Re: Interesting legal theory
> NSA made AV vendors an offer they couldn't refuse. Kaspersky refused.
Really? Where does it say that?
From the TFA:
The Moscow-based developer claimed the US Department of Homeland Security acted illegally when, back in September, the department publicly told federal agencies they could no longer use any Kaspersky products on their machines.
Kaspersky argued that the order, known as binding operational directive 17-01, is unconstitutional, and relied on "subjective, non-technical public sources" that amounted to little more than rumors.
"Furthermore, DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] has failed to provide the company adequate due process to rebut the unsubstantiated allegations underlying the directive, and has not provided any evidence of wrongdoing by the company," Kaspersky Lab said in announcing its appeal against the order on Monday.
I see no mention of NSA in Kaspersky's complaint, or about NSA making Kaspersky an offer they can't refuse. It's not even NSA that's being sued by Kaspersky, it's DHS.
Kaspersky claims that DHS's order is unconstitutional.
Which Article or Amendment of the US Constitution grants protection against removal to software?
Did you even read Kaspersky's complaint?
Installing and/or running Kaspersky AV on any US Government computer is now illegal under the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act.
Care to explain how DHS's order of removal is illegal, when in fact it's statutory?