Hacker News Reader

Comment by delecti | Hacker News Reader

I had to look up the difference, and I don't think that distinction is something most people are aware of. I've only ever known "nation state" to mean "country", and suspect I'm in the majority. I don't think most people use that term intentionally, because few countries would qualify. That list gets even shorter when you limit it to countries that might be antagonistic to the US, and even shorter when you get to those that are threats. In addition to your two examples, China certainly doesn't qualify either, which basically just leaves North Korea.

View on HN

Copying my reply to GP:

This is a US-vs-everyone-else terminology difference. In most of the world "state" refers to a sovereign entity, "nation" refers to an ethnic group, and "nation-state" is a state identified with an ethnic nation.

But all of that terminology solidified in the 19th century, so outside of academic political science the US uses "state" to refer to individual entities in a federation (e.g. translating German "Bundesland" as "state"), "nation" to refer to non-ethnic bodies politick, and "nation-state" to specify "what we call a nation, what the Old World calls a state".

Which of course leads to a lot of confusion about the connotations of "EU member state", which in European discourse implies real sovereignty, but in US discourse implies a federalist Europe.

This confusion is easily avoided by saying “country,” or if you still want your writing to be verbose you could say “government” or “government-backed actor.”

"Country" is also ambiguous. Lots of "countries" are not independent, e.g. the UK is made up of four "countries" - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Similarly, the "Land" example I used above for the German federal subjects literally means "country".

"Governmental actor" would be a better international-friendly term for use in computer security, outside of the parochial world of US national security discourse.

Having done a quick search for fun:

US law actually uses "state" in a sense closer to the European and broader international sense. e.g. a "state actor" includes both the states and the federal government, and is used to describe any entity bound by the restrictions of the Bill of Rights. (e.g. state actors are bound by the First Amendment, whereas private actors can restrict speech all they want)

Ya, I think I consume far beyond the average for political news and had never heard of that distinction until now. I just always equated nation-state to country.

Why do you think people said 'nation-state' if you thought it meant the same as the shorter and simpler word 'country'?

To sound geopolitically sophisticated. To pretend at the language of statecraft.

I always assumed it was a way to sidestep discussing whether certain contested territories were legitimately "countries" in their own right. By which I mean places like Palestine, Taiwan, and the way North and South Korea each kinda claim the other as part of their territory.

Because there are lots of synonyms.

But I could have been more specific that nation state tends to imply government of a country. Whereas country might include all citizens.

Nation-state: a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.

I think it's a mistake to limit the scope of consideration to countries that are antagonist to America. I doubt it was them, but at least in theory, might not Canada have an interest in having advanced knowledge of things the US Treasury might decide? Certainly the US economy impacts Canada as well, as it does nearly any other country to one degree or another.

Hahaha our military can't even figure out boots for the troops, you think we can hack the US Government?

As much as Canadians like to shit on America, one thing they gave going for them south of the border is that "Fuck yeah America" attitude that leads people to pursue excellence.

We don't have that in our public sector. We just have passive aggression, mediocrity and memes about being polite.

Well, maybe Canada is pretty unlikely I concede. But it seems possible that it might be some other first world nation that has friendly relations with America. I mean, America spied on Germany, right? Maybe Germany spies on America. I really haven't the foggiest clue who did it, but I wouldn't limit consideration to overtly adversarial countries.

You may not be aware, but Canada does have a sophisticated organization dedicated to electronic security:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Security_Esta...

I'm Canadian and am well aware of CSE's existence.

Do you think a Wiki article can capture the staggering incompetence that's endemic within the Canadian public sector?

And you’re holding up the US public sector as your shining city on a hill?

Canada is leading the world in procuring the vaccine, and has had a very well-considered response to the pandemic. How long did it take for CERB cheques to arrive? Days? Look at the cluster that was the US response, even at the basic “get money in people’s hands” level.

Getting back to the original point - I’m sure there are a dozen or more countries with the capability to pull off something this sophisticated, which would include Canada. Highly unlikely that it was us, obviously.

>And you’re holding up the US public sector as your shining city on a hill?

Certainly not. I'm only holding the US's cybersecurity complex as a shining city on the hill. Our government is so inept that I very much doubt CSE has the funding it needs or the ability to hire skilled people.

Happy to be proven wrong.

>Canada is leading the world in procuring the vaccine

Because we don't have any domestic production capacity due to decades of federal mismanagement. The same mismanagement that bought us used, obsolete fighter jets and submarines that catch fire at the slightest provocation. We lead the world in procuring those items too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com