The problem with this kind of Mad Libs argument is that it falsely implies the substitutions are equivalent when they're not. Also your quote shears away the context of the original statement that made it meaningful.
I still have a serious and (since Russia-started a war in Ukraine) permanent problem with him - as pointed elsewhere [1] he went through KGB school - voluntarily, he was actually active KGB intelligence just like Putin. At those places, your objective morals go down the drain very fast and for good. And obviously both are still very close, he approves overall totalitarian direction of Russia and often spoke against 'too much freedom' in the west and on internet.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140423055434/http://www.wired....
Of course there is, but as this thread is trying to point out, that "little truth" is completely insufficient when assessing risk. The degree to which a particular government can interfere with companies headquartered there matters. The legal culture in those countries matter. The ability to contest and redress this interference matters. An estimate of the worst that can happen to an individual who resists this interference matters.
I'm a US citizen living in the US, so I'm certainly biased, but I do believe my data (and my person, and if I ran a company, my company too) is much safer being in the US than in Russia.
It's certain that all major world powers engage in various forms of cyber warfare. It's completely expected that countries (and companies within them) that are allied will (most of the time) not expose other allies for cyber attacks and malware distribution. It's also completely expected that antagonistic countries (and their companies) will do so.
Back to the point of this article: of course Kaspersky is a US national security threat, precisely because it (as a Russian entity) will try to expose the US government's cyber warfare capabilities. Whether or not Kaspersky is a threat to the cybersecurity of individuals in the West isn't the issue here. (I would expect they probably are, to some extent, though!)
You talk about assessing risk, but we know from the Snowden leaks that the risk in this matter in the US approaches 100% as the size of your company increase. What degree of risk is higher than 100%?
Press. Political competition. Courts. Broadly, the rule of law.
Nobody is perfect at any of these. But if the FSB wants a code change in Kaspersky, they're getting that code change. There is no independent press to report it. No opposition incentivized to call them out on it. No court in which they could lose.
> Press. Political competition. Courts. Broadly, the rule of law.
Exactly. Mad-libs "arguments" typically boil down to an invitation to ignore salient differences (which the structure cannot call attention to), make a superficial comparison, and finally arrive at a false equivalency.
The US is not some monolithic entity. It's almost weirdly schizophrenic. Yes, the government will e.g. use some super-shaky legal arguments to justify torture ahem "enhanced interrogation", but on the other hand Freedom of Information Act requests still get processed. Yes, the NSA will spy on US citizens, but even they feel the need to come up with some legalistic / procedural cover.
Even as the US's checks and balances are tested, and structural inequalities are examined, there is a broad and deep tradition of fighting the government and not going to jail like Navalny.
The traditions and norms of a country's populace, and its institutions really really matter, especially when their institutions are being tested.
Corruption is everywhere, but this is too simplistic a pattern-match.
EDIT> Knight-Ridder did some fantastic and courageous investigative journalism debunking the US casus belli in the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. It didn't stop the invasion, but they were recognized later. Can we imagine that happening in Russia?
I agree with you.
> Knight-Ridder did some fantastic and courageous investigative journalism debunking the US casus belli in the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. It didn't stop the invasion, but they were recognized later. Can we imagine that happening in Russia?
Thanks I’ll check it out
This type of thing is something I wish people would recognize more. In Russia right now, the simple act of participating in a peaceful protest against the war in Ukraine could easily land you in jail. While the US government has at times had a sketchy anti-protest track record, can we really imagine the US federal government attempting to pass a law today that makes it a jail-able offense to speak out against a US military action? (Hint: the answer is, unequivocally, no.)
It's even worse than that: merely calling a war a war can land you in jail:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/crisis-in-ukraine-to-russia-it-...:
> Russia insists that it is not at “war” in Ukraine, instead referring to its violent campaign as a “special military operation.” Under a harsh new law, Russians now face up to 15 years in prison if they spread “fake” reports and call the conflict what it is: a “war” and “invasion.”
Guess the 98% Federal conviction rate isn’t accounted for when talking about the deep tradition of citizens fighting the government.
Personal opinion, all governments are corrupt, including the US
All governments are corrupt, but is it remotely plausible they are equally corrupt? Are they not comparable?
Also, as an American Citizen, who has more power to put me the individual in a cage, the FSB or NSA?
I dont believe the NSA, CIA or even the FBI really have any actual legal limits.