Hacker News Reader

Comment by simias | Hacker News Reader

I can totally believe that there are tons of actual conspiracies regarding the tumultuous relationships between China and the USA but in what configuration does this particular one make sense? As far as I can tell the only people who come out badly out of this are the Chinese intelligence agencies and the complicit Chinese manufacturers. Why would the Apple and Amazon go out of their way to protect them? I can imagine that the US government could coerce them into doing that but to what end?

If these companies are caught red handed lying on behalf of the Chinese or US governments it would set an absolutely terrible precedent, I don't see why they would risk it when they have so little to gain.

View on HN

> As far as I can tell the only people who come out badly out of this are the Chinese intelligence agencies

The richest and most powerful American companies, some of whom are critical to national security and/or make their operational security as a critical selling point (the CIA among others), would be found not to be in fundamental control of the essential infrastructure powering their core business. It would trigger expensive large-scale review of every server in the world, and investors would run for the hills. This would be massive, and have heavy repercussions in the markets. FAANG are not protecting the Chinese, they are protecting their own finances - and the authorities will let them get away with it because the alternative is unpalatable.

If you keep it as a denied rumour, there is an official excuse for people to just get on with business as usual - nobody wants to deal with a market crash, not even most traders, and after all newspapers say many things, not all of them true. Maybe Supermicro is compromised, and maybe if you really care about hardware security you should buy elsewhere <wink-wink>; but it's not official, so most people can just pretend nothing is happening and go about their day, until a solution can be found.

> I don't see why they would risk it when they have so little to gain.

They have everything to lose, though.

Just wanted to thank you for posting this, as I [self-censor].

I'd like try to boil things down a little further for people:

1) Most things in the modern world require high degrees of trust. Once a significant portion of people begin to question the system, it fails.

2) The main goal of most organizations/governments, in general sense, who find themselves in a favorable position is to keep the game going.

3) Though it's impossible to control for all variables, 'we' believe we can manage most common ones. The uncommon (foreseen and unforeseen) often arise in times of crisis (panic behavior) and often are unwieldy.

So... the veracity of the story is generally less important than is managing reactions to it.

4) IANAL, but I worked w/them for many years and have crafted many statements. Communication is an art form open to interpretation.

5) I've long suspected that such "tampering" was standard practice, for any global power. Why? See point 2.

I encourage anyone skeptical about any portion of the story, to don his/her 'megalomania'-cap for a bit. Then everything, at least conceptually, should make sense.

Cheers!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com