Yes, that's how the world operates, countries spy on each other and keep that behind curtains. That's how it has always worked and there are some unspoken rules to this game.
This is ridiculous. The whole world uses US software that provides full access to US three letter agencies, but now it is a big issue that Kaspersky happens to be a Russian company.
The only proof I have seen is talk about a security vulnerability discovered by Israeli intelligence in Kaspersky, which they reported to the US government. There is absolutely no proof of it being intentionally put there. Considering that Kaspersky does provide their source code to US based agencies, it is not very likely they would place anything intentionally and risking loosing their business. It doesn't make sense.
For common people in the US, it is probably safer to use Kaspersky rather than any US based software. Though it won't stop the three letter agencies from spying on you - they can do this through your OS, your smartphone, your TV set, through your ISP or your email provider... Kaspersky won't help you much.
Yes, all those friends they are really worried about the Russians getting into their Facebook profiles, exfiltrating their comments and rigging their likes. They are obsessively sorting through their friends lists, trying to figure out who is using Kaspersky.
How about this - there was a security flaw in Kaspersky software. The Israely exploited it, then kept it for themselves and also gave it to the US. Then the Russians also found it and started exploiting it. How does that proove any collusion between Kaspersky and the Russian government ?
Then even if there is collusion - there is really nothing shocking. You see, the entire world uses backdoored US operating systems. Let the Russians have their own little backdoors in their own little applications. Not quite the same scale as the US, not that shocking either.
This is how most countries do it - in Europe at least. You have a personnal Id card, which serves the purpose of physically identifying you. You want a bank account - you go personnaly to the bank, then show your nationnal Id card, which has your photo, birth date, name, etc. They verify it's not fake, then you can open an account and you eventually get separate bank credentials (for phone or online banking). That's just one example, but everything works on the same principle. Some EU governments have unified authentification, usually based on a digital certificate or at least some kind of OTP. To get it you have to be identified physically in person and it is usually valid for accessing all government based services and sometimes even for other purposes (ie. banking authentification). However, that's not really an issue when strong authentication is used, as there is no easy feasible way to leak all identities, as in the case of SSN numbers.
I've never really understood why the social security number is used for almost anything in the US. There is no inherent security behind an SSN and it was not meant to be used for authentication, it is just a number after all - it provides less security than an alphanumeric password.
I understand that in the past there was resistance against having a nationnal Id system in the US - for privacy reasons, but nowdays this doesn't really make sense, as people are identified and tracked by thousands of other means.
If an ad runs on your computer without authorization - it uses your computer's resources too. Is that somehow different just because ads waste less resources than mining ? What about a mining script that uses less ressources than the standard video ad - would they still be crooks ?
While I don't agree with anyone running code on a user's station without authorization, there isn't much difference between this and a common ad. Both should be illegal if you ask me. But if those guys are crooks - then what would Google Adwords be ?
Can't you read ? The judgement was about uncompetitive behaviour in 2009 - at that time Intel was pretty much dominant in the server and desktop markets.
The situation may have changed since but that doesn't make them any less liable for what they did in 2009. Imagine a thief that did a bank robery in 2009 and since then he is an honorable person, working hard and contributing to society. He is still liable for what he did in the past, even if his behaviour changed (and Intel hasn't really changed their behavior - the market has changed towards mobile).
At my meaning the information is the root of democracy. You can't have democracy without information. And more information from different viewpoints you have - better opinion you can build.
The size of information is not important, right - especially if that information is from the same point of view.
Traditionnal media, give you one point of view. Normally, it's the view of your country or organization or whatever it is. There aren't many
journalists over there, that will present you information in an objective way. Bad, but it's the trouth.
The Internet gives you the oportunity to see the information from a lot of different angles. It is the only media that will give you this opportunity.You can have 1000 TV channels, you will never see so many opinions as you can using the Internet.
So, as I said, if you give people the possibility to look at one event from different sides, you give
them the possibility to make a better choice.
Democracy is to choose... But in a choice there are two sides - and you can't choose if you have one point of view.
All this to say that, more information you have, better democracy you build...
Sorry for the long, repeating comment - my english is bad...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's how the world operates, countries spy on each other and keep that behind curtains. That's how it has always worked and there are some unspoken rules to this game.
No civilian assassinations, are you kidding ? I guess that what happens when you start deciding who is civilian by yourself. Duh.
Yes, poor victim USA, always attacked, never attacking first.
This. You hit the nail. What comes after Trump will be much worse.
This is ridiculous. The whole world uses US software that provides full access to US three letter agencies, but now it is a big issue that Kaspersky happens to be a Russian company.
