4 ms·

I feel like the first person in security who used the term 'nation-state' read it somewhere but didn't know what it meant and now it's meaningless.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 5y ago
It's a joke. Nation-State Adversary... get it?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Not sure that adds up as a theory - they don't use that phrase, the US isn't a nation-state, and Vault 7 wasn't the NSA anyway was it?
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    It's an old joke.
jcrawfordor 5y ago
From my experience in the industry my guess is that the term originated in the US to resolve the ambiguity of the term "state" here. "State actor" is really what's meant, but to many US listeners would not necessarily imply a "top level" sovereign. Yes, that probably came out of a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "nation-state," but I think the number of people who know the correct definition of the term is really pretty small.
perl4ever 5y ago
I feel like I see people being pedantic about "nation-state" and how the US isn't one quite frequently in the last few years and while it's not something that can be proven in an airtight manner, it's bordering on some sort of political statement to insist. It seems that the UK, Israel, and Pakistan are considered nation-states. Is the US more like them, or more like the Ottoman Empire? Saying that the US is obviously not a nation-state, seems like denying that there is an American identity the way that there is an Israeli one.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  The UK is a typical example of something that isn’t a nation-state - it explicitly has ‘the nations’ within it. The US also formally recognises multiple nations within it such as the Navajo Nation. But for example a country like Japan doesn’t formally recognise nations within it (as far as I know?) and is a typical example of a nation-state.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    My point is just that rampant pedantry implies anyone who isn't one of the "ignorant masses" agrees on the consensus classification method. In reality, there is no consensus, as you prove here by confidently categorizing countries differently from others. “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!”
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      It's like saying '2013 blue Ford Fusion' and then when someone points out it's actually a green Dodge complaining that they're being pedantic. Why be so bizarrely overly specific? Would have been less work to be more generic.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  Pedantically, the word "nation" in nation-state refers to a specific grouping of people. One which has a single shared history, ethnicity, culture, etc. The US is multicultural with citizens from a diverse range of ethnic backgrounds, so under that definition it doesn't qualify
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    That's ridiculous, all Western countries are multicultural these days. Kansas is likely more white than Paris.
    - seoaeu 5y ago
odiroot 5y ago
It's a diplomatic way to say rogue/hostile state. An attempt to make the statement less political.
helsinkiandrew 5y ago
In this context doesn't it mean "have one or more organisations that are scoped with gaining this kind of access for military, economic, or prestige both online and in the physical world, and have almost unlimited resources". Nothing to do with national identity or how the people in that nation feel about their country, government, each other or themselves.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

whatshisface 5y ago

It's a joke. Nation-State Adversary... get it?

chrisseaton 5y ago
Not sure that adds up as a theory - they don't use that phrase, the US isn't a nation-state, and Vault 7 wasn't the NSA anyway was it?
- whatshisface 5y ago
  It's an old joke.

jcrawfordor 5y ago

From my experience in the industry my guess is that the term originated in the US to resolve the ambiguity of the term "state" here. "State actor" is really what's meant, but to many US listeners would not necessarily imply a "top level" sovereign. Yes, that probably came out of a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "nation-state," but I think the number of people who know the correct definition of the term is really pretty small.

perl4ever 5y ago

I feel like I see people being pedantic about "nation-state" and how the US isn't one quite frequently in the last few years and while it's not something that can be proven in an airtight manner, it's bordering on some sort of political statement to insist. It seems that the UK, Israel, and Pakistan are considered nation-states. Is the US more like them, or more like the Ottoman Empire? Saying that the US is obviously not a nation-state, seems like denying that there is an American identity the way that there is an Israeli one.

chrisseaton 5y ago
The UK is a typical example of something that isn’t a nation-state - it explicitly has ‘the nations’ within it. The US also formally recognises multiple nations within it such as the Navajo Nation. But for example a country like Japan doesn’t formally recognise nations within it (as far as I know?) and is a typical example of a nation-state.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  My point is just that rampant pedantry implies anyone who isn't one of the "ignorant masses" agrees on the consensus classification method. In reality, there is no consensus, as you prove here by confidently categorizing countries differently from others. “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!”
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    It's like saying '2013 blue Ford Fusion' and then when someone points out it's actually a green Dodge complaining that they're being pedantic. Why be so bizarrely overly specific? Would have been less work to be more generic.
seoaeu 5y ago
Pedantically, the word "nation" in nation-state refers to a specific grouping of people. One which has a single shared history, ethnicity, culture, etc. The US is multicultural with citizens from a diverse range of ethnic backgrounds, so under that definition it doesn't qualify
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  That's ridiculous, all Western countries are multicultural these days. Kansas is likely more white than Paris.
  - seoaeu 5y ago

odiroot 5y ago

It's a diplomatic way to say rogue/hostile state. An attempt to make the statement less political.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago

In this context doesn't it mean "have one or more organisations that are scoped with gaining this kind of access for military, economic, or prestige both online and in the physical world, and have almost unlimited resources". Nothing to do with national identity or how the people in that nation feel about their country, government, each other or themselves.