5 ms·
Tons of former NSA persons work in the US private sector,especially within infosec.
by badrabbit 7y ago
Tons of former NSA persons work in the US private sector,especially within infosec.
- filoleg 7y agoThe keyword here is “former”. In the Huawei scenario, a lot of them seem to be active intelligence officials, not former ones.
- mrtksn 7y agoHow do we know that "former" is not just on paperwork? When I hear the arguments against China and their tech companies, I don't have a problem believing them, however I do not expect anything less from the USA. Remember Snowden? I'm simply assuming that Facebook, Google, Apple, Cisco or any other US tech company are tapped by the US 3 letter agencies. There were some reveleations on that(PRISMA) but it's probably just tip of the iceberg. And now the Chinese. So what?
- darawk 7y agoI think the big difference is that US companies can meaningfully resist the US government if they choose to, and they often do. Chinese companies cannot.
- qaq 7y ago"meaningfully resist" are there many examples of that? I remember Qwest CEO meaningfully resisting did not work out too well.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mrtksn 7y ago>US companies can meaningfully resist the US government That doesn't seem to be the case but the narrative. There were enough leaks, document dumps, and whistleblower revelations to dismiss this narrative. Sure, for the US having competition is a problem but sometimes the US citizen should zoom out on Maps and Google some labels they see. Literally, most of the people do not live in the USA and you can confirm that by Googling labels in the maps, things like "France", "Germany", "Turkey", "Azerbaican", "China", "Japan". You will notice that these are lands that are somewhat similar to the USA but are not the USA but using the stuff made or operated in the USA. For people looking from that part of the world, the "Chinese are spying on us" panic is met with "Oh really, that's so bad. Poor thing" level of simphaty.
- KeAShizuku 7y agoThe difference is America good China bad. And thats fine if you're a US citizen swallowing the propaganda. I don't think anti Chinese sentiment is going to make the world better. China exists and its not going to disappear.
- tempguy9999 7y ago> I don't think anti Chinese sentiment [...] I don't see any. The 'anti-' prefix is about human rights, possible issues of IP theft and various immoral activities etc. It's the behaviour, emphatically not the country. > China exists and its not going to disappear Good. It would be a genuine loss to all humanity's heritage if it did.
- geofft 7y agoThe way that Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio so meaningfully resisted the government that he was convicted of insider trading for telling people his company would be successful when it actually relied on a government contract that was pulled in retaliation, which he couldn't use as a defense in court because of national security concerns? For which he served four years in prison, and Qwest no longer exists? That sort of meaningfully resist? The message to me from that case is clear—if the US government tells you to jump, you answer, how high.
- _dczq 7y agoYou had to go back 12 years for your example. I think that speaks pretty loudly to the differences between countries.
- iihttfeer 7y agoRight now there are companies that want to sell to Hussein, but a single executive directive can stop that.
- geofft 7y agoCorrect, it's been twelve years. Nacchio was the most recent person stupid enough to say no to the US government. They made an example of him. In recent years, US telecom CEOs know they should quietly say yes, and not put up a fight.
- the-dude 7y agoHmmm, didn't Apple through Tim Cook resist the US government regarding the unlocking of iPhone's?
- dodndkf 7y agoNo, this is totally different. There is no reason to believe that the NSA doesn’t have the ability to access iPhones [0]. Either through explicit help from Apple or otherwise. Tim Cook’s stance was within the fiction of constitutional order. The FBI wanted to pretend that they couldn’t access the phone and bully Apple to give them access. This is to: 1. Legitimize their own access 2. Be able to, more easily, use the courts to punish someone (instead of droning a foreigner) That last one is important. The DEA is known to use (unconstitutional) parallel construction to prosecute drug smugglers. If they have legitimate access to your phone, it’s easier to pretend that they obtained their evidence legitimately. Tim Cook also has an interest in maintaining the aura that iPhones protect your safety. There’s no reason for you to believe that w/out having the source. [0] or do you believe that no one working on the iPhone has secrets that the NSA can’t leverage? Or that the richest security service can’t manufacture custom chips as needed to clone the devices SSD? Or hasn’t capped the chips in the iPhone already? Or run it through the most through fuzzer?
