Snowden accuses U.S. of industrial espionage | Hacker News Reader

Snowden accuses U.S. of industrial espionage

gigaom.com

46 pointscolinprince81 comments

He's treading on thin ice here. It's one thing to whistleblow the NSA illegally/unconstitutionally spying on Americans in America, but he risks losing popular support when he goes on to expose the NSA spying on foreigners overseas.

I think a majority of US citizens recognize that's the NSA's job, and are aware the same is being done to the US (esp by China), and hence are more ambivalent, if not supportive, of that role, even if it annoys our allies.

I don't know what Snowden thinks he can gain from this, especially now that Russia has extended his stay indefinitely. I would hate for the tide of public opinion to turn decisively against him for something like this. Stick to exposing only illegal intelligence activities on US soil against US citizens, imho.

I think that the majority of US Citizens are against industrial espionage and think that spending government money and resources to spy on foreign companies to benefit select US companies is wrong.

Why do you think the majority of US citizens are "against industrial espionage"? That's a surprising claim. Can you marshal evidence to support it?

Rationally, the people should be against a security agency conducting industrial espionage against friendly nations' industries because we have more to lose from loss of credibility - from our tech companies being suspected collaborators - than we have to gain from, say, submitting a lower bid for Brazilian oil.

Instead of subverting security, we ought to be securing both personal and commercial communications against all spying.

I understand that there are arguments against industrial espionage. I am wondering what would make anyone believe that the majority of US citizens oppose industrial espionage. Polling on foreign policy issues of much more significance --- for instance, military incursions --- does not lead me to think that most people in the US have your "rationalist" take on this subject.

Do they oppose it when it is used against them? For instance when Americans hear:

A recent report to the US government, by aerospace and defense company Northrop Grumman, describes Chinese economic espionage as comprising 'the single greatest threat to U.S. technology'

Do they simply say "Eh. Who cares?" If they do not like the PRC doing it, why should they like their government doing it? In a general sense I think its a pretty defensible claim to say that the majority of X country's citizens oppose industrial espionage. When you ask specifically if they oppose their own government (as opposed to agents of a company or the idea in general) the waters likely get a lot muddier due to nationalism and other factors.

This is a silly question. It's like saying, "Do US citizens support their troops? Well, do they support Iranian troops? If they don't support the Iranians, why should they support their own troops?" It's the kind of argument that only makes sense in the airless vacuum of a message board.

Except that 'supporting the troops' is held to be a positive thing and can be expected of any group toward their own, be them Americans, Martians, Nazis, etc.

While 'Industrial Espionage', or Espionage in general, has a negative connotation (in the same way theft has a negative connotation). The analogy you suggest is not strictly similar.

You're moving the goalposts. First, you suggest that US citizens are unlikely to support industrial espionage because they don't support it when China does it to us. Now, you suggest they don't support it because the word "espionage" is scarier than the word "war". Neither argument is strong, but at least be coherent.

So you're saying that a majority of Americans like to lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top? That they prefer to have this criminal activity done for them, by their government, because after all everyone else does it.

Well you're certainly leading this non-American to conclude that your nation deserves, then, exactly what it gets. It ain't so special.

Which country are you from? Maybe it'd be helpful for us to take a close look at how they've conducted themselves in the state of nature, which is where/how countries interact.

My country is irrelevant. It is your country that is screwing up the worlds' trust.

Out of interest how are smaller countries like Luxembourg or Moldova doing in this dept? Do their governments sponsor espionage actions?

That is not true and I have done nothing of the sort. You may in fact be reading something into what I said that I did not say or intend.

I used an analogy of the PRC spying on the US to show that Industrial Espionage is something the public would care about (notice the 'Eh. Who cares? part). It is an issue that evokes a response. Next I specifically state that the opinion of Industrial Espionage in general is negative:

In a general sense I think its a pretty defensible claim to say that the majority of X country's citizens oppose industrial espionage.

People may think it is 'justifiable' (for any number of reasons) but I do not think they would believe it is a good or noble practice (again note that I used the word 'general'). I then go on to clarify, by saying the opinion/matters get muddy when you ask specifically if their government should be doing it, rather than just discussing the idea in general.

I never said anything about 'espionage' being a more frightening word than 'war'. Because lets face it... 'war' is a much more frightening thing that generally involves a lot of death. You implied that onto the conversation.

