That's every engineer in the world.
US does not seem to steal for economic purposes at all.
Well at least not on the same scale.
That's every engineer in the world.
US does not seem to steal for economic purposes at all.
Well at least not on the same scale.
Sorry but they use their intelligence for economic reasons e.g. Airbus contracts. And Snowden leaks also revealed that spying is not only limited to security or political targets...
And to be honest with the current American President who is "hugely" (so yuge you could not believe it) untrustworthy and is certainly not a friend of the other western countries, I can't honestly say that it's very difficult anno 2018 to determine who you can trust.
> The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence said it does collect information about economic and financial matters, and terrorist financing. "What we do not do, as we have said many times, is use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of - or give intelligence we collect to - U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line," it said in a statement
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/news/airbus-germany-nsa-spyi...
China has wide spread state sponsored stealing to help their companies. US does not seem to.
because, you know, the us does not steal trade secrets, which proves that trade secrets are not stolen, by the us.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-11-01/news/1996306048_...
https://nypost.com/2000/07/10/giant-u-s-spy-vacuum-sparks-a-...
A lot of it happened in the Advocacy Center and/or Office of Executive Support. The European Parliament's report on Echelon talks about some of it:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS_STUDY_538877_Affaire...
Far as that last part, the U.S. does something quite different: a corrupt Congress makes patent and copyright laws so ridiculously strong that they make compatability/competition with big, U.S. companies anywhere from difficult to impossible. The best examples are in smartphone market where Apple tries to block Chinese and Korean products. Microsoft also pulled in about a billion in Android royalties despite not contributing anything to Android's success.
Also note that a lot of Silicon Valley heavyweights started out with big funding from the government, esp DARPA. Kind of similar to state-sponsoring of companies in China. From there, the U.S. companies legally rob or block competition via vaguely-worded, broad, long-lasting patents. Recently, competition blocking API rulings. The Chinese do it via spies and suppliers that iterate fast. I don't see one having moral high ground over the other if they're both doing things that harm the many to benefit a tiny, rich few legally backed with bribery or other corruption.
Is that a joke? https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Former-CIA-Director-Says-US...
That is bad but different to stealing technology using hidden back doors which China reportedly does. I have no evidence either way.
But pressuring third world nations to do things not in their economic interests is not that different to what the One Belt One Road program is doing using loans on uneconomic projects.
Both are bad but US does not seem to steal technology through hacking like China does. I am not sure why
Maybe not through hacking but historical a lot of the industrial revolution that happened in the US was by means of "stealing" British technology, improving on it and don't have any regards for their patents at that time.
There is really some irony somewhere in there.
China does innovate. But it is a nation sponsoring technology stealing on a huge scale. I don't think USA ever did that. I am happy to be proved wrong.
The strong will always prefer to steal from the weak, those who cannot fight back. I'm not saying Chinese are good or they aren't doing the same or the potential horrendous impact them stealing some powerful technology. But one have to agree in most cases it's not preying upon the weak and defenseless.
Its just an interesting observation really.
Now nobody believes in anybody, because when it was needed, principles were traded for strategic advances.