Slashdot Mirror


Kaspersky Lab Sues Trump Administration Over Software Ban (reuters.com)

Moscow-based anti-virus company Kaspersky Lab sued the Trump administration in U.S. federal court on Monday, arguing that the American government has deprived it of due process rights by banning its software from U.S. government agencies. From a report: The lawsuit is the latest effort by Kaspersky Lab to push back on allegations that the company is vulnerable to Kremlin influence. The Department of Homeland Security in September issued a directive to U.S. civilian agencies ordering them to remove Kaspersky Lab from their computer networks within 90 days. The order came amid mounting concern among U.S. officials that the software could enable Russian espionage and threaten national security. The ban was codified last week when President Donald Trump signed legislation banning Kasperky Lab from use across civilian and military agencies.

185 comments

  1. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by mfh · · Score: 0

    If only, AC. If only...

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  2. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by mschuyler · · Score: 1

    For banning Kaspersky software? You lost me there. Or did you miss telling us something?

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
  3. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Baron_Yam · · Score: 0

    Well to go with your analogy... in this case he's not ordering Americans to lay down arms, he's ordering Americans not to welcome the enemy into their homes.

    I'd say it's perfectly in line with Trump's love of trade barriers, and it'll also align fairly well with the interests of American intelligence agencies (who can spy on you more easily if you use American antivirus software).

    It's also at odds with Trump's man-crush on Putin and apparent trust of Russian intelligence over American agencies.

    If Trump goes to prison for treason (highly unlikely - even impeachment odds aren't particularly short), it won't be for this.

  4. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by mschuyler · · Score: 0

    Yet Putin just thanked the CIA for providing actionable intelligence on a potential terrorist attack inside Russia.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
  5. Re: Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    he's ordering Americans not to welcome the enemy into their homes.

    I pity the poor bastards who call government agencies "home".

  6. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grandpa, how'd you get out of your cage?

  7. Muh Russian Hackers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm certainly not in the category of people screaming "muh Russian hackers" until they're blue in the face, but this lawsuit is dumb. Only Americans have rights to anything, due process included. Moreover, having ANY foreign hardware or software on a government network is beyond dumb. Other nations aren't our friends, even when they are allies.

    1. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only Americans have rights to anything, due process included.

      You are not correct in this assertion.

      Only rights guaranteed to "the people" are exclusively applicable to American citizens.
      Rights guaranteed to "persons" belong to everyone.

      To make it clearer, would it be legal to hold a slave if that slave is not an American citizen?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other nations aren't our friends, even when they are allies.

      Surely that is not a reference to our greatest ally.

    3. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >would it be legal to hold a slave if that slave is not an American citizen?

      Only if they have a safeword.

    4. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're just a retarded piece of shit, that's all. Muh Russian hackers were a very real influence in the 2016 election cycle and time is not going to be kind to your ignorant, vatnik comments here.

      You went full retard, never go full retard. The Russians put a grand total of a few thousand dollars into Facebook advertising which didn't even get many views - they were probably just studying memes like everyone else. Meanwhile Hillary had backing from dozens of foreign state actors, AND she actually sold Uranium to the Russians, which is worse than anything anyone has even accused Trump of.

    5. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Selling Uranium is bad? To a nation that we have a reciprocal nuclear decommission treaty with? We sell nuclear materials to each other all the time. Selling Uranium to Russia is no worse than selling anything else to Russia. We both have nuclear stockpiles. We aren't empowering them by selling any more fissile material to them.

      Stop trolling. You are making yourself look dumb.

    6. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by J053 · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile Hillary had backing from dozens of foreign state actors, AND she actually sold Uranium to the Russians, which is worse than anything anyone has even accused Trump of.

      Oh, FFS. How many times does this have to be explained? The US Government (at least 7 different agencies, not simply SecState) approved the sale of 30% of a Canadian uranium mining company to Rosatom. No uranium is being shipped from the mines to Russia. The only result of the deal is that Rosatom makes some money from the mining operations. You Trumptards just can't seem to get your facts straight.

    7. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's odd.

      America has been serving me my whole life.

      Music, movies, TV shows, micro-processors, micro-chips, all kind of goodies.

      Thank you very much.

      Your service has not been so good recently which is why we turn to Asia/China.

      But don't worry, our custom will return if you can pull your socks up.

       

    8. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ***blinks eyes in Morse code to spell out the word "torture"***

    9. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only Americans have rights to anything, due process included.

      Yes and no. Apples and oranges. You have not been paying attention.

      One, "Kaspersky Labs" is not a "people". You are half correct on that, but that goes for all corporate legal fiction entities, not just "non-American" ones.

      Two, the "bill of rights" is "(american, derived from english) common law"

      Three, "common law" is where "due process" comes from. "Civil law" (pope/vatican/king-appointed chancellor, e.g. "equity" calls the shots, no jury, trials are not necessarily public, the "star chamber" historically). "Cities" are all "civil law" as they are "incorporated counties". So your "due process" is long gone for 99% of people merely based on the fact they live in "cities" and incorporated "counties" (more on this later).

      Four, common law is people/natives (originally "white people in "America"). Again, corporations are not "people" they are "legal fictions" that people create and pretend exist.

      Five, "Americans" does not exist in "law". There are state citizens and federal citizens and "dual citizens" and "permanent residents". Read your "state of x" "constitution" or "voter registration" and compare who can vote to "federal citizen" in black's law dictionary (any edition should be good). "Americans" (state citizens/nationals, "we the people") can no longer "vote" at any level in 99% of cases. Only "federal citizens".

      Six, see opening pages of nathaniel hawthorne "the scarlet letter" (project gutenberg has a free copy) re: "civil flag (vertical stripes federal)" versus "military flag (horizontal stripes)". They have been at constant "war" for ~150 years, "due process" does not apply during "martial law"

      Seven, see "martial law" in black's law dictionary for the 3 types. They are doing the "hang in the background" type.

      Eight, see "specie" bouviers law dictionary 1856, www.dict.org, "specie is the only constitutional money in this country". For silver dollars they have inflated (taken) ~20x of the dollar's worth from "Americans". That is taking of private property without compensation (american specie is publically issued/coined, but is debt free, it is the money for "we the people", so the fact they take from everyone does not make it constitutional). How can they do unconstitutional things for ~150 years? Martial law.

      Nine, corporations don't have any rights. You are half correct on that, but that goes for all corporations. "We the people" not "we the legal fictions"

      Ten, see declaration of independence. They may have originally not opened "we the people" up to everyone, but there is no mention of "citizenship" of any nation or state or country. ALL people (not corporations) have inalienable rights from "the creator". Corporations are man-made, they only have the "rights" the "creator" of corporations (people) give them, and no more.

      Eleven, see thomas jefferson's letter on unconstitutionality of first national bank of the united states regarding "it is against the laws of mortmain (dead hands)". Corporations should not be "owning" anything perpetually, which amounts to a monopoly and is against the natural laws of nature re: distribution of resources (things live, die, and get re-used/inherited by successors. corporations bypass that natural process). This is a common law belief. Another common law belief is rights are property (e.g. people say "I have a right to x"). The "right to have property" precedes any other "rights", also because if you do not have your own land to stand on, you are always at the mercy of the "landlord" who can simply ask you to "leave" and there goes your freedom of speech/assembly/etc. Point being? Corporations having "property" is against the laws of mortmain, which was a common law belief, not "civil law" or "cities". So one more reason corporations have no "rights" is because to have "rights" assumes they can have "property" which is specifically disallowed in common law.