Regarding coherency... I think maybe you didn't read what I wrote, but what you wanted to think I wrote (or were expecting to read).

People judge things differently when it is "safety" on the line versus "money". "Of course we need to spy on everything to keep us safe" and "of course we should not be spying just to help some companies make more money" are beliefs easily held in the same brain, and while I don't have polls to point to on the latter point (though I'd be hugely interested to see them!) I expect both are prevalent. I would not venture to guess just how prevelant the position against industrial espionage is, beyond "somewhere in the range of 20% to 70% of the population," however.

"Of course we should not be spying just to help some companies make more money" is another way of saying "of course we should not use US government power to ensure our continued dominance in the aerospace and telecommunications industries". In any country, I'd expect radically different answers to those questions.

I would certainly expect a gap between the answers; I'm not confident about the size. The latter glosses over how the power is used, too. Obviously more people would support trade deals than assassinations - presumably espionage falls somewhere between.

The implicit assumption in your question here is that the government is entitled to do whatever it wants except when people can organise to the extent that a formal censure, through voting or other means, can be devised. A state subject to popular veto rather than a popular mandate. This view gives far too much leeway for governmental over-reach, and goes against the spirit of documents like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The State is given a mandate by, for and of the People, and it should execute that mandate without overreach. A system where the government can do whatever they want subject only to rare popular veto (recall votes, impeachments, revolutions) is unstable and undemocratic, given the level of voter disenfranchisement we see today.

Before you ask for proof of a popular veto against the NSA's activities, you should first support your assumption that these activities support the popular mandate in any way. I would submit that such a proof is impossible, given the total secrecy of these programs and lack of accountability. If people don't know what the government is doing in their name, even in broad terms (that don't harm operational secrecy), how can the government's actions be justified or permissible?

No, the implicit assumption in my question is that US-sourced industrial espionage tends, at least at some remove, to benefit US citizens.

From a constitutional standpoint, that is irrelevant. In a benevolent dictatorship that would be justification enough for any policy,no matter how restrictive or oppressive. If that is in fact the sole assumption you base your views on, there are larger problems in your argument than I anticipated.

The real question in what is meant to be a constitutional democracy is whether there is a popular mandate for industrial espionage enabled by mass telecommunications surveillance.

If you can't establish a clear connection between the popular will and a government policy then that policy shouldn't exist. As Snowden has stated repeatedly:

>The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.

"From a Constitutional standpoint"? The Constitution is completely silent on this issue.

I brought up the Constitution because it is a direct counter to your assumption that policies are justified as long as they are shown "at least at some remove, to benefit US citizens". It is definitely more complicated than that, and I suspect you realise this but I don't understand why you don't address it in any of your comments. What I was getting at was that the US Constitution demands a genuine mandate from several branches of government for policies to be enacted. Through this mandate, the popular consent to be governed is ensured.

Specifically, my major issue with the NSA's activities is that they were and are not accurately portrayed to the legislators and even the justices who were meant to oversee them. There were specific obfuscations by officials and by entire branches of the State that served to obscure the true purposes of these programs.

The Constitution absolutely has something to say about the issue of officers of the State purposefully misleading other branches: I would direct you to the section on High Crimes and Misdemeanors:

>The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

Notably, the original text appended "against the State" to the above, but the Convention dropped that part specifically because even a high crime for the perceived benefit of the State would be considered actionable.

As Hamilton said in Federalist 65:

>...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself

This is a lot of verbiage that doesn't address the basic point I made that you're trying to rebut: the Constitution doesn't proscribe foreign surveillance of any sort, including industrial espionage, and the American people don't broadly oppose industrial espionage, because to the extent that Boeing outperforms Airbus in the global marketplace, they benefit, if only marginally.

Well, you seem determined to avoid actually addressing what I am saying. The Constitution harshly proscribes dishonest statements by officials to lawmakers. The surveillance policy was sold through lies and obfuscation to both Congresspeople and the general public. The American people may not broadly oppose espionage, but unless they broadly support it with actual foreknowledge of the specific policies, the lack of opposition is irrelevant. It is hardly surprising that no one is sure what to think in such an environment.

Snowden's leaks have changed that to some extent, and hopefully they will continue to shed light on these policies so that an informed decision can finally be made.

