-3
China raises five demands during Yellen’s visit
(asiatimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
-3 points (20.0% liked)
World News
32220 readers
390 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Considering the US built itself on a foundation of corporate espionage... Well, duh? Everyone does it, including American companies on other American companies. If your technology lags behind others, corporate espionage is the easiest way forwards. Globalization was supposed to slow down corporate espionage by making the technology more easily available (as evidenced by the relatively mundane technology that gets stolen today), but that's unraveling.
Corporate espionage is reason for sanctioning companies, not countries. If your IP is necessary for national security, it should be owned by the government and protected as such. Otherwise, I have no sympathy for private profit-driven companies losing their competitive advantage because of decades of underfunding on their cyber security systems.
The "relatively mundane technology that gets stolen today"? Like hypersonic missile guidance systems? Every type of personal data of entire populations? Turbines that power literally every major source of power the US and China have been using since they started using electricity?
These are not mundane technologies.
As for sanctioning companies rather than countries, if the companies who steal this tech are owned by the government, in whole or part, this is not a "private" theft. This is state-owned theft. Malicious action of one state against another.
Yes, the US should invest more in cybersecurity, but blaming the victim is a poor justification for theft.
Oh no! Not a troubleshooting robot! Whatever will they do...
Again, if it's a state secret that's important for national security, it should be protected by the government. It doesn't matter who's attacking (because, y'know, crown corporations exist and can be sanctioned as individual entities), but it matters who's defending. An attack against T-Mobile's troubleshooting robot or Rivian's electric vehicle is not an attack against the US. Private companies operate in a domain where corporate espionage is prevalent. Expecting corporate espionage to not happen is silly.
Corporate espionage is how Korea (Samsung, etc.), Taiwan (TSMC), Japan (Hitachi, etc.), and China jump-started their economies. Hell, it's how the US jump-started it's economy and was an act that Alexander Hamilton strongly supported.
Often times it's state-sponsored or state-condoned and certainly partially state-owned (simply because the economies of these countries are intricately tied into the success of these companies, and these companies receive significant government investment through government-owned and government-managed funds).
For more, please see Hamilton's "Report on Manufacturing" here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015014667409;view=1up;seq=3
State secrets crosses the realm into true espionage and should be punished as such, but corporate espionage? If the technology is owned by a private company, it clearly was seen to be harmless enough for the state to not bother protecting.
Interesting how you ignored the theft of hypersonic missile software and metadata of entire populations, then went straight back to victim blaming.
"simply because the economies of these countries are intricately tied into the success of these companies, and these companies receive significant government investment through government-owned and government-managed funds" - yes, this is exactly my point. State-sponsored they of IP, specifically citizen data and weapons systems is not mundane and it's not okay.
Nobody expects theft not to happen, scarecrow, the problem is that country C is having threats against country A while stealing strategic and military data.
However you justify theft, theft is wrong, and in this case, dangerous. This is a bad thing that the Chinese government and companies are sponsoring. It doesn't matter that other entities do it too, it's still a bad thing.
Your incorrect argument is that because there is a LOT of rape, rape is fine. You are wrong. Rape is still horrific, malign behavior, regardless of how many people do it.
Your incorrect argument is that a rapist gets to make that determination. They don't. It's like saying "my rape was ok, but yours isn't!"
That's not how things work. It's either ok or it isn't.
Maybe if it was a country that didn't built it's entire economy on the back of corporate espionage, you might have a bit of an argument.
So your argument is repeating and agreeing with what I just told you: that a malicious act is malicious regardless of how many people do it. Thank you for conceding that point, however odd it is to frame my argument as your own argument. Given you're still taking my side, I'm fine with it..
And then right after that you vaguely argue against yourself that because one country commits corporate espionage, it's okay that other countries commit corporate espionage.
You're making a case in support of my argument that malicious acts are malicious regardless of how many people commit them, and then subsequently arguing against yourself, which I do appreciate, so thank you for your support!
Protip: try not to precisely paraphrase the argument the person you're arguing against has put forward, including their example, and then agree with their point and example; this will usually lead to you losing the argument.
There's no reason for country-level sanctions for private corporate espionage. It's that simple.
It doesn't matter if corporate espionage is malicious and it's frankly hypocritical for America to be calling out other countries' corporate espionage.
Glad you agree with my points, even if it took you four reiterations to understand them.
Nobody argued that there should be country level sanctions for private corporate espionage, weird that you keep focusing on arguments nobody has made.
Yes, of course it matters if the theft of military data by a hostile state is malicious. It is of the essence.
And no, victim blaming still won't get you anywhere.
I appreciate your support
Except that's exactly what you're calling for? You gave evidence of (presumably a Chinese telecom) stealing T-Mobile testing equipment as a reason for the sanctions.
That robot was stolen by Huawei, which is heavily subsidized by the CCP.
But what I have said repeatedly, regardless of your presumptive tangents, is that state level actions make a state responsible, and in the examples I gave, a hostile state has ownership ties to companies stealing energy production data and military data.
But... you don't consider T-Mobile, Apple, Intel, or Microsoft to be American state-sponsored companies despite their hundreds of billions in subsidies and tax incentives?
Odd.
The recent CHIPS act gave Intel what, like $20 billion in subsidies. Guess what? That's what governments do to stimulate economic growth.
Odder that you keep making false arguments and pretending they are my arguments.
This statement is literally irrelevant because, guess what, every reasonable country subsidizes their domestic industries. I've proven that and you're unwilling to accept that state-owned enterprises (which exist, by the way) are different from private companies.
I'll help you out: Intel is a private company. Amtrak is not. Alibaba is a private company, CRRC is not. Huawei is a private company, CNPC is not.
I'm sure everyone is very proud of you for repeating things that I stated previously in this thread and pretending they are your argument.
Wait right here, I'll find someone who can slow clap for you(I feel like you'll be able to understand the clap better that way).
So... you don't have an argument? Great!
An argument against you repeating what I said and agreeing with me?
No, I stand by what I said and you parroted.
so... you really do have no argument, huh? You claim that taking state subsidies makes a company state-sponsored.
I claim that that's stupid, because it means that Intel and Microsoft would be considered state-sponsored enterprises.
I don't have an argument against my own argument, no.
Regardless of what you claim I claim, you've already taken my side on all of this.
Thank you for your support!.
So, you really don't have an argument, huh?