      Twelve, nearly everything is "Commerce"

    10. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more accurate statement is that rights only apply to entities within the jurisdiction of the United States. Kaspersky, being wholly Russian owned, does not qualify as a US entity, and since the company is not located in the United States, it is not under US jurisdiction. I see no way the US Constitution applies to the company or its employees until those circumstances change.

      Incidentally, it would be legal for a non-US person to hold a non-US person as a slave outside of the United States. It is illegal for a US person to hold a slave in all 50 states plus the territories, and under Federal law outside the United States. This is a restriction on the US person, not on the slave. If there was a state that defined a due process for enslaving someone, then yes, it would be legal for a US person to hold a slave, American or not, in that juristdiction.

      Your argument is utterly off target and ignorant. Please learn something and try again.

    11. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      The more accurate statement is that rights only apply to entities within the jurisdiction of the United States. Kaspersky, being wholly Russian owned, does not qualify as a US entity, and since the company is not located in the United States, it is not under US jurisdiction.

      It need not be a "US entity", merely a legal entity that's present in the US.

      Incidentally, it would be legal for a non-US person to hold a non-US person as a slave outside of the United States.

      So... You're taking the time to explain that US law only applies to places under the jurisdiction of the US. Yes, we all know this. The discussion was about what the US government is doing, within the jurisdiction of the USA.

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    12. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lord Kano:

      "american citizens" does not exist in "law".

      apples and oranges.

      There are 1) state citizens, (naturalized or native), 2) federal citizens (ALL naturalized, DC is not a state, small area ceded from virginia and maryland), 3) state nationals ("citizen" can just mean member of a nation, but "citizen" generally refers to municipal law, e.g. "cities" are incorporated counties, it is a "civil law" term; all "state citizens" are "nationals" but a "state national" who is not a "state citizen" would effectively be a "private" person, referring to "Member of a nation" only, but not within any particular "municipal" boundaries)

      4) "Persons" are legal fictions, they have no "rights" by definition, only "privileges". "persons" includes corporations and "natural persons" when they try to kidnap human beings and delevate them to the level of legal fiction corporations that only have "privileges". They are man-made entities (Vatican made, civil law, going back hundreds of years).

      "Civil law" is all "foreign" -- see bouviers law dictionary 1856 title page, www.dict.org. see also "maxim" for common law maxims.

      To make it clearer, would it be legal to hold a slave if that slave is not an American citizen?

      "Legal" is whatever the pope/chancellor says it is. Lawful is what a jury says it is. "law of nations" is whatever various nations say it is (traditionally unwritten common law traditions, e.g. white flag means "surrender").

      "legal" industry is legal fictions, has nothing to do with "rights" but only "privileges" by definition, as "persons" only have privileges. "Citizens" are not a common law term.

      "bill of rights" is common law people, natives, "posterity".

      There is a TJ quote or another re: The only safe guarantee of rights is the people.

      "guaranteed rights" LOL. you don't even have a treasury. only "federal citizens" can vote nowadays.

      read your "state of x" constitution and "voter registration", compare to black's law dictionary "federal citizen".

      "specie is the only constitutional money in this country", "specie" ,www.dict.org, bouviers 1856

      they are doing permanent "martial law". they are kidnapping everyone into "civil law"

      your "Rights" and "due process" are long gone. you don't even have a treasury, or functioning states, or courts at present.

      the funny money effectively pulls everyone into "commercial paper" "commerce". that is totally separate type of law, like "civil law", than common law bill of rights is/was.

          literally there are no "people" in international law, just "heads of state" "representative from country X". No "people" in the sense of "natives" anyhow.

      99% of people never even touch the ground nowadays, they live in incorporated counties ("cities") and everything is "commerce" and there is no treasury or specie in circulation, and only "federal citizens" can vote in the "state of x" elections, and the "states" and "counties" are all federally-managed at this stage.......

      the closest approximation to "american citizen" that does not exist, would be "state citizen" (as opposed to "federal citizen"). again, they can't even vote nowadays. so much for "consent of the governed"

      let's see, they kidnap everyone into federal servitude, don't let natives vote, refuse to run a proper treasury, try to convert everything into foreign types of law such as "civil law" ......YOU are the "slave" dummy. YOUR credit is stolen and "loaned" back to you. YOU (collectively) have to work for your own credit.

      See "hazard circular" . they just shifted from "private slavery" to "public slavery" and "bonds". Key word "bondage".

      start with www.annavonreitz.com

      odds are you are not "lord" and you are just another "federal citizen" who is technically my servant, my very naughty misbehaving treasonous servant who doesn't let me vote, counterfeits my money, steals my credit and tries to loan it back to me, etc.

    13. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muh whataboutism.

      Again, shut the fuck up and go earn your rubles on reddit. Nobody's licking the dingleberries from your asshairs here.

    14. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by guruevi · · Score: 1

      And then Hillary conveniently got several millions in a âoedonationâ from the same Russians that just bought the mine.

      If you control the mine, you can control who gets the product. The fact that the entire administration cooperated should indicate something to you.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    15. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by J053 · · Score: 1

      If you control the mine, you can control who gets the product. The fact that the entire administration cooperated should indicate something to you.

      Not in the case of uranium. Uranium is a critical national resource, and by treaty with Canada cannot be sent anywhere but the US.

    16. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 0

      Selling Uranium is bad? To a nation that we have a reciprocal nuclear decommission treaty with? We sell nuclear materials to each other all the time. Selling Uranium to Russia is no worse than selling anything else to Russia. We both have nuclear stockpiles. We aren't empowering them by selling any more fissile material to them.

      Are you really so ignorant of the subject you are speaking about to be unaware the Clintons took about 100m into their personal accounts for the sale and that it was Uranium refined for used in breeder reactors to create new weapons-grade materials with little other practical purpose? No, I think you're a shill.

    17. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      It's interesting how you nuts got even nuttier after Trump beat your chosen sociopath.

    18. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      It need not be a "US entity", merely a legal entity that's present in the US.

      Corporations are government constructs, they aren't things save for a government calling them a thing and giving them some degree of personhood. The US is under zero obligation to recognize foreign entities, even if you want to try to say the US must recognize foreign persons (hint: you'd be wrong there as well.)

    19. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If you control the mine, you can control who gets the product.

      Not if the mine is surrounded by another country's police, customs officers & border control agents.

      Perhaps they smuggle it out in the internal mail - hide a couple of pounds between the secret santa list and the football club newsletter?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      They literally don't know what a fact is, so you can't really expect them to keep them straight.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    21. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by ewibble · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt this, there will be trade agreements that US is obliged to keep. I don't know if it applies in this instance, but zero obligation doesn't seen feasible.

      If it was the case the other countries could for example break US copyright or vice versa, since there is 0 obligation to do so why do it.

    22. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like how you donâ(TM)t understand how SSH works? You idiot

    23. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that was a great way to make his point. Good job Trumptard!