The only proof I have seen is talk about a security vulnerability discovered by Israeli intelligence in Kaspersky, which they reported to the US government. There is absolutely no proof of it being intentionally put there. Considering that Kaspersky does provide their source code to US based agencies, it is not very likely they would place anything intentionally and risking loosing their business. It doesn't make sense.
For common people in the US, it is probably safer to use Kaspersky rather than any US based software. Though it won't stop the three letter agencies from spying on you - they can do this through your OS, your smartphone, your TV set, through your ISP or your email provider ... Kaspersky won't help you much.
Yes, but can you plan a trip to Mars ?
It was Jimbob farting.
Yes, all those friends they are really worried about the Russians getting into their Facebook profiles, exfiltrating their comments and rigging their likes. They are obsessively sorting through their friends lists, trying to figure out who is using Kaspersky.
May I suggest switching to MS-DOS or any other not-connected OS ?
You still may get viruses, but you can fend those safely with an AV without worrying about the backdoors being used for data exfiltration.
How about this - there was a security flaw in Kaspersky software. The Israely exploited it, then kept it for themselves and also gave it to the US. Then the Russians also found it and started exploiting it. How does that proove any collusion between Kaspersky and the Russian government ?
Then even if there is collusion - there is really nothing shocking. You see, the entire world uses backdoored US operating systems. Let the Russians have their own little backdoors in their own little applications. Not quite the same scale as the US, not that shocking either.
This is how most countries do it - in Europe at least. You have a personnal Id card, which serves the purpose of physically identifying you. You want a bank account - you go personnaly to the bank, then show your nationnal Id card, which has your photo, birth date, name, etc. They verify it's not fake, then you can open an account and you eventually get separate bank credentials (for phone or online banking). That's just one example, but everything works on the same principle. Some EU governments have unified authentification, usually based on a digital certificate or at least some kind of OTP. To get it you have to be identified physically in person and it is usually valid for accessing all government based services and sometimes even for other purposes (ie. banking authentification). However, that's not really an issue when strong authentication is used, as there is no easy feasible way to leak all identities, as in the case of SSN numbers.
I've never really understood why the social security number is used for almost anything in the US. There is no inherent security behind an SSN and it was not meant to be used for authentication, it is just a number after all - it provides less security than an alphanumeric password.
I understand that in the past there was resistance against having a nationnal Id system in the US - for privacy reasons, but nowdays this doesn't really make sense, as people are identified and tracked by thousands of other means.
If an ad runs on your computer without authorization - it uses your computer's resources too. Is that somehow different just because ads waste less resources than mining ? What about a mining script that uses less ressources than the standard video ad - would they still be crooks ?
While I don't agree with anyone running code on a user's station without authorization, there isn't much difference between this and a common ad. Both should be illegal if you ask me. But if those guys are crooks - then what would Google Adwords be ?
I think you pay the Ryzen, then you have free heating and you don't pay for electricity.
If both heating and electricity is free - what's the point for the company to install them in YOUR house ?
Can't you read ? The judgement was about uncompetitive behaviour in 2009 - at that time Intel was pretty much dominant in the server and desktop markets.
The situation may have changed since but that doesn't make them any less liable for what they did in 2009. Imagine a thief that did a bank robery in 2009 and since then he is an honorable person, working hard and contributing to society. He is still liable for what he did in the past, even if his behaviour changed (and Intel hasn't really changed their behavior - the market has changed towards mobile).
No it's CADA
Why shoult you supervise them ? Why not leave them make their own meaning about what they see ?
How could you say that one information is true, when you can't compare it to other's meaning ?
You can't ! There is no universal truth - everyone
makes its own trouth, and you can't make your own,
if you have information from one source.
At my meaning the information is the root of democracy. You can't have democracy without information. And more information from different viewpoints you have - better opinion you can build.
... But in a choice there are two sides - and you can't choose if you have one point of view.
The size of information is not important, right - especially if that information is from the same point of view.
Traditionnal media, give you one point of view. Normally, it's the view of your country or organization or whatever it is. There aren't many
journalists over there, that will present you information in an objective way. Bad, but it's the trouth.
The Internet gives you the oportunity to see the information from a lot of different angles. It is the only media that will give you this opportunity.You can have 1000 TV channels, you will never see so many opinions as you can using the Internet.
So, as I said, if you give people the possibility to look at one event from different sides, you give
them the possibility to make a better choice.
Democracy is to choose
All this to say that, more information you have, better democracy you build...
Sorry for the long, repeating comment - my english is bad...