Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

> I find it interesting that this ex-NSA operative casually explains her job was probing China computer systems and then assessing what data can be stolen from China

Yes, that's literally what a signals intelligence service is about.

> But then publicly the USA point fingers at Huawei or Chinese government from doing the same.

Uh, yeah, countries have always done espionage and punished espionage committed against them, and, particularly, vilified entities that are overtly something other than an intelligence service that are caught acting as an agent of hostile intelligence services.

> If the NSA is doing it, why wouldn't any Middle East country be able to hack other citizens/companies/governments?

They are clearly able to do it.

View on HN

I think a clear difference is the US generally does not spy with the purpose of giving US corporations insider secrets to enable US corps to copy directly their foreign competitors.

Uh, they totally did. To French companies, to Brazilian companies, and passed it on for advantage in negotiations and contract bidding:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-bra... https://sputniknews.com/politics/201506301024010800/

Nothing in either article you linked says anything about passing information to US companies.

Those are bad examples they gave, but the point is still valid.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/29/wikileaks_docs_show...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-snowden-germany/...

neither of these suggest they passed information to US companies

The U.S. used to do this historically to European companies for sure, mostly in the 18/19th centuries[1]. Now it doesn't need to do it anymore, so it's on a high horse, because another country it's in a position the US was 200 years ago?

1 - https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too

loling at the steady retreat to "it happened 200 years ago"

This is standard Chinese apologia, "The US et. al. did it literally 200 years ago so it's fine that China does it now".

I can't wait to see this line of thinking applied to ethnic cleansing.

Or you know, the game theory is different when you're already the dominant power. There when you use intelligence apparatus for economic espionage, you tend to use it to keep other nations down rather than giving it to your companies.

The US did it 200 years ago because it needed to do so, in order to kick start its own industry. China is in exactly the same situation now, so why should they have it any harder? Japan did it in the 80s etc. It's a cycle countries on path to developed each go through

P.S. Are you seriously comparing ethnic cleansing to IP theft?

many americans found it profitable to own slaves 200 years ago, that doesn't mean chinese people should

Again, you are comparing owning slaves to IP theft? Not everything that was done 200 years ago is automatically somehow more immoral today than it was then. IP theft would be one of these things.

i'm using your reasoning to reach an obviously false conclusion, in order to demonstrate that your reasoning is faulty and ill-considered. i am arguing about principles, and you are arguing special pleading.

No, you're arguing as if every single act one can perform is the same, morally speaking. You're reaching 'an obviously false conclusion', because you start with a reasoning that I don't hold. I don't think every action is morally equivalent, yet that's the premise you use in order to attack my argument.

I read both of your links, and neither one offers any support for your claim.

It is true though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/820758.stm

I can't find a link for it but during Clinton's presidency in the 90s he setup a government office to disseminate NSA collected economic intelligence to private US businesses.

Edit: here's another example. https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/15/world/emerging-role-for-t...

Neither of those links says that US intelligence agencies passed information to US companies, either.

The first link says that US intelligence exposed bribes made by European companies. That seems good. The second link says that US intelligence gave US government trade negotiators useful info on foreign government negotiators. Seems valid.

> Neither of those links says that US intelligence agencies passed information to US companies, either.

From the first link: "But a report published by the European Parliament in February alleges that Echelon twice helped US companies gain a commercial advantage over European firms."

Echelon = US intelligence.

Some other quotes that support my comments.

"two alleged instances of US snooping in the 1990s, which he says followed the newly-elected Clinton administration's policy of "aggressive advocacy" for US firms bidding for foreign contracts."

Go and read Secret Power. After the conclusion of the cold war and before the war on terror US intelligence didn't have incredibly clear deliverables and the US had just come off a recession. Supporting the US in the global marketplace did become a priority for both the CIA and NSA, driven by Clinton.

And yes, exposing bribes is good. But exposing bribes for personal profit? That's more debatable.

It does, if you read it properly, but even assuming it doesn't for a second, the U.S. used to do this historically to European companies for sure, mostly in the 18/19th centuries[1]. Now it doesn't need to do it anymore, but China does because it is in the same position the US was 200 years ago, doing vert similar things and you somehow feel morally superior?

1 - https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too

Read “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” sometime.

I don't buy that for a second.

Why wouldn't they do that?

An honest question: if a foreign country had sufficient evidence that U.S. intelligence services committed signals espionage against them / stole state secrets / stole IP, then would U.S. media (mainstream or alternative) be allowed to report on the incident? Would U.S. media report on incident even if they are allowed?

The US media reported on Snowden extensively, so: probably?

Yes. The media could report on that.The U.S. reports on all sorts of things that the elite or intelligence services would rather not have revealed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=belgacom+hacking

True, it was GCHQ not NSA, but it's similar enough.

" be allowed to report on the incident?"

Yes.

Other nations would be reporting it generally, so it'd be absurd to suppress public information.

Now, it might be 'spun' in the national interest, in a time of war or something like that.

But if the US Government stile IP from Didi, handed it over to Apple execs, then blocked Didi from doing business in the US thus giving Apple a monopoly there ... it would be news.

The US gov. plays geopolitical games, and maybe does some political interference 'for business' - but is not stealing trade secrets to hand over to arbitrary US businesses.

I think the US would steal the plans for a new 'jet engine' or weapon system however.

Also consider that for really valuable stuff, the US pays a lot of money in the private sector. US companies pay top dollar for 'top talent' which is a lot easier than stealing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com