5 ms·

I think that the majority of US Citizens are against industrial espionage and think that spending government money and resources to spy on foreign companies to

I think that the majority of US Citizens are against industrial espionage and think that spending government money and resources to spy on foreign companies to benefit select US companies is wrong.

tptacek 13y ago
Why do you think the majority of US citizens are "against industrial espionage"? That's a surprising claim. Can you marshal evidence to support it?
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Rationally, the people should be against a security agency conducting industrial espionage against friendly nations' industries because we have more to lose from loss of credibility - from our tech companies being suspected collaborators - than we have to gain from, say, submitting a lower bid for Brazilian oil. Instead of subverting security, we ought to be securing both personal and commercial communications against all spying.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I understand that there are arguments against industrial espionage. I am wondering what would make anyone believe that the majority of US citizens oppose industrial espionage. Polling on foreign policy issues of much more significance --- for instance, military incursions --- does not lead me to think that most people in the US have your "rationalist" take on this subject.
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      Do they oppose it when it is used against them? For instance when Americans hear: A recent report to the US government, by aerospace and defense company Northrop Grumman, describes Chinese economic espionage as comprising 'the single greatest threat to U.S. technology' Do they simply say "Eh. Who cares?" If they do not like the PRC doing it, why should they like their government doing it? In a general sense I think its a pretty defensible claim to say that the majority of X country's citizens oppose industrial espionage. When you ask specifically if they oppose their own government (as opposed to agents of a company or the idea in general) the waters likely get a lot muddier due to nationalism and other factors.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        This is a silly question. It's like saying, "Do US citizens support their troops? Well, do they support Iranian troops? If they don't support the Iranians, why should they support their own troops?" It's the kind of argument that only makes sense in the airless vacuum of a message board.
        ItendToDisagree 13y ago
        Except that 'supporting the troops' is held to be a positive thing and can be expected of any group toward their own, be them Americans, Martians, Nazis, etc. While 'Industrial Espionage', or Espionage in general, has a negative connotation (in the same way theft has a negative connotation). The analogy you suggest is not strictly similar.
        tptacek 13y ago
        You're moving the goalposts. First, you suggest that US citizens are unlikely to support industrial espionage because they don't support it when China does it to us. Now, you suggest they don't support it because the word "espionage" is scarier than the word "war". Neither argument is strong, but at least be coherent.
        fit2rule 13y ago
        So you're saying that a majority of Americans like to lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top? That they prefer to have this criminal activity done for them, by their government, because after all everyone else does it. Well you're certainly leading this non-American to conclude that your nation deserves, then, exactly what it gets. It ain't so special.
        tptacek 13y ago
        Which country are you from? Maybe it'd be helpful for us to take a close look at how they've conducted themselves in the state of nature, which is where/how countries interact.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      People judge things differently when it is "safety" on the line versus "money". "Of course we need to spy on everything to keep us safe" and "of course we should not be spying just to help some companies make more money" are beliefs easily held in the same brain, and while I don't have polls to point to on the latter point (though I'd be hugely interested to see them!) I expect both are prevalent. I would not venture to guess just how prevelant the position against industrial espionage is, beyond "somewhere in the range of 20% to 70% of the population," however.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        "Of course we should not be spying just to help some companies make more money" is another way of saying "of course we should not use US government power to ensure our continued dominance in the aerospace and telecommunications industries". In any country, I'd expect radically different answers to those questions.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        I would certainly expect a gap between the answers; I'm not confident about the size. The latter glosses over how the power is used, too. Obviously more people would support trade deals than assassinations - presumably espionage falls somewhere between.
