We've begged this company to allow backdoors in their products and they have refused, so please don't use their products, m'kay!
LOL... Unlikely.. If the NSA wanted a back door, they could put one in themselves. They have the resources to reverse engineer something as simple as a phone and get the wireless carriers to push it with their next software update....
Take this at face value but I've heard that some Huawei network components have a "phone home" feature built in that provides information about the network traffic it's working with to some location for less than clearly defined reasons. I don't suppose a phone would be any different. Not that this is somehow unique to Huawei, but it's a security risk to have such undisclosed stuff lurking in your networked electronics.
Given where Huawei's stuff is designed and manufactured, I understand the idea that that their might be some avoidable risk here...
But hey, if you like the phone, go for it. I'd just recommend you not keep personal information on your phone, any manufacturer's phone....
Oh, this really isn't poverty... I've seen poverty, this isn't it.
You want to see poverty? Try some of the third world countries I've been to... It makes "poverty" here in the USA look like a walk in the park..
I've also seen some of the poorest people in the USA too, it's just not as bad here. Take a trip on the back roads in and around the poor parts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and surrounding areas. There are some seriously poor (for the USA) people living there.
I don't consider having to spend 30% of your income on housing to be poor, especially when someone is making more than $100K/year.
What is this CA lifestyle thing? Got to love living in poverty making $100+K/year. But hey, the sunset ocean view from the refrigerator box is stunning every evening it's not raining and the neighborhood isn't on fire...
Then they need to sue for liable or slander, not for some cooked up constitutional charge. If Kaspersky was suing the government for lying about their product what you say might make sense, but as it stands, your legal theory isn't what Kaspersky is using.
So you agree that the US government isn't the only one saying Kaspersky is risky to use, independently others have made the same claims, yet Kaspersky hasn't taken legal action on those other claims. The US government hasn't moved to prevent Kaspersky from doing commercial business within the USA or even advised citizens to not use their products as other countries have. So, What's this lawsuit about at this point?
The government isn't preventing you from buying as many copies of Kaspersky software as you like. They are free to hawk their wares in the USA all they like. The only thing the government has said is that the GOVERNMENT won't buy any more copies. Now both the Executive branch and Congress have the same policy... But they are not keeping Kaspersky from doing business here, only saying the government won't buy their stuff anymore.
How's that require proof of anything? They are not telling you that YOU cannot buy Kaspersky's stuff, only that the government isn't going to.
I beg to differ.. News reporting clearly indicates that more than just the US Government is reporting that this product has been used in the past for nefarious purposes... This action by the US Government then is perfectly understandable.
It's not a law or even a regulation... It's an Executive Branch policy based on security recommendations that they won't allow any government agency buy this product any more.
All the government need argue is that they *could* be compromised by their corporate owners at any time and that this represents an undue risk to computer system security. Given that's a logical possibility argument, the burden of proof rests on Kaspersky to prove their product cannot be so modified.
Given the code base is controlled by Russian interests, I think Kaspersky has a hard uphill climb on this one.
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...
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?
The people dying are not dying from the flu. It is actually sepsis that is causing the high numbers of deaths this year.
No, they are dying from illnesses which are CAUSED by the Flu... Sepsis which is caused by the flu it's NOT the flu, so if it kills you it wasn't the flu, but sepsis. But hey, it's a distinction without a difference if you ask me. If they had avoided the flu in the first place, they'd not be dead today.
By the way.. Sepsis IS a known issue and we know how to treat it. The issue is that you have to start treatments in time, which means you have to recognize that you are more ill than just having the flu and get medical help, before it's too late. Apparently people are getting sicker faster this year and some waited too long.
I don't understand why flu vaccines are promoted widely, but no mention is ever made of wearing surgical masks.
The masks work both ways, but a vaccinated person with the flu will still spread the flu.
Sure, but chances are the vaccinated person will be contagious for a much shorter time.
The issue with masks is a cultural one. People look at you like you have the plague or something if you go around in public wearing one, I know because I've done this to avoid infecting others or catching stuff from others. You get some strange looks like "Am I going to get cancer from you or something?"
Maybe some PSA's from the CDC that push vaccines, hygiene and masks to combat the flu are in order? I'm sure some catchy jingle would go miles here. Yea, I'm dreaming, I know.
And if you get Guillain-Barré from the flu vaccine, you will endure that misery for the rest of your life.
You do realize that the chances of the vaccine causing this are reported to be literally 1 in a million people maybe more right? It seems to me that more than 1 in a million are dying from the flu this year. So even if the vaccine is marginally effective, it seems like the lessor of the risks to take the vaccine to me.
Do what you want, but I'll follow the CDC's recommendations on this question...
That's how this vaccine thing rolls with the Flu strains mutating out there. You take your best guess at the point it's time to start making vaccine which is months before the flu season actually starts and take your chances. If the viruses mutate too much or you guess wrong, the vaccine isn't as effective as it could be.
