3 ms·

The US doesn't engage in economic espionage, and then turn around and give/sell intellectual property to US companies.

drderidder 12y ago
In fact their pals at CSEC were found to be doing exactly that. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/brazil-spying-report-spotlights-canadas-electronic-eavesdroppers/article14720003/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/brazil-spying-repo...
- diminoten 12y ago
  Which private US company received this information in an attempt to boost that company's economic power? I can't find that information in the article.
  - xorcist 12y ago
    There are several mentions of this in the Snowden papers. I think the most well known is Boeing, in their dealings against Airbus.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      That's not in the Snowden papers, and the actual source for that is highly suspect. I forget the name of that project, but the Wikipedia page's reference are all terrible. Not a single one stands up to scrutiny.
jrochkind1 12y ago
How are you sure of this? I wouldn't be. And you're saying it's somehow a different class of ethical conundrum to engage in espionage to kill people, or to engage in it for economic advantage, and killing people is more ethical? I am not surprised the state-capitalist Chinese see it differently, and are okay with both.
- diminoten 12y ago
  I'm about as sure of this as I am of unicorns not existing. As to the ethical dilemma, I'm only noting a difference.
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    Brazil is less sure. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobras http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-braz... The NYT says it's a "fine line" > But the government does not deny it routinely spies to advance American economic advantage, which is part of its broad definition of how it protects American national security. In short, the officials say, while the N.S.A. cannot spy on Airbus and give the results to Boeing, it is free to spy on European or Asian trade negotiators and use the results to help American trade officials — and, by extension, the American industries and workers they are trying to bolster. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/business/us-snooping-on-companies-cited-by-china.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/business/us-snooping-on-co...
    - diminoten 12y ago
      That's an editorial, so it's the view of one guy who works at the NYT, and not an all-that-well backed up view, to boot. And I think fine lines are important lines.

In fact their pals at CSEC were found to be doing exactly that. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/brazil-spying-report-spotlights-canadas-electronic-eavesdroppers/article14720003/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/brazil-spying-repo...

diminoten 12y ago
Which private US company received this information in an attempt to boost that company's economic power? I can't find that information in the article.
- xorcist 12y ago
  There are several mentions of this in the Snowden papers. I think the most well known is Boeing, in their dealings against Airbus.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    That's not in the Snowden papers, and the actual source for that is highly suspect. I forget the name of that project, but the Wikipedia page's reference are all terrible. Not a single one stands up to scrutiny.

jrochkind1 12y ago

How are you sure of this? I wouldn't be. And you're saying it's somehow a different class of ethical conundrum to engage in espionage to kill people, or to engage in it for economic advantage, and killing people is more ethical? I am not surprised the state-capitalist Chinese see it differently, and are okay with both.

diminoten 12y ago
I'm about as sure of this as I am of unicorns not existing. As to the ethical dilemma, I'm only noting a difference.
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  Brazil is less sure. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobras http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-braz... The NYT says it's a "fine line" > But the government does not deny it routinely spies to advance American economic advantage, which is part of its broad definition of how it protects American national security. In short, the officials say, while the N.S.A. cannot spy on Airbus and give the results to Boeing, it is free to spy on European or Asian trade negotiators and use the results to help American trade officials — and, by extension, the American industries and workers they are trying to bolster. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/business/us-snooping-on-companies-cited-by-china.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/business/us-snooping-on-co...
  - diminoten 12y ago
    That's an editorial, so it's the view of one guy who works at the NYT, and not an all-that-well backed up view, to boot. And I think fine lines are important lines.