Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by rndmize | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

rndmize

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

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com