4 ms·

Well, not just corporate espionage, right? State espionage is going to be at every large US company too. To speak to the article, I can only imagine how excited

Well, not just corporate espionage, right? State espionage is going to be at every large US company too. To speak to the article, I can only imagine how excited an agency would be to get real-time updates on the Uber movements of a target.

ipython 3y ago
Two things. First, this isn't the same thing; you're talking about embedding a resource in a company to read out real time telemetry from internal systems (information with a short shelf life), not stealing industrial trade secrets (information with a very long shelf life). Second, I can assure you that, even with our imperfect systems, there is actually a set of checks and balances in place to prevent rampant (note I said rampant) abuse of this kind. Yes, agencies would be very excited for this sort of capability. Do they get it as a matter of course that easily? No. There are layers of accountability, legal authorities, and (warranted) push back from commercial entities.
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  The last bit strikes me as dubious, considering the Snowden revelations. Yeah, sure, I'd guess that what China does is at least an order of magnitude worse, and sure, because they're less democratic, but also because they are much often behind - and let's not kid ourselves, in the situations the US feels it's behind, it's also using the widespread backdoors they have access to (Crypto AG, Cisco routers, Juniper Networks, Windows, Intel&Ryzen CPUs...)
nextaccountic 3y ago
> State espionage is going to be at every large US company too. Snowden revealed, among other things, that the NSA did state espionage on Brazil's state oil company, Petrobras https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/world/americas/nsa-spied-on-brazilian-oil-company-report-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/world/americas/nsa-spied-... 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://g1.globo.com/fantastico/noticia/2013/09/nsa-documents-show-united-states-spied-brazilian-oil-giant.html https://g1.globo.com/fantastico/noticia/2013/09/nsa-document... International relations are based on reciprocity. I sincerely think that if the US didn't think that industrial espionage would be a legitimate activity of intelligence agencies, they wouldn't practice it themselves.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  A crucial difference is the US spying is for state use, whereas in China the state is deeply intermixed with industry. State industrial espionage is used for commercial competitive advantage. This is a huge structural and cultural difference. For instance it’s hard to believe China bootstrapped BYD and GWM among others from green fields. They’ve been exfiltrating and transferring automotive technology for decades. Their products are often near duplicates of other brands - such as the fiat case: https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/spot-the-difference-case-hits-great-wall-15993 https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/spot-the-difference-ca... These aren’t cheap knock offs, they have a relatively high quality and with stolen R&D it’s easy to produce at a low cost - the cost can’t be explained by labor alone, as automakers outside China have access to similarly low cost labor. Note, I don’t think China is incapable of making their own R&D at the same quality as anywhere else; they can. But they don’t when they don’t have to. The next few decades will see a huge realignment as the decades of theft and forced transfer will begin to seriously pay off.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    “When governments permit counterfeiting or copying of American products, it is stealing our future, and it is no longer free trade.” - US President Donald Trump, commenting on China. Actually, the above quote is not Trump and not on China. It's Ronald Raegan on Japan in 1985. When a new economic threat rises, the US will use the same playbook- demonizing in media, accusations, turn the public against said country, ban products, increase tariffs from said country, turn to allies, etc.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      Except China has required technology transfer and has been actively committing state sponsored industrial espionage for decades. Surely this isn’t news? I’m down with China as a competitor, but we have a strong division between state and industry and China does not. I don’t think a unipolar world is a good idea, and I’m glad for a resurgent China. But it’s absurd to put on blinders and believe forced technology transfer and industrial espionage isn’t a cornerstone of their success. https://www.investopedia.com/forced-technology-transfer-ftt-4687680 https://www.investopedia.com/forced-technology-transfer-ftt-... https://www.csis.org/programs/strategic-technologies-program/archives/survey-chinese-espionage-united-states-2000 https://www.csis.org/programs/strategic-technologies-program... At several megacorps seeking access to Chinese markets we were forced to transfer crucial trade secrets in exchange for access. We did our best to render it as useless as possible, but it was still very key stuff. Over two decades the Chinese government erected barrier after barrier even after complying to the point that the market access failed and competitors based on our technology dominated the domestic Chinese economy. I see your parallel comments where you vigorously decry these statements as some sort of nationalism and anti Chinese sentiment. This isn’t that - this is simple historical fact, and I have had first hand experience with it and know the game being played from personal experience. I assumed this was all common knowledge given how much press it’s gotten over the last twenty years, which makes me wonder why you’re grinding this contrarian axe so hard? Edit: I would note that this is fundamentally different from counterfeiting. This is capturing R&D directly at the top end of technology and processes through extortion and outright theft. I don’t actually blame China or Chinese people, it’s just a cultural difference in what’s acceptable and a belief that the state and industry are separate, which China doesn’t agree with. But the lesson to be learned is China doesn’t play by our rules, and we need to adapt to the situation better.

ipython 3y ago

Two things. First, this isn't the same thing; you're talking about embedding a resource in a company to read out real time telemetry from internal systems (information with a short shelf life), not stealing industrial trade secrets (information with a very long shelf life). Second, I can assure you that, even with our imperfect systems, there is actually a set of checks and balances in place to prevent rampant (note I said rampant) abuse of this kind. Yes, agencies would be very excited for this sort of capability. Do they get it as a matter of course that easily? No. There are layers of accountability, legal authorities, and (warranted) push back from commercial entities.

