Kaspersky was spying on international citizens for over a decade, providing data for both the FSB and GRU.
...and now they're complaining about counter surveillance by the FBI?
...and now they're complaining about counter surveillance by the FBI?
But you as a founder decide whose values of the surrounding society you align your company with.
In an autocratic nation these controls are kind of absolutist in nature, whereas in democracies you have at least some sense of oversight.
Given the mechanics of the game, where you reside your company tells a lot about who you're friends with.
These days on a larger scale there's basically NATO, SCO, UAE, Israel and the African Union as alliances (setting aside (former) British colonies).
Companies have to cooperate with either of those, otherwise they would not be allowed to exist.
Which one's the good one?
Among that list, NATO is by far the preferred option.
It was a trick question, none of them are good.
It's not NATO's fault that all the small countries around Russia are so scared of Russian forces that they all ask to join a mutual defence pact.
Now nearing borders appears motivated more by Russia's bullying of its neighbors than any desire within NATO to expand.
Maybe you're forgetting the protection treaty Russia signed to respect Ukraine's borders in exchange for USSR nukes.
Does NATO even have a border with the counties member states invaded in the past three or so decades? Except Yugoslavia.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
I mean, I'm not supporting Russia's actions here, I'm saying the US (mainly) are just a bad an actor. They're essentially fighting a war with Russia (as their warmongers and military complex love to tell their shareholders about), Ukraine is just the pawn in the middle.
I should have said 'towards' the border, not 'on.' My bad.
It would be nice if history was so black and white, wouldn't it?
Ukraine was full of conflict between pro Russia and pro-EU well before that war. It was a complicated political environment.
The invasion was not, and never is, justified, but let's not pretend Putin woke up one day, threw a dart at the dartboard and decided to invade that place.
This provoked Russia to invade how?.
> It would be nice if history was so black and white, wouldn't it?
Good thing that history is that black and white this time, this is as black and white as WW2.
> The invasion was not, and never is, justified, but let's not pretend Putin woke up one day, threw a dart at the dartboard and decided to invade that place.
Then what happened?.
I bet if I asked you why WW1 started you’d say it’s because a Serb assassinated an Austrian.
Not according to direct participants like the foreign minister of the USSR. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e...
Moreover, NATO and Russia signed a treaty greenlighting NATO enlargement before any official talks with former Warsaw Pact countries started, so whatever was allegedly said or heard prior to that is irrelevant anyway.
>> I'm not supporting Russia's actions here
You are, whether you recognize it or not. Your contrarian take is a made up narrative to justify the war. Makes you feel smarter than the rest while advancing Russian interests and blaming victims for crimes against them.
No I'm not supporting Russia here, I'm saying they were not just acting "out of nowhere," they are playing the same geopolitical war games (and now actual war), as the US is, but the US are pretending they're absolutely the good guys (i.e. pretending they want peace) while shovelling coal into the fire top speed.
It's a war between Russia and NATO/US, Ukraine just happens to hold shared interests and is now sadly in the middle of this disaster of big boys beating chests.
Hence my comment, who's the good guy...
Nope.
Gorbachov himself said that no such agreements were ever made.
> https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
Impressions are not agreements, here's the reality of the matter from the president of the Soviet Union at the time himself.
> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-...
>> “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm
Not sure why the downvotes, this is literally the one and only time in NATO's history that Article 5 has been invoked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Septembe...
Can you give some examples of oversight ?
Plenty of security disclosures are matter of fact and not loaded with opinion and innuendo.
[1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-11/kaspersky...
> Kaspersky was spying on international citizens for over a decade, providing data for both the FSB and GRU.
I read it through twice and aside from implication the strongest assertion was that Bloomberg had seen emails that confirmed Kaspersky had worked with the FSB to supply anti-DDOS systems that included counter measures (the ability to hack and disrupt hackers attacking systems) which wasn't denied by Kaspersky who maintained they do similar work with many governments and their 3-letter-agencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations...
It makes sense for western governments to be wary of using it but going beyond that is just speculation at this point.
> Kaspersky was spying on international citizens for over a decade, providing data for both the FSB and GRU.
You linked a news article that states:
> The U.S. government hasn’t identified any evidence connecting Kaspersky Lab to Russia’s spy agencies
Maybe more evidence will be uncovered by the (alleged) targeted attack against Kaspersky though.
I'm interested in the technology created to perform these activities more than the politics surrounding it. How they do it, not why.