    24. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yeah, you'd think that.. But, you'd be wrong.

      Recent reporting by The Hill uncovered that Uranium One was able to export uranium without obtaining a specific export license.Beginning in 2012, Uranium One exported U.S. uranium by ‘piggy-backing’ as a supplier on an export license held by the shipping company, RSB Logistic Services Inc.

      Furthermore,
      "NRC officials told The Hill that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 through 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies"

      This whole thing is about as crooked as it comes. Nobody can honestly say that "nothing wrong" happened here without looking like a complete partisan shill who ignores reality to further a political agenda.

    25. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For businesses it's not the case, as long as US is a WTO member foreign business do have the rights to fight state sponsored unfair competition. Same thing with NAFTA. US companies do sue in Mexico and Canada all the time.

    26. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Canada sells uranium to France.

    27. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt this, there will be trade agreements that US is obliged to keep. I don't know if it applies in this instance, but zero obligation doesn't seen feasible.

      Trade agreements are irrelevant, the DoD has the final say in anything remotely defense related, which using foreign software most certainly is. If you remember back to the the satellite internet guys trying to take over the GPS band (possibly to spur interest in Galileo, though I'll disregard the conspiracy aspect of it for the moment,) it passed every fucking approval agency over the course of years, the senate, the house, the PoTUS, FCC, everything - a few weeks before they were about to switch over a general speaks up and says "you aren't doing this because it will break our GPS navigation system and we need that," and it was dead in the water, company went bankrupt, etc. When you get down to it the world still runs on the same concept it ever did: might makes right. There is no obligation to sacrifice security by accepting foreign dependencies.

    28. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Russians put a grand total of a few thousand dollars"

      You're a fool or worse if you think that's the extent of their interference.

    29. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Corporations are government constructs, they aren't things save for a government calling them a thing and giving them some degree of personhood.

      Corporate personhood is the purpose of incorporation. Without corporate personhood, Eugene Kaspersky would just be a guy selling a product and then, as a person, Eugene Kaspersky would have the rights that belong to "persons" when operating under the jurisdiction of the USA.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    30. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      A) Kaspersky is a foreign actor. It doesn't matter if he's nice and aiming to do good or not, you don't put foreigners in charge of government systems because the entire purpose of government is protect citizens from foreign threats. An ally today could well be an enemy tomorrow.
      B) Corporations don't have the rights of people, "personhood" refers to the ability of a corporation to absorb the blowback from debt and other potential legal concerns so it doesn't destroy a person's life.

    31. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Another poster already pointed to an article that Uranium One was able to export US uranium by piggy-backing on another export license soon after the Russians started controlling it. Just because CNN says they didn't know or it didn't happen doesn't make it true.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    32. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      He's not a shill, you're a partisan hack. The uranium deal was a normal business deal that had to be approved by six people, including Secretary Clinton. It was non-controversial at the time. The Clintons did not accept money for the sale, the Secretary had only part of the deal, and Russia has plenty of uranium available to convert to plutonium-239 anyway.

      Got any actual evidence for anything you wrote there?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re: Muh Russian Hackers by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Doesn't disprove my point. The police, boseder agents etc. could have stopped it if they'd wanted to and been competent.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      In this matter, it doesn't matter if he's foreign or not. No one has the right to have their product bought by the government. I don't see any way for him to win this, outside of judicial activism. What he has the right to is due process of law and he has that because he's a person.

      I didn't say that corporations have the rights of "people", they have the rights of "persons". In every day speech, there is no difference but in the context of the constitution, there is.

      Personhood is what allows a corporation to own assets, engage in the practice of business and (arguably most importantly) pay taxes.

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    35. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      He's not a shill, you're a partisan hack. The uranium deal was a normal business deal that had to be approved by six people, including Secretary Clinton. It was non-controversial at the time.

      So six corrupt traitors and it didn't get media attention because it was the Clintons taking the kickback? Shill harder.

    36. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm not a shill. I annoy people for free.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    37. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm not a shill. I annoy people for free.

      You're literally defending treasonous corrupt sellouts. Not even a veil of incompetence can make you not be a shill.

    38. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A shill is someone paid to do something. As I said, I annoy people for free.

      You might want to look at the Constitutional definition of treason, which doesn't support your claim. Of course, since you pay no attention to the facts, I suppose this is a vain hope.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    39. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      A shill is someone paid to do something. As I said, I annoy people for free.

      You might want to look up that word. Unpaid morons haplessly defending the interests of a party who doesn't even know their name are also shills.

      You might want to look at the Constitutional definition of treason, which doesn't support your claim.

      A member of the US government sold materials used to make weapons of mass destruction to an adversarial nation for personal gain. The only reason she wasn't put in front of a firing squad is because her name is Clinton. Spies have done far less and gotten far worse.

    40. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A member of the US government sold materials used to make weapons of mass destruction to an adversarial nation for personal gain.

      Actually, Ollie North wasn't in it for personal gain, and I don't think the arms were actually WMDs.

      At the time, Russia wasn't an adversarial nation. The US was trying to engage Russia in a friendly manner in the hope of avoiding too much hostility. It didn't work, but that doesn't retcon Russia in to an enemy. The deal was selling stock in a uranium company, not selling uranium. I've seen absolutely no evidence that Russia used this particular uranium, assuming they got some out of the deal, for WMD production. Heck, natural uranium is natural uranium, so if Russia got uranium from other sources it doesn't matter which was used.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Actually, Ollie North wasn't in it for personal gain, and I don't think the arms were actually WMDs.

      At the time, Russia wasn't an adversarial nation. The US was trying to engage Russia in a friendly manner in the hope of avoiding too much hostility.

      A) Hapless shills are irrelevant, the Clintons profited from it. Even if it were in our best interests, which it wasn't, they had no right to gain personally from it. Doing that in the civilian would would be outright embezzlement at the least, which is still a felony carrying decades in prison.
      B) Selling other nations materials which can be used to make weapons of mass destruction is never in our best interests, so it's a flimsy excuse.

    42. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There were stories of a donation to the Clinton Foundation that were alleged to be connected to her agreeing with five other government officials that it was OK to go ahead with the sale. The Clinton Foundation is a bona fide charitable organization, so I don't see where the profit would come in.

      Selling a company in another nation 20% share in a Canadian company doesn't violate our best interests, and that's what she and the others approved. She didn't approve any transfer of uranium to Russia. If Russia was able to get the uranium by owning a share of the company, they could have gotten it by buying it directly.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    43. Re:Muh Russian Hackers by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      There is no justification, just stop trying, you are a bad shill.

  8. Re: Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, Obama

  9. Re: Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey bro. I let him out, he pisses all over himself when hes in there. I think we can let him play on this ancient website for a little while.

    Did you pick up his meds today? Heâ(TM)s almost out.

  10. You Cannot Sue City hall... by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump is only preventing Federal agencies from using Kaspersky Lab's offerings, he's not keeping them from selling to other US customers. You can still buy their products in the USA. I realize that this Federal ban does cut into their market share, but how will suing fix this?

    How do they have a lawsuit? Can I now sue the Federal Government if they refuse to use *my* software product?

