5 ms·

So, am I misreading this, or is the risk, attributed to an anonymous source, entirely theoretical, based on what the companies "might" do, since the government

So, am I misreading this, or is the risk, attributed to an anonymous source, entirely theoretical, based on what the companies "might" do, since the government "might" call on them to do it?

ozfive 5y ago
Something else was found and they aren't saying.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  I don't buy it. I think if they had something they wouldn't run with a piece this vague and noncommittal. There's no meat here.
  - toss1 5y ago
    When critical information is found, intelligence agencies often do NOT want to expose it, at least to the extent that the release could reveal HOW they found it, and thus alert the adversary to the leak path so they shut it off. This is just bog-standard operating procedure. Just because they aren't telling us, does NOT mean we can therefore infer that nothing more exists.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      Here is my guess: as you probably know, how much engagement to have with China is a hot-button topic in Taiwanese politics. If you were the type who thought less, why not call up a friendly reporter on background and get him to write up an ominous report on what China could, thereotically, do, based on absolutely nothing. The alternative of "let's just assume spies have something they don't wish to disclose, except they kind of do and want to put it in the papers" strikes me as a bit too trusting but I can't tell you what to think.
      - TooSmugToFail 5y ago
        This is not just Taiwan. US has all but banned Chinese drones for most govt-related flight ops. Japan has banned Chinese drones. In Europe, internal risk-assessment memos are circulating advising security agencies to avoid using Chinese drones. You’re missing a massive part of the context here. This particular article may be missing factual evidence to support some of the voiced concerns, but it’s hardly a singular shout in an ocean of silence. It strongly resonates with a rather diverse chorus of voices coming from multiple independent sources. So yeah, it’s a thing.
        emodendroket 5y ago
        Yes, I am well aware that there is an internationally-coordinated "decoupling" campaign from China, which is precisely why I view this story as politically motivated and intentionally misleading. In fact, dubious stories like this are essential to the operation -- you have to give some sort of public cover to get people onboard. There's a reason spies so much time "leaking" stuff to the press.
    - ozfive 5y ago
      This is absolutely 100% correct. Perfect explanation for what I was unable to espouse.
smitty1e 5y ago
I think the point is worth foot-stomping that the technology doesn't care. Capabilities and data exist, they will be leveraged however they are leveraged. Legal restrictions are good as far as they are heeded. Legal restrictions usually include some "emergency" exception mechanism. The government merely needs to torture some facts to meet "emergency" criteria, and, behold!, all of those heretofore useful capabilities do the unexpected. One can call this an "entirely theoretical risk", but, given recent abuses, others might call it an inevitability.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  Then autarky is the only answer, because it's hardly a problem unique to China. Companies pretty much everywhere answer to intelligence services' demands, unless they're operating in a country that's a basket case with incredibly weak control.
halpert 5y ago
Have you ever heard of threat analysis? If someone was already doing something, it may be too late. I assume you use a password even though your sensitive accounts may have never been hacked.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  The article and headline are, in my view anyway, designed to confuse the reader into believing that there is some evidence that the drones are doing this.
pphysch 5y ago
Yes. The same claims could be made by any government about any perceived threat actor. It's mostly politics in this case.
TooSmugToFail 5y ago
Risk is, by definition, always theoretical. In assessing risk of the kind we are discussing here, you are literally estimating (guessing) two things: (1) likelihood and (2) severity of an unwanted event. So yes, this risk is also “theoretical.” Now, given the track record of the Chinese government in matters of this type, it is highly likely they will use their legal right and get the information they want/need. As regards severity, this element is individual: what could be the damage if a particular piece of information would leak? The more sensitive information is, the more damaging the leak may be (and more likely it will be wanted/needed). So if we’re talking about Taiwan, then yeah, aerial imaging information is probably quite pertinent to the Chinese government interest, sensitive or not. So I’d say this risk is material. Plus, I have heard plenty of first-hand accounts indicating certain Chinese drone company being very cosy with the Government, enjoying massive subsidies, so likely cooperating without much hand-twisting needed.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  OK, well, we know the US actually does this. And any other country besides China could just as plausibly do it, since I'm not aware of any that gives companies an exemption from complying with the authorities, especially in matters of supposed "national security." So what's actually here besides "I think we should not do business with Chinese people at all because they cannot be trusted in any instance"? Nothing, but it sounds more compelling when it's dressed up as though there's some find to justify the claim.

