Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by inquirerofsorts 2044 days ago
> But evvvveryone spies on everyone

The NSA has a budget bigger than entire countries economic output. Not everyone spies on everyone to the same extent.

Not everyone breaks their own laws constantly to the same extent.

Not everyone hides behind some bullshit moral argument to justify their actions to same extent.

The rot is real. They now have more power than any elected official including the President and repeatedly lie under sworn oath. These people are no longer public servants they are public masters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGYn7ER5U_0

5 comments

> The NSA has a budget bigger than entire countries economic output. Not everyone spies on everyone to the same extent.

Very few countries have vast global interests, you can count them on one hand. Of course the US has extensive global spying efforts and of course its spying activities do not compare to smaller nations, nations with smaller economies, nations with a fraction of the military responsibilities that the US has, and so on.

The US doesn't have any interest in what direction allies and enemies go with their military hardware, such that espionage would be warranted to know in advance if at all possible? Is that a joke?

Macron has been saying variations of this: "Europe can no longer rely on the United States for its security" - for the past several years (pushing for his pet European defense force idea). Do you know what that means? That's one of the world's most powerful nations openly admitting Europe presently depends on the US for its security. That has been true for over seven decades now. That's a massive responsibility, and the same is true for the US in Asia. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand all depend on the US for their security in one form or another (against China specifically and going forward in particular, as China will grow far more powerful and threatening). Numerous other nations in Asia will join that list, eg Vietnam will come to depend on the US as a military hedge against China.

Now kindly point out all the other various nations that have similar global responsibilities on their shoulders.

> Not everyone spies on everyone to the same extent.

Then good for the NSA, spying is their job, for the advancement of American interests[0].

[0] The point of 'playing' international politics - the advancement of one's country's interests.

>> But evvvveryone spies on everyone

> The NSA has a budget bigger than entire countries economic output. Not everyone spies on everyone to the same extent.

Doesn't it fall into second half of his opinion? "except those who cannot muster the resources to do so".

Not that I necessarily agree, but I see no contradiction.

"except those who cannot muster the resources to do so" is about power of countryA vs countryB. Your parent is writing about power of countryAspies vs countryApeople/countryAdemocraticprocess.
This is the unfortunate truth. Intelligence agencies have to learn to do more with less information if we want basic privacy to survive as a natural right.
Our elected representatives created these agencies. We need to elect better people.
Even in Denmark where the political system is much more cooperative than in the US, politics is still a “dirty job” full of spin and personal sacrifice, exposure etc. As a result many good people would never put it on themselves to enter politics.
> Not everyone spies on everyone to the same extent.

Because they don't have the capacity. And NSA doesn't steal Huawei IP on behalf of Cisco, quite the opposite.

> behalf of Cisco

Cisco is not part of the military industrial complex.

Boeing or Lockheed Martin on the other hand, I'd be extremely surprised if our intelligence agencies didn't give them stolen tech.

> I'd be extremely surprised if our intelligence agencies didn't give them stolen tech.

I'd be extremely surprised if any tech that is stolen is better than what they have / are working on. There is lots to criticize about America, their funding and continuous innovation in war tech is not one of those things.

> Boeing or Lockheed Martin on the other hand, I'd be extremely surprised if our intelligence agencies didn't give them stolen tech.

Assuming we’re talking about military tech. Why should they? What tech is the military and defense industry lacking in that would provide a battlefield advantage that other countries have?

There’s only a handful of non-US weapon systems that can potentially compete with US weapon systems.

I think the scope of your consideration is a bit narrow. Lockheed Martin probably isn't very interested in stealing technology from Sukhoi to clone and put in their own jets. However it seems quite likely that Lockheed has an interest in the particulars of Sukhoi jets, their weapon systems, radars and EW systems, and airframe capabilities, so that Lockheed may better design systems meant to counter those systems. Certainly the design of effective stealth aircraft required knowledge of opposition radar systems.

As for the American military being top dog by a long mile... that seems true, but you don't stay that way by being complacent.

You also don't ever stay on top by stealing/copying from others. By definition that always puts you (at least) 1 generation behind.
In simple scenarios with two actors perhaps, but I don't think that holds true for complex scenarios with multiple participants. Somebody who steals the best from everybody and is always one generation behind the state of the art in every regard may still prevail against all others because they are a Jack of all trades, master of none.