EDIT: And seriously you can't read a paragraph of text without getting snarky? You asked what the Constitution had to say and I responded in detail.

The Constitution is a remarkably short document. Could you perhaps cite the place in that document where it "harshly proscribes dishonest statements"?

Article II Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The term of art "high crimes and misdemeanors" has a specific set of determinants that are understood to include dishonest statements.

I have no good evidence, only anecdotal. In all my discussions with family and friends none have ever come out in support of industrial espionage, and many have come out against it especially when they think of other countries doing it to us. No they may be hypocrites, but in general they understand spying for national security - i.e. understanding military capabilities, troop formations, political shifts, etc and make arguments for some level of support of those activities and understand that other nations would of course want to do that to us.

Even the ones who aren't necessarily against industrial espionage would probably agree the government has no business getting involved in it.

I disagree. I think most Americans see stealing from companies IP as a mostly victimless crime... I doubt they are concerned about stealing from a foreign company which they see if interact with little or never; see piracy for a small scale example of this. Not to mention American companies benefit from it and it can have a positive effect on the economy if revolutionary tech is discovered this way.

But would they have the same viewpoint of Industrial Espionage committed against the USA by a foreign government?

The parent mentions it generally (it seems to me) and that it is not something that a government should be part of. The stealing of secrets by one company or another is vastly different than a concerted effort by a government (USA/France/China) to do such things.

No I don't think they would be ok with the inverse but that is why this is espionage... It's dirty business. Also I wouldn't assume people have an internally consistent view of these things. It will likely boil down to "it's ok because it might benefit me, but screw the others for trying the same thing"

Most people I have met see copyright infringement as a victimless crime only when it is being done by "little people" and only when there is no profit involved. When a large company is profiting from copyright or patent infringement, people generally think that company is in the wrong and the the artist/author/inventor should be paid.

Please take a minute to think about what the 'S' in NSA stands for, and how industrial espionage relates to that.

Ask China the same question, they believe it's one and the same.

Yeah, and the US government is highly critical of China's industrial espionage campaign.

And Germany is highly critical of France's industrial espionage. And Korea is highly critical of Israel's industrial espionage. Wherever you look, if you're seeing a highly advanced economy, there's a web of industrial espionage connecting it to every other economy.

That does not mean it is right -- at the very least it is extremely hypocritical for the US, which is aggressively pursuing stronger copyright/patent/trade secrets in various trade agreements.

But is this espionage carried out specifically by the Governments of these nations by and large? Or by agents of companies which reside in these countries? I'm not aware in these cases to be honest.

The point being that the difference between companies committing industrial espionage, and a government instituted policy of said behavior, seems vastly different.

Yes, by the governments.

That is pretty interesting and does not surprise me to be totally honest. It doesn't seem like something that any countries' public would likely think is a good thing (rather than a price of doing business/everybody does it so we should sort of deal). But then again, so many policies work in that fashion, it would be ridiculous to think this wouldn't be similar.

That doesn't mean China isn't correct. In fact, in terms of realpolitik they're obviously quite correct. Industrial/technological power = military power = security.

Security != let's fuck everybody the world over like a big bully, and compete unfairly, stealing their resources and secrets, while spouting BS about "free trade" and "open markets".

Of course if you keep everybody down, or even if you kill everybody else, then you are "secure".

Hint: it's not spying

>* He's treading on thin ice here. It's one thing to whistleblow the NSA illegally/unconstitutionally spying on Americans in America, but he risks losing popular support when he goes on to expose the NSA spying on foreigners overseas. I think a majority of US citizens recognize that's the NSA's job*

If they recognize its doing industrial espionage and accept it, that's disgusting. Until now it was only "we just do it for the bad guys", not "to fuck France and Sweden businesses over".

>and are aware the same is being done to the US (esp by China), and hence are more ambivalent, if not supportive, of that role, even if it annoys our allies.

The "we're just as much a victim" oft repeated line is BS.

For one, it's not only China. It's EU and other "allies" they're taking advantage of. Second, China mostly BUILDS stuff for US companies. Doesn't compete directly with them in most tech areas (Lenovo was bought from IBM, wasn't created based on stolen IP).