So, am I misreading this, or is the risk, attributed to an anonymous source, entirely theoretical, based on what the companies "might" do, since the government "might" call on them to do it?

ozfive 5y ago

Something else was found and they aren't saying.

emodendroket 5y ago
I don't buy it. I think if they had something they wouldn't run with a piece this vague and noncommittal. There's no meat here.
- toss1 5y ago
  When critical information is found, intelligence agencies often do NOT want to expose it, at least to the extent that the release could reveal HOW they found it, and thus alert the adversary to the leak path so they shut it off. This is just bog-standard operating procedure. Just because they aren't telling us, does NOT mean we can therefore infer that nothing more exists.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    Here is my guess: as you probably know, how much engagement to have with China is a hot-button topic in Taiwanese politics. If you were the type who thought less, why not call up a friendly reporter on background and get him to write up an ominous report on what China could, thereotically, do, based on absolutely nothing. The alternative of "let's just assume spies have something they don't wish to disclose, except they kind of do and want to put it in the papers" strikes me as a bit too trusting but I can't tell you what to think.
    - TooSmugToFail 5y ago
      This is not just Taiwan. US has all but banned Chinese drones for most govt-related flight ops. Japan has banned Chinese drones. In Europe, internal risk-assessment memos are circulating advising security agencies to avoid using Chinese drones. You’re missing a massive part of the context here. This particular article may be missing factual evidence to support some of the voiced concerns, but it’s hardly a singular shout in an ocean of silence. It strongly resonates with a rather diverse chorus of voices coming from multiple independent sources. So yeah, it’s a thing.
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        Yes, I am well aware that there is an internationally-coordinated "decoupling" campaign from China, which is precisely why I view this story as politically motivated and intentionally misleading. In fact, dubious stories like this are essential to the operation -- you have to give some sort of public cover to get people onboard. There's a reason spies so much time "leaking" stuff to the press.
  - ozfive 5y ago
    This is absolutely 100% correct. Perfect explanation for what I was unable to espouse.

smitty1e 5y ago

I think the point is worth foot-stomping that the technology doesn't care. Capabilities and data exist, they will be leveraged however they are leveraged. Legal restrictions are good as far as they are heeded. Legal restrictions usually include some "emergency" exception mechanism. The government merely needs to torture some facts to meet "emergency" criteria, and, behold!, all of those heretofore useful capabilities do the unexpected. One can call this an "entirely theoretical risk", but, given recent abuses, others might call it an inevitability.

emodendroket 5y ago
Then autarky is the only answer, because it's hardly a problem unique to China. Companies pretty much everywhere answer to intelligence services' demands, unless they're operating in a country that's a basket case with incredibly weak control.

halpert 5y ago

Have you ever heard of threat analysis? If someone was already doing something, it may be too late. I assume you use a password even though your sensitive accounts may have never been hacked.

emodendroket 5y ago
The article and headline are, in my view anyway, designed to confuse the reader into believing that there is some evidence that the drones are doing this.

pphysch 5y ago

Yes. The same claims could be made by any government about any perceived threat actor. It's mostly politics in this case.

TooSmugToFail 5y ago

Risk is, by definition, always theoretical. In assessing risk of the kind we are discussing here, you are literally estimating (guessing) two things: (1) likelihood and (2) severity of an unwanted event. So yes, this risk is also “theoretical.” Now, given the track record of the Chinese government in matters of this type, it is highly likely they will use their legal right and get the information they want/need. As regards severity, this element is individual: what could be the damage if a particular piece of information would leak? The more sensitive information is, the more damaging the leak may be (and more likely it will be wanted/needed). So if we’re talking about Taiwan, then yeah, aerial imaging information is probably quite pertinent to the Chinese government interest, sensitive or not. So I’d say this risk is material. Plus, I have heard plenty of first-hand accounts indicating certain Chinese drone company being very cosy with the Government, enjoying massive subsidies, so likely cooperating without much hand-twisting needed.

emodendroket 5y ago
OK, well, we know the US actually does this. And any other country besides China could just as plausibly do it, since I'm not aware of any that gives companies an exemption from complying with the authorities, especially in matters of supposed "national security." So what's actually here besides "I think we should not do business with Chinese people at all because they cannot be trusted in any instance"? Nothing, but it sounds more compelling when it's dressed up as though there's some find to justify the claim.