But, in most cases the vaccine *does* help, even if it misses a bit, by sensitizing your immune system to a virus that is pretty close, which gets the full immune response started sooner and working harder because it already sensitized to the virus you end up getting. This ends up making the symptoms less intense and they go away faster.
My personal story is that I've been getting the seasonal flu vaccine for at least the last 5 years. My immune compromised wife had it bad and was down for two weeks so I was very much exposed. I'm not sure if I actually had it or not because although I had a couple of days I felt kind of rough, I didn't ever have anything that made me think I was sick.
Personal stories don't mean anything really, but my advice is the CDC's advice, get the vaccine, every year, unless you are otherwise in the small group that shouldn't take the vaccine.
The USA owns their parts of this, the Russians and others have theirs. Seems to me the government *could* sell it's interests in the ISS to a private company unless the current agreements prevent it.
Assuming it's possible in the agreements, How the other owners would react, however, is an open question. Anybody know what the agreements that created the ISS say about such ideas?
That's why you got criminal charges and a sentence... If you are going to do this and hope to get away with it, at least don't profit from it... You make yourself a huge target when you make a profit doing this kind of thing so you will be first on the list.
Donald Trump could spill classified information to the Russians in a meeting and OH WAIT
You do understand that Trump can legally do that because all classified information is classified on authority delegated by president. He literally has the ultimate say here. So, the President can declassify anything at any time for any reason and had said information to anyone, legally. All classified information is kept under Executive Order 13526 which was enacted by Obama in 2009.
Now you may not think it's a good idea to disclose specific information, but the President has the legal authority to discuss classified information with anyone he chooses.
Oh? You want the toilets to flush? Well why didn't you say so before in your specifications? We can make that happen for only the small price of $$$$, sign here.
Oh? What? You want the ship to turn right AND left? Again, I'm sorry, but that's not part of the original specification. We can make that happen though, just cough up some more cash and sign here... And, just to make sure, you don't want it to turn both ways at the same time right? Well, we need some $$ to make sure that last ECO covers one way at a time turning...
Slashdot Mirror
We've begged this company to allow backdoors in their products and they have refused, so please don't use their products, m'kay!
LOL... Unlikely.. If the NSA wanted a back door, they could put one in themselves. They have the resources to reverse engineer something as simple as a phone and get the wireless carriers to push it with their next software update....
Take this at face value but I've heard that some Huawei network components have a "phone home" feature built in that provides information about the network traffic it's working with to some location for less than clearly defined reasons. I don't suppose a phone would be any different. Not that this is somehow unique to Huawei, but it's a security risk to have such undisclosed stuff lurking in your networked electronics.
Given where Huawei's stuff is designed and manufactured, I understand the idea that that their might be some avoidable risk here...
But hey, if you like the phone, go for it. I'd just recommend you not keep personal information on your phone, any manufacturer's phone....
Oh, this really isn't poverty... I've seen poverty, this isn't it.
You want to see poverty? Try some of the third world countries I've been to... It makes "poverty" here in the USA look like a walk in the park..
I've also seen some of the poorest people in the USA too, it's just not as bad here. Take a trip on the back roads in and around the poor parts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and surrounding areas. There are some seriously poor (for the USA) people living there.
I don't consider having to spend 30% of your income on housing to be poor, especially when someone is making more than $100K/year.
But they want that CA lifestyle I guess.
What is this CA lifestyle thing? Got to love living in poverty making $100+K/year. But hey, the sunset ocean view from the refrigerator box is stunning every evening it's not raining and the neighborhood isn't on fire...
BUT Kaspersky is NOT suing for liable, so this whole line of reasoning you are engaged in is moot, legally speaking.
Then they need to sue for liable or slander, not for some cooked up constitutional charge. If Kaspersky was suing the government for lying about their product what you say might make sense, but as it stands, your legal theory isn't what Kaspersky is using.
So you agree that the US government isn't the only one saying Kaspersky is risky to use, independently others have made the same claims, yet Kaspersky hasn't taken legal action on those other claims. The US government hasn't moved to prevent Kaspersky from doing commercial business within the USA or even advised citizens to not use their products as other countries have. So, What's this lawsuit about at this point?
The government isn't preventing you from buying as many copies of Kaspersky software as you like. They are free to hawk their wares in the USA all they like. The only thing the government has said is that the GOVERNMENT won't buy any more copies. Now both the Executive branch and Congress have the same policy... But they are not keeping Kaspersky from doing business here, only saying the government won't buy their stuff anymore.
How's that require proof of anything? They are not telling you that YOU cannot buy Kaspersky's stuff, only that the government isn't going to.
I beg to differ.. News reporting clearly indicates that more than just the US Government is reporting that this product has been used in the past for nefarious purposes... This action by the US Government then is perfectly understandable.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/antivirus-firm-kaspersky-lab-ruled-by-russian-spies-2ghtw38ql
It's not a law or even a regulation... It's an Executive Branch policy based on security recommendations that they won't allow any government agency buy this product any more.
