6 ms·

You don't understand espionage. You don't incentivize a country to not spy; you make it hard as hell for them to steal your secrets. And, who cares about incent

by akadien 15y ago

You don't understand espionage. You don't incentivize a country to not spy; you make it hard as hell for them to steal your secrets. And, who cares about incentivizing China? We should continue to find ways to make it harder for China to rip off our technology. This is a brilliant move against an outwardly adversarial country and I hope it continues.

ugh 15y ago
I somehow fail to see the difference between incentivizing a country not to spy and making it “hard as hell” to spy. Isn’t that the same? I’m also, like the grandparent, a bit unsure how this is an appropriate measure. Are scientific collaborations used for espionage? If they are not or seldom used for espionage, how does a ban on collaboration result in less espionage? Which benefits of collaboration does the US relinquish?
- Helianthus 15y ago
  >Isn’t that the same? No. You can't incentivize a country not to spy because that implies some control, some carrot. Making it "hard as hell" is treating the contest with the adversarial framework it deserves, taking for granted that the opponent will or could attack. >Which benefits of collaboration does the US relinquish? The honest answer is, none, some, or all of them; and it doesn't matter. Being a political action it is just as much a political statement. China openly gets away with espionage (and openly gets away with putting enough spin on its public statements to make a new neutron star.) Congress is openly saying it doesn't like that. Not to mention that your string of questions is dependent on the if statements resolving 'correctly.' Honestly I'd be very surprised if scientific collaborations weren't used for espionage.
  - ugh 15y ago
    I'm not sure how incentives and your fabled "adversarial framework" are incompatible. I'm also not sure why you think that incentives have to be carrots. Good detection rates and harsh punishments successfully create an incentive against murder without any carrots in sight. No matter, we're gonna make tons of money by working together with the Chinese, have fun with your protectionism, USA.
    - danssig 15y ago
      Exactly. I think this move is great... for the rest of the world.
danssig 15y ago
Very bizarre statement. If your super fancy technology that Chinese just aren't smart enough to come up with on their own (xenophobia much?) needs to scale you're going to be sending it to China for manufacturing anyway. The sooner we get rid of this cave man "us vs. them" mentality the better.
- briandear 15y ago
  It isn't that they aren't "smart" enough -- it's that there is no culture of innovation. The best and brightest are running tech startups -- they work for the military and police apparatus. Come to China, find some "innovations." The last Chinese invention of any significance was gunpowder. Have a look a Baidu, Maxthon and the warehouses full of copycat iPads. Look at their cars, military machinery -- most of their military equipment is Soviet retreads or reverse-engineered US stuff. The Chinese are dangerous because there is no end to their industrial and scientific aggression. When a US company wants to do business in China, they are forced to take Chinese "partners." The US side of the office does the work and the Chinese side simply copies and sends the information onward. There is no such thing as a trade secret for a foreign company in China. The culture is entrepreneurial, but it isn't one of invention, it's one of doing something someone else has done and doing it cheaper and at a lower quality. Come to China -- you'll see. There are some good things in China, but they are the exception that proves the rule.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - danssig 15y ago
    >Have a look a Baidu, Maxthon and the warehouses full of copycat iPads. Innovation is insanely hard. It rarely happened at all for thousands of years. It seems to me that the Chinese are being efficient here. Rather than waste time trying to out-Apple Apple they copy known-good solutions. What do we lose by them doing this? Are we upset that China has a bunch of money and we think it should belong to us? >When a US company wants to do business in China, they are forced to take Chinese "partners." Lots of places have similar protectionism [1]. [1] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ncn-acWtEIoJ:www.ironlife.com/mag/issue24/upcoseandpersonalwithensoninouepart2.shtml+Enson+Inoue+stories&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ch&client=opera&source=www.google.ch http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ncn-acW... Search for: "The reason why I asked this, is because foreigners are not allowed to legally own businesses here in Japan. More often than not, they will have a Japanese national listed as the owner or President of their company."

by akadien 15y ago

ugh 15y ago

I somehow fail to see the difference between incentivizing a country not to spy and making it “hard as hell” to spy. Isn’t that the same? I’m also, like the grandparent, a bit unsure how this is an appropriate measure. Are scientific collaborations used for espionage? If they are not or seldom used for espionage, how does a ban on collaboration result in less espionage? Which benefits of collaboration does the US relinquish?

Helianthus 15y ago
>Isn’t that the same? No. You can't incentivize a country not to spy because that implies some control, some carrot. Making it "hard as hell" is treating the contest with the adversarial framework it deserves, taking for granted that the opponent will or could attack. >Which benefits of collaboration does the US relinquish? The honest answer is, none, some, or all of them; and it doesn't matter. Being a political action it is just as much a political statement. China openly gets away with espionage (and openly gets away with putting enough spin on its public statements to make a new neutron star.) Congress is openly saying it doesn't like that. Not to mention that your string of questions is dependent on the if statements resolving 'correctly.' Honestly I'd be very surprised if scientific collaborations weren't used for espionage.
- ugh 15y ago
  I'm not sure how incentives and your fabled "adversarial framework" are incompatible. I'm also not sure why you think that incentives have to be carrots. Good detection rates and harsh punishments successfully create an incentive against murder without any carrots in sight. No matter, we're gonna make tons of money by working together with the Chinese, have fun with your protectionism, USA.
  - danssig 15y ago
    Exactly. I think this move is great... for the rest of the world.

danssig 15y ago

Very bizarre statement. If your super fancy technology that Chinese just aren't smart enough to come up with on their own (xenophobia much?) needs to scale you're going to be sending it to China for manufacturing anyway. The sooner we get rid of this cave man "us vs. them" mentality the better.

briandear 15y ago
It isn't that they aren't "smart" enough -- it's that there is no culture of innovation. The best and brightest are running tech startups -- they work for the military and police apparatus. Come to China, find some "innovations." The last Chinese invention of any significance was gunpowder. Have a look a Baidu, Maxthon and the warehouses full of copycat iPads. Look at their cars, military machinery -- most of their military equipment is Soviet retreads or reverse-engineered US stuff. The Chinese are dangerous because there is no end to their industrial and scientific aggression. When a US company wants to do business in China, they are forced to take Chinese "partners." The US side of the office does the work and the Chinese side simply copies and sends the information onward. There is no such thing as a trade secret for a foreign company in China. The culture is entrepreneurial, but it isn't one of invention, it's one of doing something someone else has done and doing it cheaper and at a lower quality. Come to China -- you'll see. There are some good things in China, but they are the exception that proves the rule.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- danssig 15y ago
  >Have a look a Baidu, Maxthon and the warehouses full of copycat iPads. Innovation is insanely hard. It rarely happened at all for thousands of years. It seems to me that the Chinese are being efficient here. Rather than waste time trying to out-Apple Apple they copy known-good solutions. What do we lose by them doing this? Are we upset that China has a bunch of money and we think it should belong to us? >When a US company wants to do business in China, they are forced to take Chinese "partners." Lots of places have similar protectionism [1]. [1] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ncn-acWtEIoJ:www.ironlife.com/mag/issue24/upcoseandpersonalwithensoninouepart2.shtml+Enson+Inoue+stories&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ch&client=opera&source=www.google.ch http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ncn-acW... Search for: "The reason why I asked this, is because foreigners are not allowed to legally own businesses here in Japan. More often than not, they will have a Japanese national listed as the owner or President of their company."