 16, Kaspersky entered a five-year program with The Technical Faculty of the KGB Higher School, which prepared intelligence officers for the Russian military and KGB. After graduating college, Kaspersky served the Soviet military intelligence service as a software engineer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Kaspersky

https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2015/03/20/a-practical-guide-to...

"For the record: I never worked for Russian military intelligence. As I mentioned above, I worked as a software engineer at the Ministry of Defense."

Have you tried getting a reporter at Reuters on the phone to make sure they know this? It seems like big, if true.

These are all public news reports which I'm sure Reuters' Russian desk is aware of. And it's all just entertainment to me, so I have no interest in verifying. But I don't see how it qualifies as big.

The NSA was tapping calls from the personal cellphone of the Chancellor of Germany. The CIA created a Twitter clone that Congress funded just so they could destabilize the Cuban government. There's many more examples of our infiltrating foreign entities with men in sunglasses who all claim to work for the state department.

Asking a non-US company to spy for the US government, and then retaliating against them when they balk, seems minor on the average scale of geopolitical intrigue.

Your bullets are attributable, to varying levels of accuracy, to news sources.

Your supposition that DHS has cracked down on Kaspersky in retaliation for Kaspersky's refusal to spy for the US is not.

Again: big, if true!