We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Security companies cannot be trusted due to national affiliations so…

As the world is ever more wired together, so too are the threats. So if Russian security companies like Kaspersky cannot be trusted when it comes to Russian state spying, and US companies like CrowdStrike and FireEye cannot be trusted when it comes to US state spying, seems to me that companies based in places like Finland, Switzerland or India might actually be able to parley that into a meaningful competitive advantage.

I anticipated something along those lines for quite some time myself.

8 comments to Security companies cannot be trusted due to national affiliations so…

  • Mr Ed

    I pay for a Norwegian email from Runbox.com it has served me well, my US free mail is now almost wholly spam, with a bit of legacy email.

  • Paul Marks

    An interesting idea.

    “Swiss Security Inc” – if you have a problem we will kill them, no political bias involved.

    I believe both the Swiss and the south Germans had an industry in this centuries before the computer age.

    And computer systems need defending – firearms and so on are still needed (even if they are the results of 3D plastic printing).

    My own fantasy would be for vast business enterprises with bases on other planets – and lots of nukes.

    “What is this “space-treaty” and “taxation” of which you speak?”.

    I wonder how the “libertarian left” would react to this form of “anarchism”.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Let them eat cake made of rocks, moss, iron, stonecrop, and merds.

  • Eric

    So if Russian security companies like Kaspersky cannot be trusted when it comes to Russian state spying, and US companies like CrowdStrike and FireEye cannot be trusted when it comes to US state spying, seems to me that companies based in places like Finland, Switzerland or India might actually be able to parley that into a meaningful competitive advantage.

    You may be unreasonably optimistic thinking companies in these countries are any better, particularly in light of the recent revelations from New Zealand.

  • You may be unreasonably optimistic thinking companies in these countries are any better

    No not at all, nowhere is entirely free from state interference but in places where Russia, China and (particularly) the US does not have pervasive influence (the US is pretty influential with the security establishment in NZ it seems), they at least have to jump through a few hoops to get what they want. And I did choose Finland, Switzerland and India as examples for very good reasons. In terms of willingness to tell the US to go rotate, India is probably the best, but as far as I know there are no comparable Indian companies yet (but do correct me if I am mistaken).

  • Anthony Ratliffe

    That’s why I dropped Kaspersky and went with Eset.

    Tony.

  • I am not convinced a GCHQ UK based company is not even worse than a Russian, Chinese or US based one, Tony 😉

  • Jason

    Eugene Kaspersky is surprisingly open about the identity of his former mentor and employer.