    You cannot sue city hall, Kaspersky Lab's needs to file that suit in the circular file marked "trash" because it's going to be dumped by the courts eventually and turn into a waste of good money.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Trump is only preventing Federal agencies from using Kaspersky Lab's offerings, he's not keeping them from selling to other US customers. You can still buy their products in the USA.

      Playing devil's advocate here (and not having read TFA .. surprise surprise).

      If Trump's order rescinds existing contracts then Kaspersky may have a valid claim when suing city hall.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re: You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But they'll find a liberal, PC judge who will rule in their favor. And somewhere there is an illegal immigrant with ties to Kaspersky who will claim the ban discriminates against him.

    3. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uninstall the product. Pay off the contracts. Find another AV product. Move on.

    4. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      I'll concede that I haven't read Trump's order, so I'll ask. Is the government failing to pay for previously agreed to contracts/purchases or is this their way of disqualifying Kaspersky from future contracts and purchases?

      If the government paid and met all previously agreements, I don't understand the theory under which Kaspersky is suing.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    5. Re: You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      As opposed to a Mac judge who will wonder why they have antivirus in the first place.

    6. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by bobbied · · Score: 2

      They are claiming that the government didn't give them "due process" with the federal ban. Tell me, what "process" are they entitled too here?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by Megol · · Score: 1

      "to"

      In a country with secret courts? None.

    8. Re: You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Meanwhile the Linux Judge is still trying to install his AMD Catalyst drivers.

    9. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it shouldn't be possible for the government to choose one company or another like this? What if only the president's anti-virus(the ones that donated to his campaign or played ball in some "requests") were to be allowed?

      I don't know what they will claim, or who is in the right, but I can surely see some problems could be happening.

    10. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it's not just that the Federal government has banned it, I think the mere presence of that ban is having a chilling effect. I know a guy who works for a fuel supplier to an energy utility and they are being told to rip out all Kaspersky products by the utility and supposedly the utility is being told this by the Feds.

      Even if this is only partly true, I'd guess its being repeated in other areas. Eventually even if still buying their products isn't illegal or officially banned for anyone other than Federal agencies, this will fan out and ruin its reputation.

      I'm of mixed opinions on this. I don't think Kaspersky was proactively engaged in a conspiracy to commit espionage, but I think they are uniquely positioned to be influenced by the FSB in ways that creates an existential risk.

      My guess is Eugene Kaspersky thought he could retain Russia as a major office (good talent, a market unto itself, etc) and be a global software player without those two things being in conflict. Turns out maybe he should have relocated and left Russia behind.

    11. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Tell me, what "process" are they entitled [to] here?

      In a country with secret courts? None.

      Do you mean Russia or the US - oh, wait ...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    12. Re: You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ability to sell your wares without mud and slander being slung your way. Is that too much to ask for?

    13. Re: You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, when each political party can run their candidates without mud and slander being slung their way.

      Mud and slander. It's the American Way!

    14. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am not a lawyer.

      However, it was explained to me that the problem is that Kaspersky was singled out specifically, rather than failing to make the cut due to certain considerations. It's one thing to say "the government may only buy software from vetted software companies that are not also doing business in Russia" versus naming the company directly even though the end result may be the same. It's like how you can't make laws to single out individuals.

        The current ruling means that even if Kaspersky corrects everything that the government doesn't like about them (e.g., moves out of Russia, replaces all their programmers, opens their source-code, whatever), they are still out of the running for government contracts solely because they are Kaspersky, and it is this that the company is claiming is unlawful. The law prevents this because otherwise the government could simply forbid certain otherwise qualified companies (usually because someone in the government has stock in company X and doesn't want company Y to be able to compete).

      Or so I was told. Hopefully somebody with a better understanding of both this ruling and the law will be able to clarify the issue.

    15. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      I think they are uniquely positioned to be influenced by the FSB

      You mean just like any American company with the NSA?

    16. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      What you describe isn't "due process" but more like defamation. Problem is defamation is hard to get a judgment for in the USA, AND this lawsuit doesn't claim it.

      I think their lawsuit is just a PR ploy at best, or a hail Mary attempt at worst. Either way, it's going to be a loss...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    17. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Can I now sue the Federal Government if they refuse to use *my* software product?

      Refusing to use your software is a choice. The US administration here has outright banned Kaspersky's software from being used on the federal government's computers, which means that choice has now been removed for them, and they no longer have it as an option. Whether they were ever going to choose it or not is another matter altogether.

      Do you not see the distinction?

    18. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the TPP had gone through, they would have had a case. The TPP would make it illegal to harm profits.

    19. Re: You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course but they are not the same... NSA works for US govt, FSB doesn't.

      What you are saying is analogous to anyone should have a right to sleep in your bed at night because your spouse does. Clearly that is also faulty logic.

      Yes the US govt does have the obligation t decide who to buy from and it does have blacklisted vendors and Kaspersky is just the newest addition to the list.

      I think it's ridiculous they ever considered buying security software from an intelligence rival, but at least they are fixing it now.

      Since we already paid for whatever licenses are already there we have the right to uninstall, and of there is any service contract it can simply not be renewed. If the govt decides to service top payment that is already in contract that's the only scope any company could sue for in this situation.

    20. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it's going to be dumped by the courts eventually

      And then Putin will make a president decree badly affecting various american top 500 companies / NASA / various "dogs on lash" CIA-controlled puppet regimes in certain banana republics. As the example of Syria and ukraine/Crimea shows, Russia is still very powerful in certain respects. Even if you can shoot the bear eventually, you'll also end up missing an arm and a leg, at least.

    21. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Trump didn't issue an order. He signed H.R. 2810, "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018" into law. That means Congress did it, not Trump. The relevant bit is section 1634, entitled "Prohibition on use of products and services developed or provided by Kaspersky Lab.", which is under Subtitle C, "Cyberspace-related matters".

      (a)Prohibition
      No department, agency, organization, or other element of the Federal Government may use, whether directly or through work with or on behalf of another department, agency, organization, or element of the Federal Government, any hardware, software, or services developed or provided, in whole or in part, by—

      (1)Kaspersky Lab (or any successor entity);
      (2)any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with Kaspersky Lab; or
      (3)any entity of which Kaspersky Lab has majority ownership.
      (b)Effective date
      The prohibition in subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2018.

      (c)Review and Report
      (1)Review
      The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall conduct a review of the procedures for removing suspect products or services from the information technology networks of the Federal Government.

      (2)Report
      (A)In general
      Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the review conducted under paragraph (1).