Betting is one thing, knowing and thinking totally different...
Do you think we bust out the sanctions trying to get China and the Russians to use our stuff in their government controlled hardware and software?
I don't think so. Maybe you've heard of something?
Not really.
All the government need argue is that they *could* be compromised by their corporate owners at any time and that this represents an undue risk to computer system security. Given that's a logical possibility argument, the burden of proof rests on Kaspersky to prove their product cannot be so modified.
Given the code base is controlled by Russian interests, I think Kaspersky has a hard uphill climb on this one.
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...
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?
The people dying are not dying from the flu. It is actually sepsis that is causing the high numbers of deaths this year.
No, they are dying from illnesses which are CAUSED by the Flu... Sepsis which is caused by the flu it's NOT the flu, so if it kills you it wasn't the flu, but sepsis. But hey, it's a distinction without a difference if you ask me. If they had avoided the flu in the first place, they'd not be dead today.
By the way.. Sepsis IS a known issue and we know how to treat it. The issue is that you have to start treatments in time, which means you have to recognize that you are more ill than just having the flu and get medical help, before it's too late. Apparently people are getting sicker faster this year and some waited too long.
I don't understand why flu vaccines are promoted widely, but no mention is ever made of wearing surgical masks.
The masks work both ways, but a vaccinated person with the flu will still spread the flu.
Sure, but chances are the vaccinated person will be contagious for a much shorter time.
The issue with masks is a cultural one. People look at you like you have the plague or something if you go around in public wearing one, I know because I've done this to avoid infecting others or catching stuff from others. You get some strange looks like "Am I going to get cancer from you or something?"
Maybe some PSA's from the CDC that push vaccines, hygiene and masks to combat the flu are in order? I'm sure some catchy jingle would go miles here. Yea, I'm dreaming, I know.
And if you get Guillain-Barré from the flu vaccine, you will endure that misery for the rest of your life.
You do realize that the chances of the vaccine causing this are reported to be literally 1 in a million people maybe more right? It seems to me that more than 1 in a million are dying from the flu this year. So even if the vaccine is marginally effective, it seems like the lessor of the risks to take the vaccine to me.
Do what you want, but I'll follow the CDC's recommendations on this question...
That's how this vaccine thing rolls with the Flu strains mutating out there. You take your best guess at the point it's time to start making vaccine which is months before the flu season actually starts and take your chances. If the viruses mutate too much or you guess wrong, the vaccine isn't as effective as it could be.
But, in most cases the vaccine *does* help, even if it misses a bit, by sensitizing your immune system to a virus that is pretty close, which gets the full immune response started sooner and working harder because it already sensitized to the virus you end up getting. This ends up making the symptoms less intense and they go away faster.
My personal story is that I've been getting the seasonal flu vaccine for at least the last 5 years. My immune compromised wife had it bad and was down for two weeks so I was very much exposed. I'm not sure if I actually had it or not because although I had a couple of days I felt kind of rough, I didn't ever have anything that made me think I was sick.
Personal stories don't mean anything really, but my advice is the CDC's advice, get the vaccine, every year, unless you are otherwise in the small group that shouldn't take the vaccine.
He is... Well, he's leasing them to Oil producers...
But "Exclusive economic waters" and "Territorial waters" are defined differantly.
The USA owns their parts of this, the Russians and others have theirs. Seems to me the government *could* sell it's interests in the ISS to a private company unless the current agreements prevent it.
Assuming it's possible in the agreements, How the other owners would react, however, is an open question. Anybody know what the agreements that created the ISS say about such ideas?
$75 Billion OBO No lowballs I know what I have
What? Big hands? PLEASE.....
LOL.. I'm not so sure that SCO thing worked out well, in the end.... But you have a point.
That's why you got criminal charges and a sentence... If you are going to do this and hope to get away with it, at least don't profit from it... You make yourself a huge target when you make a profit doing this kind of thing so you will be first on the list.
This guy made how much from ad revenue? $83K
LOL.. Way to let that partisan bias show... No sense in trying to hide it I guess, this is Slashdot after all...
Donald Trump could spill classified information to the Russians in a meeting and OH WAIT
You do understand that Trump can legally do that because all classified information is classified on authority delegated by president. He literally has the ultimate say here. So, the President can declassify anything at any time for any reason and had said information to anyone, legally. All classified information is kept under Executive Order 13526 which was enacted by Obama in 2009.
Now you may not think it's a good idea to disclose specific information, but the President has the legal authority to discuss classified information with anyone he chooses.
ECO's.... The bread and butter of arms makers.
Oh? You want the toilets to flush? Well why didn't you say so before in your specifications? We can make that happen for only the small price of $$$$, sign here.
Oh? What? You want the ship to turn right AND left? Again, I'm sorry, but that's not part of the original specification. We can make that happen though, just cough up some more cash and sign here... And, just to make sure, you don't want it to turn both ways at the same time right? Well, we need some $$ to make sure that last ECO covers one way at a time turning...