- 1457389 13y ago
  The implicit assumption in your question here is that the government is entitled to do whatever it wants except when people can organise to the extent that a formal censure, through voting or other means, can be devised. A state subject to popular veto rather than a popular mandate. This view gives far too much leeway for governmental over-reach, and goes against the spirit of documents like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The State is given a mandate by, for and of the People, and it should execute that mandate without overreach. A system where the government can do whatever they want subject only to rare popular veto (recall votes, impeachments, revolutions) is unstable and undemocratic, given the level of voter disenfranchisement we see today. Before you ask for proof of a popular veto against the NSA's activities, you should first support your assumption that these activities support the popular mandate in any way. I would submit that such a proof is impossible, given the total secrecy of these programs and lack of accountability. If people don't know what the government is doing in their name, even in broad terms (that don't harm operational secrecy), how can the government's actions be justified or permissible?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    No, the implicit assumption in my question is that US-sourced industrial espionage tends, at least at some remove, to benefit US citizens.
    - 1457389 13y ago
      From a constitutional standpoint, that is irrelevant. In a benevolent dictatorship that would be justification enough for any policy,no matter how restrictive or oppressive. If that is in fact the sole assumption you base your views on, there are larger problems in your argument than I anticipated. The real question in what is meant to be a constitutional democracy is whether there is a popular mandate for industrial espionage enabled by mass telecommunications surveillance. If you can't establish a clear connection between the popular will and a government policy then that policy shouldn't exist. As Snowden has stated repeatedly: >The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.
      - 13y ago
- dantheman 13y ago
  I have no good evidence, only anecdotal. In all my discussions with family and friends none have ever come out in support of industrial espionage, and many have come out against it especially when they think of other countries doing it to us. No they may be hypocrites, but in general they understand spying for national security - i.e. understanding military capabilities, troop formations, political shifts, etc and make arguments for some level of support of those activities and understand that other nations would of course want to do that to us.
krapp 13y ago
Even the ones who aren't necessarily against industrial espionage would probably agree the government has no business getting involved in it.
meddlepal 13y ago
I disagree. I think most Americans see stealing from companies IP as a mostly victimless crime... I doubt they are concerned about stealing from a foreign company which they see if interact with little or never; see piracy for a small scale example of this. Not to mention American companies benefit from it and it can have a positive effect on the economy if revolutionary tech is discovered this way.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  But would they have the same viewpoint of Industrial Espionage committed against the USA by a foreign government? The parent mentions it generally (it seems to me) and that it is not something that a government should be part of. The stealing of secrets by one company or another is vastly different than a concerted effort by a government (USA/France/China) to do such things.
  - meddlepal 13y ago
    No I don't think they would be ok with the inverse but that is why this is espionage... It's dirty business. Also I wouldn't assume people have an internally consistent view of these things. It will likely boil down to "it's ok because it might benefit me, but screw the others for trying the same thing"
- betterunix 13y ago
  Most people I have met see copyright infringement as a victimless crime only when it is being done by "little people" and only when there is no profit involved. When a large company is profiting from copyright or patent infringement, people generally think that company is in the wrong and the the artist/author/inventor should be paid.