And no, France or Germany or even Russia don't have 1/10 the spying resources to spy on the US, nor the diplomatic and economic might to take advantage of such spying even if they could do it. Much less smaller countries. Anyone who thinks Italy or Portugal or Hungary etc have the same kind of access to industrial espionage on the US (or would do it, if they could, despite the 100 pound gorilla being ready to pound on them if they were caught) is delluded.

Heck, there are European countries that in past decades had government policy being dictated by the US -- or even had dictatorships established.

France is actively and aggressively involved in industrial espionage against US companies. Be careful any time you try to draw a moral line between EU countries and the US. It's not popular to acknowledge it, but we're far, far more alike than different.

>France is actively and aggressively involved in industrial espionage against US companies.

Yeah, I already covered that: with 1/10 the resources to take advantage of it. And 1/100 the scale.

What's France and the US's GDP again? How many French companies compete in the same sector and at the same level as US multinationals? How much political pressure can France assert to a third country to take advantage of it for its own interests compared to the US?

There are only few French companies playing in the big leagues. And France is an old colonial power -- with some illusions of grandeur still and active secret agencies. It's not a representative of most European countries -- there's tens of European and EU countries with less than half the resources of France.

> And France is an old colonial power -- with some illusions of grandeur still and active secret agencies.

Old colonial power what a laugh, are you waking-up from the 60'? with some illusions of grandeur when all anglo-saxons medias report how much French are depressed and always pessimists. Anyway, I always like a bit of French bashing based on caricatures, always very accurate...

>Old colonial power what a laugh, are you waking-up from the 60'?

Not sure what you mean. France has had extended colonies up until the sixties, so it's very much one of the "old colonial powers". Is there another way to put it?

Fact is, they still like to meddle worldwide, and they still have claims on places that they have no place to be except by their colonial past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_departments_and_territ...

Not to mention stuff like this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-france...

and the post-colonial behavior of companies such as Elf (now Total) et al.

To clarify, I'm not defending it, just calling it like I see it. Outside the HN/SV bubble, most people are ambivalent about the US stealing foreign industrial secrets. It's simply very low on their priority list of things to care about. Hell, many Americans are fine with the "I've got nothing to hide so nothing to fear" and still don't even truly care about being spied on themselves by the NSA, much less foreign multinationals.

So Snowden attacking the NSA over this issue is, at best, likely to be met with much less popular support, and at worst, could backfire on him.

I don't think it's a matter of an "HN/SV bubble." If they aren't aware of Cisco and IBM losing overseas revenue already, they soon will see it in their 401k results.

And there is no going back. The only alternative to accepting a "Five Eyes-only" export market is to do something other than what we had been doing.

> Until now it was only "we just do it for the bad guys", not "to fuck France and Sweden businesses over".

Industrial Espionage is something that everyone does to everyone else. The US did not invent it, it goes far back in history, and everyone is involved.

The difference today is the US just happens to have the best and biggest resources to do it well.

What's disgusting is this direction that Snowden has taken.

He's game now is to embarrass the US, and to give ammunition to countries and players to use on their next negotiation deal with the US.

I don't think anyone expects that industrial espionage does not happen, but I think most people don't think that's an appropriate use of our intelligence services.

It's how everyone else's intelligence services get used.

I'm not sure that changes things.

It is highly specious to consider that the opinion of the US public matters at all to Snowden at this point.

The American military-industrial religion can justify its heinous criminal acts against humanity all it likes - there are still, nevertheless, some of us out here who would rather not live in fear of American tyranny. Who would like to actually build companies to compete with American concerns, and defeat them in the marketplace before it becomes too late.

What of this not-insignificant portion of the world who do not share the American privilege, yet nevertheless must labor under its hegemony? Do you think the subjects of American abuse care much if the American people deny their citizen, Edward Snowden, his due?

Certainly, to a majority of people in the world, Edward Snowden - and people like him, selflessly working to deconstruct the heinous machine built by maniacs and death-worshippers - is a hero.

All true. I wrote my OP under the assumption Snowden would still like to be pardonned/granted clemency and return home one day.

But if he has decided that is no longer a possibility, ever, and wants to devote the rest of his life to opposing the global surveillance state, then yes, hero indeed.

