I don’t understand, were they supplying the technology directly to Russia for this purpose? Or are they guilty just by creating networking technology that in the wrong hands can be used for bad things?

especially when the company can see where that technology is operating and has the ability to restrict or disable it.

Right, so if this is actually true, a lot of us are completely compromised, don’t actually own our networking stacks, and it sets the precedent that all users of Ubiquiti products (and maybe even networking products in general) should have their traffic and device usage spied on.

This reads to me like a Ubiquiti ad that you might read from The Onion. Honestly, the vast majority of the complaint has nothing to do with Ubiquiti. The only part I’d be interested in is this:

It also alleges the company could have disrupted the pipeline and disabled devices used by Russia — including through geofencing, terminating distributors tied to sanctions-evasion routes, and building a remote-disable safety feature into airMAX firmware — but failed to do so.

In specific, only the part I bolded.

If they knowingly sold to distributors tied to sanctions-evasion routes, then that’s the only part of this that would actually be Ubiquiti doing something potentially bad, in my opinion.

Since I’ve been somewhat interested in getting security cameras, I’ve been looking at Ubiquiti as an option. If they built remote-disable malware into their hardware, I’d cross them off the list.