      (B)Elements
      The report under subparagraph (A) shall include the following:

      (i)A description of the Federal Government-wide authorities that may be used to prohibit, exclude, or prevent the use of suspect products or services on the information technology networks of the Federal Government, including—
      (I)the discretionary authorities of agencies to prohibit, exclude, or prevent the use of such products or services;
      (II)the authorities of a suspension and debarment official to prohibit, exclude, or prevent the use of such products or services;
      (III)authorities relating to supply chain risk management;
      (IV)authorities that provide for the continuous monitoring of information technology networks to identify suspect products or services; and
      (V)the authorities provided under the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002.
      (ii)Assessment of any gaps in the authorities described in clause (i), including any gaps in the enforcement of decisions made under such authorities.
      (iii)An explanation of the capabilities and methodologies used to periodically assess and monitor the information technology networks of the Federal Government for prohibited products or services.
      (iv)An assessment of the ability of the Federal Government to periodically conduct training and exercises in the use of the authorities described in clause (i)—
      (I)to identify recommendations for streamlining process; and
      (II)to identify recommendations for education and training curricula, to be integrated into existing training or certification courses.
      (v)A description of information sharing mechanisms that may be used to share information about suspect products or services, including mechanisms for the sharing of such information among the Federal Government, industry, the public, and international partners.
      (vi)Identification of existing tools for business intelligence, application management, and commerce due-diligence that are either in use by elements of the Federal Government, or that are available commercially.
      (vii)Recommendations for improving the authorities, processes, resourcing, and capabilities of the Federal Government for the purpose of improving the procedures for identifying and removing prohibited products or services from the information technology networks of the Federal Government.
      (viii)Any other matters the Secretary determines to be appr

    22. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Also, naming them directly has probably hurt world wide sales, so they will argue that it was unjustified and seek reparations.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eugene Kaspersky thought he could ...

      ... unravel all the state-level malware for the benefit of his customers and everyone everywhere without those who commissioned the malware coming after him with every possible trick they have to prevent him from ever doing it again... by economically obliterating Kaspersky Labs, the only company in the field with software actually does what it claims, rather than the horrid bullshit generators and time-suckers developed by their absurdly ineffective competitors. "So if the free market is going to make our slick spy tools worthless, we're going to have to run psyops against the free market to manipulate it into eliminating any that might make our shitty software look as shitty as it really is."

      FTFY.

      This is a retelling of the cyypto-ban, but specific to one individual company rather than the entire planet. Good luck, Gene, and apologies on behalf of the People that wished our damn government would do what we tell them rather than being so tribal and self-serving.

    24. Re: You Cannot Sue City hall... by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Of course but they are not the same... NSA works for US govt, FSB doesn't.

      Very typical comment from an American. It's very different because we are the center of the world. Mind you, I am not an American. Hint: Your best move now is to tell me to get off of Slashdot.

      So the choice buying from an American company or a Russian one gets down to whether I prefer my data being spied upon by the Russians or by the Americans. And neither looks good.

    25. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Why do you care about the FSB? They are a domestic intelligence service. Foreign espionage is not their job.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    26. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Can I now sue the Federal Government if they refuse to use *my* software product?

      If the government is shopping for a product and your product does meet the criteria, then IMHO: yes, you should be able to sue them for excluding you specifically from the bidding process. It works like that over here (on the other side of the pond). There are some limits such as no unpaid taxes, etc. But in general anyone can compete.

    27. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how the bill calls identifies and punishes Kaspersky by name, it might be possible to argue that it was a bill of attainder. Which would make it explicitly unconstitutional.

    28. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by sabbede · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you can sue the government for slander/libel, but arguing that a 5th Amendment 'taking' took place might work.

    29. Re: You Cannot Sue City hall... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Then civil asset forfeiture is basically marque and reprisal, turning police into privateers. Some how, while seemingly correct, I donâ(TM)t see that argument working out in this day and age. Perhaps we shall see.

    30. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then Arthur Andersen can sue to the government for loss of its business related to the Enron indictment?

    31. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      But I don't have a right to force the government to buy my product if they don't find my product suited for it's purpose or if it carries unacceptable risks.

      The reasons for Kaspersky Labs removal from consideration is pretty clear. They remain a subsidiary of a Russian company and carry an unacceptable amount of risk of being exploited by foreign intelligence services. Given the pervasive nature of the product and where it would likely be installed, the concern is a valid one, thus the prohibition is valid.

      I don't think Kaspersky Labs has a case here in the USA.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    32. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Historically, government officials have thrown business to their friends and associates regardless of the value to the government, and we've tried putting restrictions on that. Therefore, we have laws on procurement that reduce the problem somewhat (and create other problems, law being a blunt instrument). The DoD may be violating them (or not, I'm not a lawyer), and, if so, that's grounds for a lawsuit.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re: You Cannot Sue City hall... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with us being the center of the world. It has to do with being the US. The US doesn't want to be spied on by the FSB, and Russia doesn't want to be spied on by the NSA. Therefore, the US government likely doesn't want to use Kaspersky, and the Russian government likely doesn't want to use AV products by US companies.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    34. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Can I now sue the Federal Government if they refuse to use *my* software product?

      Depends on why they refused your software product. If the selection of something else, or nothing if they didn't get a replacement, was done according to law, you're going to lose. (You can sue for anything, and many things even won't be thrown out by the first judge to see them.) If they violated the law in not choosing your software, go ahead. You have a good chance of winning, although I'm not completely sure what you'd win.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    35. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The reasons for Kaspersky Labs removal from consideration is pretty clear.

      Sure. How does it play with procurement law?

      I don't think Kaspersky Labs has a case here in the USA.

      IANAL, and I suspect you aren't either. Some of these laws can get incredibly confusing.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    36. Re:You Cannot Sue City hall... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      The reasons for Kaspersky Labs removal from consideration is pretty clear.

      1. the reason should be "you are security threat, you act maliciously, you represent interests of a foreign power, ..." it should not be "you are Kaspersky".

      2. apparently the reasons are not clear to everyone - and so the court will have to decide whether they are valid or not. I find that reasonable.

    37. Re: You Cannot Sue City hall... by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Funny you should phrase it that way - the first use of civil forfeiture in the US (as best I recall) was for the seizure of a pirate ship. While I completely agree with your assessment of the practice now, it isn't related to bills of attainder. Those are laws that single out and punish a specific person (or presumably, group). Like if Congress passed a bill saying, "The person using the alias 'bsDaemon' is hereby stripped of all rights and possessions, and shall be immediately taken into custody and locked away for the rest of their life."

      The Constitution expressly forbids them.

  11. This feels terrible. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not one to defend what the current administration/congress does but banning the use of software on government and government contractors' computers that is suspected to be under the control of a foreign government seems well within the scope of the law.

    Frankly, if they banned Microsoft's shoddy products then you wouldn't need to bother with Kaspersky.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:This feels terrible. by ItBurnsWhenIP · · Score: 2

      Frankly, if they banned Microsoft's shoddy products then you wouldn't need to bother with Kaspersky.

      It would also be helpful if people were better trained not to follow click-bait and suspicious links.

    2. Re:This feels terrible. by DaMattster · · Score: 2

      Frankly, if they banned Microsoft's shoddy products then you wouldn't need to bother with Kaspersky.

      It would also be helpful if people were better trained not to follow click-bait and suspicious links.

      The training is pretty good. It would be helpful if people employed some critical thinking skills instead of just blind clicking.

    3. Re:This feels terrible. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Banning the use of software on government and government contractors' computers that is suspected to be under the control of a foreign government seems well within the scope of the law.

      Not without cause for REASONABLE suspicion it's not. If there was reasonable basis for suspecting the software is a risk, then the details should be communicated to each agency, and their IT department should take care of it internally, AND the intelligence agencies responsible for internal security of the government systems should help them make sure the threat is addressed.

      The ONLY reason for publicly declaring a ban is to HURT Kapersky's capacity for doing business in the US with anybody..... Notice how many retailers immediately started pulling their software off the shelves when the ban was announced? The government has decided to essentially shut them down ---- probably at the behest of lobbyists from competing security firms whose products are... shall we say, less effective?

