Kaspersky Lab Sues Over Second Federal Ban (axios.com)

Cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab has filed a lawsuit targeting the second of two federal bans on its wares. The latest suit goes after language in a defense law explicitly blocking the purchase of Kaspersky products. An earlier suit targets a Homeland Security directive doing the same. From a report: The bigger picture: With the White House reluctant to institute additional sanctions on Russia, White House Cyber Czar Rob Joyce pointed to Kaspersky as an example of the Trump administration taking Russia seriously. While Kaspersky isn't alleged to be involved in the election hacks of 2016, it's hard not to see the actions against the firm in the context of deteriorated relations with Moscow, as part of a growing spat between the two countries.

Comments

Rights

[midifarm]

Why do they assume they have a right to supply the US Government with anything? THe Us Government as a "company" can choose products for company-wide use or non use. Some companies required Blackberries at one time. Now they're no longer allowed. Apparently the critics are right, they don't like free enterprise!

Re:Rights

[bobbied]

I'm shocked that this government action gets any negative airtime on Slashdot.. After all, folks come out of the woodwork here to support the right of the states to enforce Net Neutrality rules on ISP's doing business with them. How's this all that different? It's a head scratcher for sure..

Personally, I've always maintained the "government", be it state, local or federal, has the right to buy or not buy what they deem fit for purpose and impose any rules they like on the sellers who stand in line to collect government money. The only issue we need concern ourselves with is graft and corruption in the process... Which isn't what Kaspersky is alleging here is it?

Re:Rights

[bobbied]

Nope, there is no law here.. There is an executive order that says that government purchasers may not approve P.O.s that include this product and any bids that include this product will not be considered. So we are good...

Re:Rights

[techno-vampire]

Laws that single out a single person or entity are unconstitutional.

I take it, then, that you never bothered to pay attention in your civics class. If you had, you would have known about private bills. Granted, they're rarely used now, but they're perfectly legal under the US Constitution.

This is going to send a strong message

[Opportunist]

If you don't let us get a backdoor into your products, you won't work in this country again.

Constitutionality of a Bill Targeting a Co

[wfrazee2004]

Completely aside from the political stuff of whether Kapersky is giving things to the FSB and is therefore an elevated risk - I wonder aloud about the constitutionality of a law targeting specific companies.

And it MUST be banned

[Ivan Stepaniuk]

It is not acceptable for a sovereign government that any company, especially a foreign one, has the ability to render the whole country's computer infrastructure to a halt with the flick of a switch on their automatic update servers.

The system is already broken. Using closed source software puts any country sovereignty at stake. Your software providers' "red buttons" are bigger and faster than Trump's.

Re:so much bullshit

[DRJlaw]

What "election hacks of 2016" are we talking about? I mean, besides the Democrats screeching about this stuff 24/7 trying to push their alternate explanation of how the worst candidate in history lost to the 2nd worst.

The ones that a named DHS unit head says occurred. It's amazing how forgetful you trolls can be.

Re:Discovery is going to be a bitch for 'em

[MightyMartian]

National security trumps all of this. The US Government doesn't have to show its hand, it just has to say "we believe Kaspersky can be used by a foreign actor to compromise government systems", and pretty much that is that.