* Posts by trisul

4 posts • joined 10 Jul 2017

Kaspersky repeats offer: America can see my source code


Offering to show the source is actually a sign of a scam. The source need not be identical to the actual build, and antivirus software updates daily, which means that it could be a clean platform with the abilitz to go cyberwarfare on demand.

This makes sense as Putin is already waging war on us, and Kaspersky could be one of their intended "cyber carriers". Kaspersky is too close to Putin, too compromised to be acceptable. You need a vendor that is visibly above reproach, someone who would have no interest in working with the Putin war machine. Kaspersky is not such a company.

I believe they should be purged from all government agencies in the West, as well a important civilian infrastructure. They are just too risky.


Uncle Sam says 'nyet' to Kaspersky amid fresh claims of Russian ties


Re: Seriously? Someone has ties?

With Putin actively waging cyberwar against the US and the West, this is an understandable move. I expect more to follow. You can be certain that security companies working for the Pentagon are not welcome e.g. in Iran.

Kaspersky needs to be purged throughout the West from government, as well as civilian infrastructure which are targets of Putin's cyberwar efforts.


I think Kaspersky needs to be purged from all government agencies and civilian infrastructure, such as electricity, water, communications, transport etc. All of these are targets from the Russian cyberwar efforts and Kaspersky is just to high a risk to contemplate.

AV software is the best possible agent to carry a cyberwar payload, and there is no way to check this by looking at the current code.


Your roadmap to the Google vs Oracle Java wars


Is API just code.

The article skirts the issue, which is whether APIs need to be available to everyone by saying that APIs are copyrightable, so they are the same as the rest of the code. Legally, this may be so, but as tech people we cannot accept this argument.

The whole basis for copyright law hinges on the constitutional requirement that it must "promote the progress of science and useful arts". It is clear to technology people that open APIs promote progress of science and useful arts much better than having APIs treated as the rest of the implementation. APIs are created for the sole purpose of isolating the copyrighted implementation from the open outside environment, they just cannot be considered the same.

The problem is that copyright law is antiquated, not only does it fail to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", it is actually used to prevent the progress of science and useful arts, and is thus essentially unconstitutional. However, vested interests and technological ignorance by judges has prevented the concept of copyrights and patents to be correctly applied to the software industry. By "correctly", I mean in such a way that they "promote the progress of science and useful arts" instead of achieving the opposite effect.



Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017