- fit2rule 7y ago>US companies can meaningfully resist the US government This ideation is moot if there are members of the US government on staff, committed to 'finishing the patriotic mission' of their spook-agency masters.
- cf498 7y agoThe US has a national security letters. There is no meaningfully resisting. You do what they say and cant tell anyone about it.
- throwaway8879 7y agoSo what? Well, we get to choose which side we allow to spy on us. I mean, I suppose we could make an argument for all people being equal in all equal ways, but don't forget that the each state actor is driven by different sets of morality, politics and even philosophy, or perhaps lack of it. The only conclusion we can derive is that this whole surveillance/spying thing will never stop, everyone does it and will continue to do it. It would be wise to assume that everything is bugged, everything has backdoors, and every hardware vendor has been compromised.
- mrtksn 7y agoWhat if the "We" is 95% of the world that is not the USA? It's cute that US citizens have some spying issues and some targeted election interference issues but the sympathy is very limited because in many parts of the world they were dealing with this since ever and the USA was the culprit. I think we are approaching a time in history where we are going to actually choose if we are human resources that are to be spied on and controlled by the political class or are we individuals. Choosing the government or agency you are being spied on is a false choice because it assumes that you made the choice to be a human resource and you are to be exploited but you can pick your masters by fighting against your master's competitors. The moral argument is unconvincing given what's happening in the USA with all those immigrant camps and political agenda.
- throwaway8879 7y agoI'm from one of the poorest countries on the planet, which is neither politically aligned with the US nor the Chinese, because it isn't geopolitically important enough. Though to be entirely honest, it's aligned with whoever throws money at it. I'm wary of the economic moves the Chinese are making in my part of the world, because they come attached with fat strings, which most people are willing to ignore for said economic benefits. Nations aren't single discrete entities, so everything from individuals to collectives of all sizes within a nation will want to align with the US or the Chinese, depending on money, politics, ideologies, etc. I personally would much rather have the NSA read my emails, not the Chinese. It may be an unfair choice, but it is a choice. > I think we are approaching a time in history where we are going to actually choose if we are human resources that are to be spied on and controlled by the political class or are we individuals. I don't think you are right about this bit. The oppressor/oppressed duality is never going away, because it isn't determined by some kind of social realisation that we could do better as a species. It is determined by our biology and our drive to acquire resources. That kind of change won't happen until our biology changes.
- cglace 7y agoYou are kidding right? You can’t see any problem embedding Chinese spy equipment throughout the country?
- mrtksn 7y agoPlease go to Google maps, zoom out and google some label that you see. Stuff like “France”, “Turkey”, “Poland”. The results will surprise you.
- cglace 7y agoAh, cool. However, you’re example seems a bit Eurocentric. Not to mention that the parent, as well as the rest of the thread, was talking about how this compares to the USA. So I have no clue how bringing Turkey into the discussion would make much sense.
- mrtksn 7y agoWhy does it need to be US-centric? The exercise that I suggested is intended as a way to give you a perspective. Beleive it or not, not everyone lives in the USA and not everyone is US citizen and not everyone is obligated to put aside their own needs and act for the US interests. This issue is relevant to non-US persons and countries because the USA is actively trying to prevent Huawei from doing business in these countries. The US-centric views are so prominent on the HN that sometimes I wonder if ever anyone at the silicon valley intended to "Make the World a better place". How can you make the world a better place if you cannot recognise that a world beyond the USA exists? It's even in your statistic! Turkey or Sweden is not simply some data points, they are real countries, allies of the USA, with their own interests. The Europeans are often accused of being anti-American but maybe that is not the case, maybe it's just that Europeans every once in a while need to protect their own interests and that is perceived as treason.
- cglace 7y agoThanks again for letting me know the world includes other countries. Even when you again only include European countries as your examples. Your perspective is clearly Eurocentric. Mine is US-centric. Believe it or not I’m sure Chinese people’s views are China-centric. In other news water is wet. There is no reason to be so smug in explaining obvious things and assuming complete ignorance on my part.