    4. Re:This feels terrible. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      This is well within the governments national security powers.

      Just like they can prevent foreign companies from buying strategic companies in the US including even requiring that prior transactions be unwound and returned to the US. The governments powers in regard to national security are expansive and the supreme court has shown a definite historical tendency to defer to the government where national security concerns are raised.

      The chances of success in this suit are very limited, Kaspersky is wasting money, the question is why they are wasting the money, did the Russian government persuade them to file this suit to obscure their apparent control of Kasperky?

    5. Re:This feels terrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that there is more than "reasonable suspicion" that "Moscow-based anti-virus company Kaspersky Lab" is under control of the government of Moscow, Russia. More like Russian-based company is Russian.

    6. Re:This feels terrible. by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 1

      I would agree, but then there are these little gems in the order:

      1: Kaspersky-branded products means information security products, solutions, and services supplied, directly or indirectly, by AO Kaspersky Lab or any of its predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates

      2: This directive does not address Kaspersky code embedded in the products of other companies.

      This is nothing but a coordinated campaign to destroy Kasperskys business. Maybe we should be asking why.

      Notification of Binding Operative Direction 17-01

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
    7. Re:This feels terrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The directive should have been larger in scope and included ANY foreign security software for use in government operations, not just singling out Russia.

    8. Re:This feels terrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pish posh. Obama banned the federal government from buying Huawei and ZTE networking equipment due to reasons of vulnerabilities and risks to the national security. This is in the same vein. I think it's funny that you want the intelligence agencies to make sure the threat is addressed. What if the recommendation was to stop using Kaspersky? Are you onboard now?

      Look governments are like any organization, there is only so much IT money. You want the government to implement security on a piecemeal basis and hope nothing bad happens? In that case, your risk tolerance is higher than many organizations.

      Actually there's another reason they declared a ban publicly - because they have to. Information like this is in the domain of things that the U.S. citizenry ought to know about. Would you prefer that this order be secret and unreviewable by the American people?

  12. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same way your mom's meat curtains got out of her panties. I licked them out.

  13. Re:But Muh russia by bobbied · · Score: 2

    But Trump works for Putin. why would Putin sue him?!

    Why wouldn't he?

    It's a lawsuit that's going nowhere anyway... Unless the government agrees to be sued, this will be dismissed.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  14. All of these posts are off-topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Nearly every comment on Slashdot lately is off-topic spam. The model of the past two decades isn't working. Something needs to change.

  15. Due process rights? by MitchDev · · Score: 2

    What the F are they smoking?

    There is no right to have people buy your products...

    1. Re:Due process rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People aren't the issue here. Sales to the federal government are. Kasperksy has a US subsidiary. The US subsidiary is a US citizen to the extent the Supreme Court has said corporations are citizens. The US subsidiary has due process rights under the US constitution. Trump saying the US subsidiary cant sell its software to the US government because its actually a hostile arm of the KGB or whatever the exact accusation is doesn't fly without due process. The US subsidiary is entitled to it's day in court. At the end of the day a simple enough audit of the code can show what is or isn't true. Litigation is exactly how this should be resolved.

    2. Re:Due process rights? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Trump is not saying they cannot SELL they can still sell this stuff... He's only saying that the Federal government may not BUY the software.

      If you want to run out and buy or sell copies of this software, it's still perfectly legal for citizens or companies to do so.

      This lawsuit is bogus, frivolous and a waste of time and money. Nobody's due process rights have been violated here.

      At best, this is but a PR stunt....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Due process rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US subsidiary is a US citizen to the extent the Supreme Court has said corporations are citizens

      No... just, no.

      They are legal persons, not citizens, and this per USC 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1

      If citizenship was required, you wouldn't have seen very many/any successful lawsuits against the feds related to terrorism or immigration.

    4. Re:Due process rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TYL: Rent-seeking businesses believe that they have a right to your money.

    5. Re:Due process rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey marginalizing retard the government is a CUSTOMER and consists of PEOPLE. You would know that if you had and shared the slightest bit of 'deductive' reasoning. Please go regurgitate your plebeian cuck propaganda elsewhere as you elicit not a damn clue to the contextual depth of meta content we are getting at here.

      You aren't a friend to all, you are a friend to no one. If you are going to let people walk all over you telling you what to say then its my turn as I am next in line, so bend over bitch and respect my authority!

    6. Re:Due process rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the RIAA disagrees with you.

    7. Re:Due process rights? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      This is the correct answer.

      So far, accusations have only reached the threshold of "allegation."

      The next step calls for motions of discovery, depositions, exhibits and expert witnesses.

      The lawsuit itself is harmless.

      Due process will prevail.

      Nothing to see here.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    8. Re:Due process rights? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What the F are they smoking?

      There is no right to have people buy your products...

      I'm not sure about the USA, but in many countries you do have the right not to be unfairly excluded from the procurement process.

    9. Re:Due process rights? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      It's not Trump saying so, Congress passed a bill explicitly naming and banning Kaspersky. That brings up the 5th Amendment Takings clause, the 14th's due process clause, and may even be arguable as a bill of attainder.

    10. Re:Due process rights? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      That is...ridiculous

    11. Re:Due process rights? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Congress only dictated that the government may not purchase this company's products. They didn't ban the company from doing business or take any of their property away, only made it illegal for the federal government to purchase this companies products. Sucks that it's their biggest customer, but if congress doesn't have the right to decide where the money the budget gets spent, what rights does congress have here?

      IF congress had banned the company from doing business or actually taken their property without compensation they might have a case, but they didn't do any of that.

      The ONLY possible case that *might* be made here is that Congress destroyed their reputation with this, but that's not "due process" but defamation. I seriously doubt that they can prove this because in the USA defamation is *really* hard to prove.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:Due process rights? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Thing is, according to United States vs. Lovett, this is a bill of attainder. The Supreme Court held that the law in question specified a person, imposed some sort of punishment (they couldn't be hired by the Federal Government), and wasn't due to judicial action. In this case, a specifically named company is barred from selling to the Federal government by statute rather than judicial action, which looks awfully similar.

      There's ways this law could work, as long as it doesn't mention Kaspersky. It could ban the use of security software from companies based in countries the President certifies as constituting a security risk, for example.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Due process rights? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No that is "open government" hell it's not even just governments, private corporations sue each other over this stuff constantly.

    14. Re:Due process rights? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      After reading about this, I suppose that might work. However, if the law the defunded ACORN wasn't upheld as a bill of attainder, this won't be..

      Kaspersky isn't having any property confiscated nor are they being punished for some wrong doing. They are only being deprived of FUTURE revenue though sales of products to one specific customer. If ACRON lost it's federal funding though a law that made it illegal and that's not a bill of attainder, then this isn't either.

      I suppose they may make it though the initial case if they chose their venue well, but they will lose on appeal.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    15. Re:Due process rights? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Regarding ACORN, I'm not familiar with the details but Congress can grant or cancel funding for specific non-profits. Kaspersky, on the other hand, is being told they can't bid on open government contracts anymore. Whether that's improper or not may rest on the wording of the laws describing the bidding process.

