7 ms·

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

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

rndmize 8y ago
Nothing in either article you linked says anything about passing information to US companies.
- monocasa 8y ago
  Those are bad examples they gave, but the point is still valid. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/29/wikileaks_docs_show_nsa_vs_france/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/29/wikileaks_docs_show... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-snowden-germany/snowden-says-nsa-engages-in-industrial-espionage-tv-idUSBREA0P0DE20140126 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-snowden-germany/...
  - nyolfen 8y ago
    neither of these suggest they passed information to US companies
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      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 https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too
      - nyolfen 8y ago
        loling at the steady retreat to "it happened 200 years ago"
        some_random 8y 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.
        monocasa 8y ago
        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.
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        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?
        nyolfen 8y ago
        many americans found it profitable to own slaves 200 years ago, that doesn't mean chinese people should
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        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.
greeneggs 8y ago
I read both of your links, and neither one offers any support for your claim.
- plugger 8y ago
  It is true though. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/820758.stm 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-the-cia-economic-spy.html https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/15/world/emerging-role-for-t...
  - greeneggs 8y ago
    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.
    - plugger 8y ago
      > 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.
    - 8y ago

rndmize 8y ago

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

monocasa 8y ago
Those are bad examples they gave, but the point is still valid. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/29/wikileaks_docs_show_nsa_vs_france/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/29/wikileaks_docs_show... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-snowden-germany/snowden-says-nsa-engages-in-industrial-espionage-tv-idUSBREA0P0DE20140126 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-snowden-germany/...
- nyolfen 8y ago
  neither of these suggest they passed information to US companies
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    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 https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too
    - nyolfen 8y ago
      loling at the steady retreat to "it happened 200 years ago"
      - some_random 8y 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.
        monocasa 8y ago
        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.
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        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?
        nyolfen 8y ago
        many americans found it profitable to own slaves 200 years ago, that doesn't mean chinese people should
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        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.

greeneggs 8y ago

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

plugger 8y ago
It is true though. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/820758.stm 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-the-cia-economic-spy.html https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/15/world/emerging-role-for-t...
- greeneggs 8y ago
  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.
  - plugger 8y ago
    > 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.
  - 8y ago