- mytailorisrich 7y agoDo they? The part of the article before the paywall suggests former intelligence employees, not current ones. In any case this is obviously fuzzy, but frankly this is not transparent either in the West.
- AmericanChopper 7y agoIn the context of national security, the keyword is actually “NSA”. Having US intel working in US infrastructure is not a threat to national security, having Chinese intel working in US infrastructure is.
- pinkfoot 7y agoUntil the NSA is captured by a faction of the USA hostile to its values. Then it won't be so much fun. You're almost there.
- AmericanChopper 7y agoRegardless of how hostile you think the NSA is towards the rights of the US people, it’s still not a national security problem. For that to be a national security problem, the NSA would have to be hostile towards the objectives of the US government. In addition to that, if you think the US government is more hostile towards its citizenry than the Chinese government is, well... Also, if you’re relying on infrastructure that the government controls for your security, then the intentions of the NSA aren’t really your biggest problem.
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y agoIn the OP it's only one of them.
- StreamBright 7y agoIzrael's startup ecosystem heavily relies on ex-military intelligence officers, they have an entire pipeline for hiring them into startups. https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardbehar/2016/05/11/inside-israels-secret-startup-machine/#3b0b80461a51 https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardbehar/2016/05/11/inside-...
- Theodores 7y agoEveryone in Israel has to do military service so you would be hard pushed to create a company selling pea shooters that did not have ex-military in it. As for 'military intelligence' that is a large part of what the military actually is, so you would expect them to graduate into tech roles rather than making pea shooters or anything else 'harmless'.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoAccording to Wikipedia everyone in China has compulsory military service, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army Makes the revelation that "some people working at Huawei have links to Chinese military" just so shocking. Trump's totally right we should all buy USA tech and not use Huawei for 5G. /s When's the list for other countries being published?
- PakG1 7y agoIf you're going to write that, then also post https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_China because most Chinese people don't seem to serve in the military. It's not like South Korea where young men famously dread the time they have to go to the military.
- unicornfinder 7y agoIndeed. I was doing some research a while back on which countries do and don't have conscription and it's a surprisingly hard line to draw. A lot of countries have it in name, but don't in practice, and the line between having and not having conscription is surprisingly blurry.
- rasz 7y agoDid someone just said Battelle Memorial Institute?
- LoSboccacc 7y agofiled under "whataboutism"
- geofft 7y agoThe thing about whataboutism is that it was correct. It was only a logical fallacy in the eyes of US jingoists who didn't want to admit that, actually, the US had tons of human rights violations and the US vs. USSR conflict was not a conflict of good vs. evil. When both A and B do a thing X, there are two potential logically sound conclusions: either that X is bad and both A and B are in the wrong, or that it's not and neither is. It is unsound to say that A doing X is a problem but B doing X is merely a rhetorical accusation that requires no response.
- bildung 7y agoYes, it's a pity most people don't understand this. The idea actually is a valid concept in justice, but only within the realms you posted: If person A does something illegal and then tries to justify the behaviour X with "But everyone does this!", then this is not a valid argument, because either X is illegal or not. Whataboutism as invented by the economist, though, is just rhetoric nonsense. The USSR was perfectly right in highlighting the human rights atrocities of the US in response to accusations of the US against them. That doesn't make the accusations go away, but it correctly exposes the bigotry.
- LoSboccacc 7y agoyes, but it doesn't excuse the behavior at hand, doesn't further the discussion and it's sad to see whataboutism in both the fist and second most relevant comment in the discussion (at the time of the posting). "but the usa does it" is neither a justification, nor a validation, nor an exculpation. it's just finger pointing and throwing poo at each other in the hope that people, instead of condemning both, concedes the point, leveraging outrage fatigue. there's a reason why it's considered a propaganda tool, after all.
- dang 7y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive comments here, and please don't make lazy canned arguments. That breaks the site guidelines against shallow dismissals and name-calling. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20338307 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20338307 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html