    16. Re:Due process rights? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Oh they can bid, they just cannot win... Just like ACORN can apply for grants, but won't be given any.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  16. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an idiot.

  17. Re: Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL Dad, youre gross. You could help with Grandpa some today, theres a ton of piss to clean up and he took a shit in the corner again.

  18. Good luck with that, Ivan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many Russian government PCs are running Symantec or McAfee...

  19. Re: Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    This will have a cascade effect as Kaspersky is effectively dead in the USA, government agency or not.

  20. Re:And Kaspersky will win. by coastwalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Indeed. It would be the end of Kasperkey software if there was the slightest hint that they were colluding with the Russian state. As it would be for all of the American companies who obviously are compromised by the NSA. You jokers are all as bad as each other. Trump is a cretin.

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  21. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    It probably would have been better (for Trump) if Putin hadn't done that. However, as for providing the intel... I'd do it to, so long as there was a reasonable expectation that the favour might one day be returned.

    You can be a competitor with someone - and so far as I know at present the USA and Russia aren't in any immediate danger of open hostilities breaking out - and still have some areas of cooperation due to common interest.

    I'm not particularly well versed in international politics, but I suspect there are better ways of retaliating against Russia should the American government acknowledge Russian election meddling than standing by as a terrorist attack is carried out.

  22. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    >However, as for providing the intel... I'd do it to, so long as there was a reasonable expectation that the favour might one day be returned.

    Here's that 'o' I missed:

    o

    If any more letters of the alphabet are missing, please provide your own and I'll reimburse you at a later date.

  23. Do I need this software? by mspohr · · Score: 0, Troll

    I don't run any anti-virus software on any of my computers (Mac, Linux, Chromebook).
    Why would I want to use this Kaspersky software? Does it run on any of my computers? Do I need to buy a new computer?

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:Do I need this software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Answers in order:
      NO.
      NO.
      NO.
      Go back to sleep now.

  24. Whoever thought this was a good idea in the first by bigmacx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    place? Sheesh, let's see, our government uses closed source SECURITY software from a company located in a (hostile?) foreign country and everyone in the US doesn't automatically think it's a Bad Idea?

    And yes I know there's a lot of software made outside of the US by non-US companies that are likely used in the US gov't, but security, especially closed-source, software should not be one of those.

  25. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It probably would have been better (for Trump) if Putin hadn't done that.

    I think there's a strong likelihood that a lot of the anti-Trump trolling and news has Russian origins (ex. dossier). Just a little tweaking of the original anti-POTUS tooling they had prepared for Hillary to create persistent discord in the US.

  26. What's the biggest vulnerability? by BellyJelly · · Score: 2

    Kaspersky anti-virus or Intel AMT?

    1. Re:What's the biggest vulnerability? by techdolphin · · Score: 1

      I think Trump is the biggest vulnerability. (I wish I was being funny. Unfortunately, I am serious.)

    2. Re:What's the biggest vulnerability? by bigmacx · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of like-minded confused people that appear to feel the same way https://i.imgur.com/tc8v36K.jpg

    3. Re:What's the biggest vulnerability? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Or the closed OS that needs anti-virus to begin with?

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    4. Re:What's the biggest vulnerability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump won't let you suck his cock. You can stop trying to fondle his balls.

  27. Re:sold Uranium to the Russians, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No you idiot, she did not. She, like all of the other cabinet members, approved the sale of a Canadian company who owned uranium mining rights in the US to a Russian one. No Uranium actually left US soil... Hillary Clinton did not go dig it up and mail it to Russia and get a big fat check.

  28. Re: Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pity the poor bastards who call government agencies "home".

    do you think about the military in the same way ?

  29. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I'm sure if we cared to investigate, we could find evidence of British meddling, but no, we have to go with Russian.

  30. Re:Whoever thought this was a good idea in the fir by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    IIRC, they just removed Kaspersky from the list of potential suppliers. That is, they actively forbid any future government contracts to Kaspersky, but that didn't mean Kaspersky had ever gotten any before.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  31. Re:sold Uranium to the Russians, by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    She, like all of the other cabinet members, approved the sale of a Canadian company

    Actually, she wasn't even involved with the process as related by the person on the committee:

    The Clinton campaign told the Times that generally these matters did not reach the secretary's level, so she may not have been involved at all. According to the Times, Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, represented the department on the committee. He told the Times: "Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter."

    But let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant by the con artist team.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  32. Re:Whoever thought this was a good idea in the fir by Megol · · Score: 1

    I didn't know the US is a hostile foreign country to the US. The things one learn...

  33. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    I dunno.. i mean innocent people losing their lives is a bad thing regardless of the diplomatic relationship with the country. I'd rather not have people die due to a tit for tat mentality.

  34. Re:Whoever thought this was a good idea in the fir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    place? Sheesh, let's see, our government uses closed source SECURITY software from a company located in a (hostile?) foreign country and everyone in the US doesn't automatically think it's a Bad Idea?

    Considering that both Google and Microsoft have effectively reallocated their IP outside the US, I guess the US should ban using them too for all the security features they incorporate into your software.

    And yes I know there's a lot of software made outside of the US by non-US companies that are likely used in the US gov't, but security, especially closed-source, software should not be one of those.

    They should have red-white-and-blue Linux. And then immediately run everything in WINE. Or just unofficially by Windows since so much software that's used is closed source. Oh, and a lot of it still requires admin access to work which inherently subverts most security software.

    Seriously, your suggestion is unworkable. At least a ban on Kaspersky based on evidence of a breach would make sense. As it stands, I'm not sure we even have that.

  35. Re:Whoever thought this was a good idea in the fir by bigmacx · · Score: 1

    Please elaborate. I fail to see the relevancy to my post. Do you think Kaspersky is a US company?

  36. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... I suspect there are better ways of retaliating against Russia should the American government acknowledge Russian election meddling than standing by as a terrorist attack is carried out.

    Helping an adversary when they're in trouble is called "taking the high road". It's a completely new concept for Trump and his administration, so it will feel strange to them -- and us -- for a while, especially if they try continuing down that road (but, I'm not holding my breath).

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  37. Re:Whoever thought this was a good idea in the fir by bigmacx · · Score: 1

    By "effective" you mean "Not true at all but let's act like it is and then make derivative outrageous indignation conclusions." Got it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
    "American multinational technology company with headquarters in Redmond, Washington"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspersky_Lab
    "a multinational cybersecurity and anti-virus provider headquartered in Moscow, Russia[1] and operated by a holding company in the United Kingdom"

    And no, I choose not to take you seriously.

  38. Re:Whoever thought this was a good idea in the fir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everyone in the US doesn't automatically think it's a Bad Idea?

    B-but DRUMPF!!!!

    Look, Mom, I typed it again!!!!!11111 XD XD XD

  39. Re:Whoever thought this was a good idea in the fir by bigmacx · · Score: 1

    Lol coward is correct. Please never change they way you are, it's easier for us to identify and avoid your kind.

  40. Re:Whoever thought this was a good idea in the fir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care enough to jump through hoops to get a password reset on my account. AC is fine for me on this dying clickbait-driven site...