BlueTemplar 3y ago
The last bit strikes me as dubious, considering the Snowden revelations. Yeah, sure, I'd guess that what China does is at least an order of magnitude worse, and sure, because they're less democratic, but also because they are much often behind - and let's not kid ourselves, in the situations the US feels it's behind, it's also using the widespread backdoors they have access to (Crypto AG, Cisco routers, Juniper Networks, Windows, Intel&Ryzen CPUs...)

nextaccountic 3y ago

> State espionage is going to be at every large US company too. Snowden revealed, among other things, that the NSA did state espionage on Brazil's state oil company, Petrobras https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/world/americas/nsa-spied-on-brazilian-oil-company-report-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/world/americas/nsa-spied-... 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://g1.globo.com/fantastico/noticia/2013/09/nsa-documents-show-united-states-spied-brazilian-oil-giant.html https://g1.globo.com/fantastico/noticia/2013/09/nsa-document... International relations are based on reciprocity. I sincerely think that if the US didn't think that industrial espionage would be a legitimate activity of intelligence agencies, they wouldn't practice it themselves.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
A crucial difference is the US spying is for state use, whereas in China the state is deeply intermixed with industry. State industrial espionage is used for commercial competitive advantage. This is a huge structural and cultural difference. For instance it’s hard to believe China bootstrapped BYD and GWM among others from green fields. They’ve been exfiltrating and transferring automotive technology for decades. Their products are often near duplicates of other brands - such as the fiat case: https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/spot-the-difference-case-hits-great-wall-15993 https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/spot-the-difference-ca... These aren’t cheap knock offs, they have a relatively high quality and with stolen R&D it’s easy to produce at a low cost - the cost can’t be explained by labor alone, as automakers outside China have access to similarly low cost labor. Note, I don’t think China is incapable of making their own R&D at the same quality as anywhere else; they can. But they don’t when they don’t have to. The next few decades will see a huge realignment as the decades of theft and forced transfer will begin to seriously pay off.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  “When governments permit counterfeiting or copying of American products, it is stealing our future, and it is no longer free trade.” - US President Donald Trump, commenting on China. Actually, the above quote is not Trump and not on China. It's Ronald Raegan on Japan in 1985. When a new economic threat rises, the US will use the same playbook- demonizing in media, accusations, turn the public against said country, ban products, increase tariffs from said country, turn to allies, etc.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Except China has required technology transfer and has been actively committing state sponsored industrial espionage for decades. Surely this isn’t news? I’m down with China as a competitor, but we have a strong division between state and industry and China does not. I don’t think a unipolar world is a good idea, and I’m glad for a resurgent China. But it’s absurd to put on blinders and believe forced technology transfer and industrial espionage isn’t a cornerstone of their success. https://www.investopedia.com/forced-technology-transfer-ftt-4687680 https://www.investopedia.com/forced-technology-transfer-ftt-... https://www.csis.org/programs/strategic-technologies-program/archives/survey-chinese-espionage-united-states-2000 https://www.csis.org/programs/strategic-technologies-program... At several megacorps seeking access to Chinese markets we were forced to transfer crucial trade secrets in exchange for access. We did our best to render it as useless as possible, but it was still very key stuff. Over two decades the Chinese government erected barrier after barrier even after complying to the point that the market access failed and competitors based on our technology dominated the domestic Chinese economy. I see your parallel comments where you vigorously decry these statements as some sort of nationalism and anti Chinese sentiment. This isn’t that - this is simple historical fact, and I have had first hand experience with it and know the game being played from personal experience. I assumed this was all common knowledge given how much press it’s gotten over the last twenty years, which makes me wonder why you’re grinding this contrarian axe so hard? Edit: I would note that this is fundamentally different from counterfeiting. This is capturing R&D directly at the top end of technology and processes through extortion and outright theft. I don’t actually blame China or Chinese people, it’s just a cultural difference in what’s acceptable and a belief that the state and industry are separate, which China doesn’t agree with. But the lesson to be learned is China doesn’t play by our rules, and we need to adapt to the situation better.