• @mansfield@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    591 year ago

    Kaspersky is just one piece of software to avoid. Others include:

    • Telegram
    • Avast AV
    • Anything from 360 Safe / Qihoo 360
    • Opera browser … now owned by above
    • Zoom
    • FileZilla / UTorrent / other PUA that bundles adware and acts essentially as a trojan
    • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure how that’s relevant. People should be free to use whatever they want. I’m not interested in Russian software, but that doesn’t mean banning it is okay. The same goes for Chinese software like TikTok (not touching that), Iranian software, or North Korean software, if that’s even a thing. I don’t care if literal Nazis made the software, people should be free to use what they want.

      The only areas the government should get involved are:

      • government owned devices
      • public advisories
      • prosecution of crimes where the software is involved

      The software I choose to use is not the government’s business. If I violate a law, charge me with a crime, but don’t preemptively ban stuff.

      • @Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        What if said software is being used to manipulate national interests from a civilian level and its owned by an adverserial nation?

        • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          That’s one of the costs of liberty. The government will need to find another way.

          The barrier to banning something in the interests of national security must be much higher than “this could be used by our enemies.” That’s the entire basis for the War on a Terror, the Patriot Act, and the NSA spying on Americans, and I won’t stand for it. It’s also the same idea as banning books, that’s just not how a free society works.

          You combat misinformation through integrity and transparency, not bans.

          • @RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            That’s one of the costs of liberty. The government will need to find another way.

            No, that’s not liberty. If the average user would have any way of detecting when software is doing nefarious thighs, then sure, you’d be right, but the average user can’t possibly know that software is misbehaving just like they couldn’t have possibly known that asbestos or lead was bad for them. Software is opaque. As long as it remains opaque, consumers are unsuspecting victims and need help.

            • @Kedly@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Side tangent, but your oopsie of Nefarious Things to “Nefarious Thighs” fucking FLOORED me xD Wish I could detect nefarious thighs!

            • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              average user can’t possibly know

              Hence the information campaign to make people aware.

              Look at cigarettes, they are harmful and therefore have a strong information campaign to inform the public. I highly doubt you’ll find anyone today who isn’t aware of the dangers of smoking, but just 100 years ago, it was considered classy and largely innocuous. The difference was a big information campaign to counter the tobacco lobby’s attempts to spin smoking as somehow healthy.

              The government’s role should be to make opaque things transparent, not to bad things that could be harmful. At the same time, they can spy on other countries to get an idea of what types of control they can exert, which would help them better inform the public.

              But at the end of the day, it’s up to the individual what they choose to believe. Liberty is having the freedom to make poor choices, and to live with the consequences. The government’s role should be to earn our trust, but they violate it at every opportunity in the name of “security” (NSA, TSA, etc). Yes, a lot of people will ignore it, and that’s a part of having liberty.

              • @RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                4
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Hence the information campaign to make people aware.

                There are still those who think the lunar landing didn’t happen so this is not a valid option for something that might pose an immediate danger to society.

                But at the end of the day, it’s up to the individual what they choose to believe. Liberty is having the freedom to make poor choices, and to live with the consequences.

                Government backed malicious software is not just dangerous to the user, it’s a societal level threat. And unlike smoking, which is banned wherever it poses a danger to more than just the smoker, there isn’t a way to restrict usage in a way in which it only affects the user.

                • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  immediate danger to society

                  But what exactly is the definition of that?

                  For example, which of these meet that definition:

                  • an antivirus that ignores viruses from the county of origin
                  • a social media app that collects data from a device and sends it home
                  • a social media app that likely promotes content with a specific political agenda the government doesn’t like
                  • an app that hides monetary transaction details, which is commonly used by terrorists and other criminals
                  • a social media app that doesn’t id users and allows criminals to use it to communicate

                  The first two are probably the initial targets, but a law enforcement agency could make a decent case for the rest. Where does it stop?

                  That’s why I think we need a hard limit on government authority here. It’s better for some bad stuff to propagate than for the scope of what’s blocked to expand and effectively limit freedoms of speech, association, press, etc.

                  Government have a lot of tools at their disposal, I honestly don’t think banning software needs to be one of them.

              • kingthrillgore
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                The cost of liberty and freedom is eternal vigilance from those who want to harm us, and those who claim to protect us.

        • @ATDA@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 year ago

          You do just as you did. Tell people and let them make up their minds. Posts like yours convinced me in the past and it will others in the future .

      • Kata1yst
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        You found one video supporting your viewpoint. Kaspersky’s role in Russian intelligence has been an open secret since the mid 2010s. This is Facebook Anti-Vaxxer “research” methodology.

        • @Atlaty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The guy ho made the video works as data analyst, plus Kaspersky works perfectly as antivirus. Can you gave me evidence supporting your claim?

      • kingthrillgore
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Kaspersky was actually good a long time ago, but there was a shakeup and the FSB started to get more involved in their operations somehow. Its not safe now, is what i’m saying.

  • @mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    FBI on its way to arrest me because I used MPC-BE to play dolby digital content without a license for the ac3 codec like 10 years ago lol

    • @spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      They can pry MPC-BE from my warm cheeze curl stained hands! I’ve been using it to play 4K BluRays on an HTPC, and to decode all these new proprietary surround sound codecs so I don’t need to buy a new expensive ass AVR.

    • kingthrillgore
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      American software is created by some dude in Nebraska maintaining libg++ at no financial gain to him.