  41. My 0.02 by DaMattster · · Score: 0

    Given the Russian proclivity to cyber spying and penetration of critical infrastructure, I am absolutely fine with the ban of Kaspersky software on US Government systems. I should add that I am also completely fine with the ban on Lenovo products in US Government agencies when it is almost commonly known that the Chinese government engages in cyber warfare as well.

    1. Re:My 0.02 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the Russian proclivity to cyber spying and penetration of critical infrastructure, I am absolutely fine with the ban of Kaspersky software on US Government systems. I should add that I am also completely fine with the ban on Lenovo products in US Government agencies when it is almost commonly known that the Chinese government engages in cyber warfare as well.

      It’s SOO weird... it’s almost as if allowing American tech production to be entirely moved overseas and letting all our tech companies be bought out by foreign investors, groups, and governments so we can’t make shit or do shit for ourselves as a nation anymore was a stupid fucking idea! Whoda guessed?!?

  42. Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  43. Yeah, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat a dick, Chekist pig. You're lucky if you're ever allowed to set foot on Western soil again.

  44. Kaspersky Lab by tquasar · · Score: 1

    They sponsor Scuderia Ferrari. Seb Vettel and Kimi Raikkonen don't mind. Neither do I.

  45. Re:Whoever thought this was a good idea in the fir by bigmacx · · Score: 1

    Been a reader on this site since the beginning and it don't seem to be going anywhere. In fact, appears to me they've improved things in the past couple of years, especially with content.

    Most entertaining are the occasional random crazy trolls who choose to waste their time on sites they despise.

  46. Re:sold Uranium to the Russians, by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

    Actually, she wasn't even involved with the process as related by the person on the committee:

    A) The Clintons and Soros control that fact check website you linked, you literally cited propaganda.
    B) The Clintons received over 100m in their personal accounts for that sale, but sure, it was "unrelated."
    C) You're a shill.

  47. Re:sold Uranium to the Russians, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? eat shit

  48. Re:Whoever thought this was a good idea in the fir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By "effective" you mean "Not true at all but let's act like it is and then make derivative outrageous indignation conclusions." Got it.

    So you agree then that MS is commit tax fraud? Because you can't have it both ways. Either they're a US company and must abide by US tax law which clearly spells out that tax rates apply to their income or they're some sort of magical multi-national organization which allows them to violate US tax laws while we simultaneously claim they're not in the US when it pleases us for enforcement purposes.

    And no, I choose not to take you seriously.

    Great. Nor does the US government take itself seriously. Which probably means this ban is effectively futile.

  49. Re: Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    He is ordering Americans not to let him into their homes? Didn't anyone tell him there was no special need for that one?

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  50. *SIGH* by Shogun37 · · Score: 1

    ...And so, the Kindergarden Playground Wars continue. War Never Changes.

  51. Re:Whoever thought this was a good idea in the fir by bigmacx · · Score: 1

    wth are you talking about? Go home commie, we don't want your software

  52. Re:sold Uranium to the Russians, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, she wasn't even involved with the process as related by the person on the committee:

    A) The Clintons and Soros control that fact check website you linked, you literally cited propaganda.

    B) The Clintons received over 100m in their personal accounts for that sale, but sure, it was "unrelated."

    C) You're a shill.

    What the fuck are you smoking and how the hell did you get that the Clintons and Soros control factcheck.org? They have nothing to do with that website. You really should stop getting your news from Facebook or opinion sites that spread false information.

  53. Re: Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem starts when American state starts to support and sponsor their businesses against competition. This is what organizations like WTO and NAFTA supposed to prohibit, because a state sponsored business has unfair advantage over a private one.

  54. Re:Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by currently_awake · · Score: 1

    Terrorism spreads like cancer. If you ignore it "over there" then it will eventually come after you.

  55. Re:And Kaspersky will win. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel's stock is up almost 4% today.

  56. Re:Whoever thought this was a good idea in the fir by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    place? Sheesh, let's see, our government uses closed source SECURITY software from a company located in a (hostile?) foreign country and everyone in the US doesn't automatically think it's a Bad Idea?

    I agree with you, but let's not get distracted from the real issue here. First of all, any organization is free to audit the Kaspersky software. This was even true before this incident.

    The real issue here is that an idiot NSA developer took his work home with him and put it on his personal laptop.

    According to Kaspersky, its security package running on the PC detected Pho's copies of the NSA exploits as new malicious software, and uploaded the powerful spyware to its cloud for further analysis by its researchers.

    [...]

    Kaspersky Lab has denied any wrongdoing in the matter or illicit ties to Russian intelligence. The security vendor also pointed out Pho's machine was infected with loads of malware, meaning any miscreant could have stolen Uncle Sam's cyber-weapons.
    source

    In other words, the NSA seems incapable of keeping its top secret information secret. That employee should never have been able to download source code from the NSA.

    He was a developer, not a system administrator. There is a reason you keep people's functions separated. It's because each position has its own set of incentives. As a developer, your job security depends on finishing projects. But as a sysadmin, your job security is based on securing the systems developers use.

    Furthermore, if the NSA can't keep its own most important information secure, there is no way in hell that any other organization or government agency will be able to do the same with a large database of manufacturers' backdoors.

  57. Kaspersky is partially to blame themselves by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    They should - as soon as the story broke - have moved their servers outside Russia and the reach of Putin, just to eliminate any possibility of interference. They didn't do that, which could be interpreted as unwillingness or similar, possibly due to legal pressure within Russia, keeping the rumor of (forced?) surveillance intact.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  58. take your post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and replace russia with the US, kapersky with other major vendor, and add that they were known to have been asked at some point to not detect NSA malware, and now you get why the world should distrust *ALL* hardware, cloud plateform and software coming from the US. How does the quid pro quo feel ?

  59. Re:And Kaspersky will win. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because as we know, the NSA is the equivalent of the Cheka and its successor agencies -- the most blood-soaked and monstrously immoral enterprise in the history of mankind. Who literally murdered millions of people without due process in cold blood; whose leaders used to rape little girls, and get off on their dying screams as they fucked them.

    Right. Stay classy. Keep up with your bullshit Russian moral equivalancy.

  60. Re: Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, we've already seen evidence that they were trolling both sides.

  61. Re: Donald Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well yes, all those sad dependent cases who can't function outside of the rigid control and guidance provided by their institutions.

  62. NSA detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if Kaspersky AV is one of the few products that detect NSA toolsets. I was at a kaspersky event over a decade ago and there were questions asked that he responded to by saying: "I can't talk about that." So yea, it could be the potential for collusion with the Russian Government, but it could also be the lack of cooperation with the US Government, specifically in terms of detecting NSA toolsets. I don't know how this would work out in terms of details; it's just an idea.

  63. DHS, not the Executive Branch by atcclears · · Score: 1

    Kaspersky sued the DHS, not the Executive Branch of government.

  64. Re:And Kaspersky will win. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I don't trust any AV vendor, or any government for that matter. I'm less worried about Russia getting my info than a branch of the US government getting my data. It's low risk in either case, but Russians are less likely to be interested in me than the US. This is most definitely not the case with sensitive US government computers.

    Moreover, there has been more than the slightest hint that Kaspersky has to collude with the Russian government, and it hasn't crashed yet.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  65. Oh boy! Here we go again... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    McCarthyism all over again!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.