I think that the majority of US Citizens are against industrial espionage and think that spending government money and resources to spy on foreign companies to benefit select US companies is wrong.

tptacek 13y ago

Why do you think the majority of US citizens are "against industrial espionage"? That's a surprising claim. Can you marshal evidence to support it?

Zigurd 13y ago
Rationally, the people should be against a security agency conducting industrial espionage against friendly nations' industries because we have more to lose from loss of credibility - from our tech companies being suspected collaborators - than we have to gain from, say, submitting a lower bid for Brazilian oil. Instead of subverting security, we ought to be securing both personal and commercial communications against all spying.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I understand that there are arguments against industrial espionage. I am wondering what would make anyone believe that the majority of US citizens oppose industrial espionage. Polling on foreign policy issues of much more significance --- for instance, military incursions --- does not lead me to think that most people in the US have your "rationalist" take on this subject.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    Do they oppose it when it is used against them? For instance when Americans hear: A recent report to the US government, by aerospace and defense company Northrop Grumman, describes Chinese economic espionage as comprising 'the single greatest threat to U.S. technology' Do they simply say "Eh. Who cares?" If they do not like the PRC doing it, why should they like their government doing it? In a general sense I think its a pretty defensible claim to say that the majority of X country's citizens oppose industrial espionage. When you ask specifically if they oppose their own government (as opposed to agents of a company or the idea in general) the waters likely get a lot muddier due to nationalism and other factors.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      This is a silly question. It's like saying, "Do US citizens support their troops? Well, do they support Iranian troops? If they don't support the Iranians, why should they support their own troops?" It's the kind of argument that only makes sense in the airless vacuum of a message board.
      - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
        Except that 'supporting the troops' is held to be a positive thing and can be expected of any group toward their own, be them Americans, Martians, Nazis, etc. While 'Industrial Espionage', or Espionage in general, has a negative connotation (in the same way theft has a negative connotation). The analogy you suggest is not strictly similar.
        tptacek 13y ago
        You're moving the goalposts. First, you suggest that US citizens are unlikely to support industrial espionage because they don't support it when China does it to us. Now, you suggest they don't support it because the word "espionage" is scarier than the word "war". Neither argument is strong, but at least be coherent.
        fit2rule 13y ago
        So you're saying that a majority of Americans like to lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top? That they prefer to have this criminal activity done for them, by their government, because after all everyone else does it. Well you're certainly leading this non-American to conclude that your nation deserves, then, exactly what it gets. It ain't so special.
        tptacek 13y ago
        Which country are you from? Maybe it'd be helpful for us to take a close look at how they've conducted themselves in the state of nature, which is where/how countries interact.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    People judge things differently when it is "safety" on the line versus "money". "Of course we need to spy on everything to keep us safe" and "of course we should not be spying just to help some companies make more money" are beliefs easily held in the same brain, and while I don't have polls to point to on the latter point (though I'd be hugely interested to see them!) I expect both are prevalent. I would not venture to guess just how prevelant the position against industrial espionage is, beyond "somewhere in the range of 20% to 70% of the population," however.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      "Of course we should not be spying just to help some companies make more money" is another way of saying "of course we should not use US government power to ensure our continued dominance in the aerospace and telecommunications industries". In any country, I'd expect radically different answers to those questions.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        I would certainly expect a gap between the answers; I'm not confident about the size. The latter glosses over how the power is used, too. Obviously more people would support trade deals than assassinations - presumably espionage falls somewhere between.
1457389 13y ago
The implicit assumption in your question here is that the government is entitled to do whatever it wants except when people can organise to the extent that a formal censure, through voting or other means, can be devised. A state subject to popular veto rather than a popular mandate. This view gives far too much leeway for governmental over-reach, and goes against the spirit of documents like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The State is given a mandate by, for and of the People, and it should execute that mandate without overreach. A system where the government can do whatever they want subject only to rare popular veto (recall votes, impeachments, revolutions) is unstable and undemocratic, given the level of voter disenfranchisement we see today. Before you ask for proof of a popular veto against the NSA's activities, you should first support your assumption that these activities support the popular mandate in any way. I would submit that such a proof is impossible, given the total secrecy of these programs and lack of accountability. If people don't know what the government is doing in their name, even in broad terms (that don't harm operational secrecy), how can the government's actions be justified or permissible?
- tptacek 13y ago
  No, the implicit assumption in my question is that US-sourced industrial espionage tends, at least at some remove, to benefit US citizens.
  - 1457389 13y ago
    From a constitutional standpoint, that is irrelevant. In a benevolent dictatorship that would be justification enough for any policy,no matter how restrictive or oppressive. If that is in fact the sole assumption you base your views on, there are larger problems in your argument than I anticipated. The real question in what is meant to be a constitutional democracy is whether there is a popular mandate for industrial espionage enabled by mass telecommunications surveillance. If you can't establish a clear connection between the popular will and a government policy then that policy shouldn't exist. As Snowden has stated repeatedly: >The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.
    - 13y ago
dantheman 13y ago
I have no good evidence, only anecdotal. In all my discussions with family and friends none have ever come out in support of industrial espionage, and many have come out against it especially when they think of other countries doing it to us. No they may be hypocrites, but in general they understand spying for national security - i.e. understanding military capabilities, troop formations, political shifts, etc and make arguments for some level of support of those activities and understand that other nations would of course want to do that to us.

krapp 13y ago

Even the ones who aren't necessarily against industrial espionage would probably agree the government has no business getting involved in it.

meddlepal 13y ago

I disagree. I think most Americans see stealing from companies IP as a mostly victimless crime... I doubt they are concerned about stealing from a foreign company which they see if interact with little or never; see piracy for a small scale example of this. Not to mention American companies benefit from it and it can have a positive effect on the economy if revolutionary tech is discovered this way.

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
But would they have the same viewpoint of Industrial Espionage committed against the USA by a foreign government? The parent mentions it generally (it seems to me) and that it is not something that a government should be part of. The stealing of secrets by one company or another is vastly different than a concerted effort by a government (USA/France/China) to do such things.
- meddlepal 13y ago
  No I don't think they would be ok with the inverse but that is why this is espionage... It's dirty business. Also I wouldn't assume people have an internally consistent view of these things. It will likely boil down to "it's ok because it might benefit me, but screw the others for trying the same thing"
betterunix 13y ago
Most people I have met see copyright infringement as a victimless crime only when it is being done by "little people" and only when there is no profit involved. When a large company is profiting from copyright or patent infringement, people generally think that company is in the wrong and the the artist/author/inventor should be paid.