The article is wrong. They already aired a short segment of the nterview and Siemens was just used as an example by the interviewer. Snowden said something like "The US intelligence agencies would spy on Siemens if they had information that could be exploited by American corporations even if said information had nothing to do with national security". At no point did he claim that specifically Siemens was affected.

The example of spying on Petrobras shortly before a major oilfield auction is already known. Is there a credible national security reason for that?

Ensuring ongoing access to petro fuels for the US is absolutely a credible national security interest, IMO.

That was a nice couple decades of having it both ways, but now we have to choose between taking an oil deal away from nominally friendly nations by seeing their bids, versus having an export market for our technology companies, who are suspected of collaborating to make that spying possible.

While the NSA itself and higher ups may not be actively involved in espionage, seeing how the agency didn't/doesn't know what its agents are doing/do... it's very plausible that agents within the organization are spying on companies and selling that information.

If one of those companies is a multi-national or has a headquarters in say Japan or Germany are the agents who sold the information to them then 'traitors'?

Old news:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial...

Americans were not outraged back then; is there some reason to think they will be outraged today?

Because... The Internet.

A lot easier to create a buzz currently. Was pretty easy to sweep all of those examples under the rug from a media publicity perspective.

Also there is already a great deal more consternation with the parties involved.

We had the Internet when this report on the matter was released:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//...

But was everyone carrying around a pocket telescreen to broadcast their innermost thoughts (or pictures of their meal) at any moment, and to read the same from all of their friends, strangers, celebrities? Was your average middle aged office worker checking their facebook (insert social networking site here) during their spare time between tasks? Did you have digital online contact with your Grandmother/aunt/etc (as is commonly the case for many now)? These are just a couple of examples of how much more heavily the internet is utilized by large groups of people today rather than in 2004.

We're much more connected today than 9 years ago.

We are more connected but the vast majority of people are using that new connectivity to gossip about other people, post photos from parties, and tell people what sort of restaurants they like. People who were not particularly interested in discussing current events are still not discussing current events. At best what you can point to are people clicking "like" when they see a negative comment about the NSA, if even that much.

Those people who do want to discuss current events are no more empowered to do so now than they were in the 90s. Take a look at where the discussions are happening: forums (including websites like Hacker News), mailing lists, and personal websites / blogs.

I think your final statement is demonstratably false.

There are many more ways to discuss things and to promote your interests/views. That is sort of the whole reason crowd funding and the like came about and function. There is much greater interconnection between any given individual than I think you care to admit.

Yes the vast majority of social networking is pretty vapid... But to use even a ridiculous example of such, like the Kony memes of 2012, you can see what I'm talking about. The meme became a joke, but brought a lot of attention to something that likely would have just disappeared, or never even have entered the 'public' consciousness otherwise. The Travyon Martin situation (regardless of your stance on it), also became a much larger issue than it likely would have without endless tweets, shares, jokes, memes, etc.

Well, back in 50's Americans were not outraged for seggregation either. Yet today they are.

Public opinion changes, different eras have different limits, etc.

Except that the NSA's involvement in industrial espionage was revealed in the 90s and 00s. We are not talking about the prevailing attitude three generations ago, we are talking about the current generation.

Well, that was a historical example of something that completely changed over a few decades.

You wan't fewer? Compared attitudes to seggregation in the 60s and 70s.

I do not think you can say that the general attitude about segregation had changed significantly until at least the 80s, when people who had grown up without segregation had entered adulthood. Even with that change, there are still lingering pockets of segregation now, in 2014 -- two generations after Brown v. Board of Education.

I doubt that assumptions or attitudes can be changed within a single generation.

Americans weren't outraged in part because the most highly publicized disclosures from that spying illuminated misdeeds by Airbus.

The passing on Enercon's turbine designs to an American company was at least equally well publicized, and generated equally little outrage.

And it was likely reported on for a day at most.

How do the beneficiaries reciprocate?

They sponsor politicians to Washington.

What does the sentence "France is generally seen as a world leader in that regard" actually mean when the linked article does not even contain the keyword?

France is notorious for aggressive industrial espionage. Businessmen visiting France routinely have their hotel rooms searched while out, their papers (and now computers) copied, and all of it turned over to French corporations.

Sources?

Google is full of stories to keep you reading for hours, such as http://m.france24.com/en/20110104-france-industrial-espionag... Even when I was a kid, such stories were common enough; this isn't new.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com