Hacker News Reader

Comment by modfodder | Hacker News Reader

It wasn't any worse than Kapersky's rebuttal, which also didn't counter point by point the article other than generalized statements, i.e. "registered in Great Britain" so obviously we are on the up and up, "I really like Facebook", etc.

Just he said, he said until one of the parties actually releases documentation (Wired can release emails showing Kapersky's co. cooperated closely with the fact checking, Kapersky can release docs to show the opposite, etc.)

As someone who is a casual reader of Wired and knows little about Kapersky, I don't know who to believe. Russian stereotypes and the current actions of Putin's government would push me towards believing the Wired article but that doesn't make me comfortable enough to say anything with confidence.

View on HN

"registered in Great Britain" isn't a generalized statement, it's a fact.

Shachtman paints a picture of Kapersky being in bed with the Russian government around innocuous anecdotes such as a government contract and a Christmas card.

The onus is on Shachtman to provide compelling evidence for his assertions. In my opinion he has failed to do that.

The generalized statement is Kapersky's assertion that being Registered in Great Britain means they aren't doing anything nefarious or unethical. Just because they are registered in the U.K. doesn't mean they are clean, I'm sure there are plenty of companies registered in the U.K. that are up to no good.

Shachtman may have failed to provide compelling evidence for his assertions, but in my opinion, Kapersky's rebuttal was very weak and did very little to prove his case.

Frankly, both rebuttals were weak and probably written in haste without examining how they would come across to an impartial third party.

I didn't get the same generalised impression. His point was his company is governed by the laws of Great Britain not Russia. So if some sort of law was broken, he could be held accountable in Great Britain. The article implies his company can run amok under the guise of a russian corporation and be protected by the Kremlin. His rebuttal asserts this not to be true rather directly.

Except that we've seen Western companies act with nearly complete impunity in highly regulated industries (most recent and notably in the banking industry in both the U.S. and the U.K. as well as companies with close gov. ties like Blackwater). And although it's registered out of the U.K., it's operating mostly in Russia. It could run amok and the U.K. courts would have a difficult time even investigating any possible transgressions, especially if the company is as close to the Kremlin as the article implies.

Instinctually I trust a company run by a former Soviet intelligence officer just as much as I trust a company run by a former CIA or MI-6 officer, which is to say very little and I would assume said companies would cooperate fully with most government requests or initiatives with little resistance.

That's not to say the Wired article isn't bunk, it may very well be nationalist fud.

How could one prove that one does nothing unethical? The onus of the proof is always on the accuser - if you accuse somebody on doing unethical stuff, bring your proof.

Just because they registered in UK doesn't of course prove they are clean, but it indicates that if there were some shenanigans, it would be easier to uncover them than if they were registered only in Russia or some offshore. Since nothing was uncovered so far, it serves as evidence - though not proof - that there wasn't anything to uncover. Of course, this evidence can be trampled by the evidence to the contrary - but this wasn't done.

But would you assert Shachtman's proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false?

Absolutely not. The burden of proof is on Shachtman.

No.

" Just because they are registered in the U.K. doesn't mean they are clean, I'm sure there are plenty of companies registered in the U.K. that are up to no good."

Definitely. There are UK-registered companies that are little more than shells, but are connected to arms dealing organizations and similar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com