[Lucasoato]

It’s so absurd. As an European, I can’t really understand why our policymakers are so blind to this, companies don’t have the tools to defend themselves from state sponsored attacks, their countries should do whatever they can to protect them if they represent a national interest.

[alephnerd]

Because from personal experience they don't care. The best of the best policy wise immigrate to the US to take a think tank position in NYC, DC, or Boston earning 3-5x what they could in Europe, and the rest become lobbyists in Bruxelles. After making their nut, they then return to politics with a funding pipeline because campaigns are expensive (even in Europe).

The ones who feel deeply about the cause don't know how to execute but only pontificate (dealt with plenty of EU AI policymakers with European AI founders).

Heck, even consulate employees who are part of the trade promotion teams for most EU states try to network their way out of the role into VC jobs in NYC and SF.

[jltsiren]

You are generalizing too much. Europe is full of different electoral systems, and each system has its own dynamics that favor different kinds of people.

Take Finland, for example, with open list proportional elections. The primary competitors of every candidate are other candidates from the same party and district. In order to win, you have to develop and maintain your own niche. Many politicians leave to become lobbyists or consultants or join a think tank, but it's almost always a one-way street. It's difficult to return to politics after an extended absence, because someone else has already taken your niche (if it's still viable), and money and experience rarely help win it back.

As for the actual question, many European countries seem to consider trade secrets primarily a contractual matter. Revealing private secrets is not a crime, while abusing your position or breaking into a system without proper authorization can be. Prosecutors generally cannot invoke national security without a clear legal basis. Which probably can't be found in matters that are more about Western competitiveness in general than about the security and interests of a specific country.

[alephnerd]

Not to be that guy, but there's a significant difference between Finland versus Netherlands, Germany, and even Ireland in importance within the EU and European institutions from a power politics perspective, as well as the type of political culture.

Pre-1995 EU member states tend to have stronger control within EU institutions, and are the states that actually matter along with a couple later EU member states that have openly threatened or actively reversed into illiberal democracies that tried to stymie EU institutions and/or created their own groups to pressure the EU such as the Visegrad Group.

From a US perspective, as long as Russia threatens Finland, Finland has no choice to look to the US, especially if green men suddenly appear on Etelakari, Kilpisaari, or some other rocky island in the Gulf of Finland, especially now that pro-Putin Rumen Radev has won a majority in Bulgaria, Babis and his coalition have returned to power in Czechia, and Fico in Slovakia remains in (tenuous) power.

[jltsiren]

I'm not sure how the "importance" of various countries is related to the discussion. Or what Russia or the US does.

My point was that there are different perspectives on national security. If everything ASML (or another similar company) knows became public knowledge, it would be bad for its business. It might also be inconvenient to some foreign interests. But would it be an actual national security issue to the host country?

If some forms of corporate espionage are not considered serious crimes, there are other reasons beyond the "best of the best" (whatever that means) migrating to another country. It might be that the people do not consider it a serious crime. And if you are in a country with limited ambitions to influence the rest of the world, that might matter more than the interests of faraway superpowers.

[alephnerd]

> My point was that there are different perspectives on national security. If everything ASML (or another similar company) knows became public knowledge, it would be bad for its business. It might also be inconvenient to some foreign interests. But would it be an actual national security issue to the host country

Yes for the Netherlands as well as other countries. Netherlands, the US, and Taiwan (because ASML's core IP is dependent on US DoE's Cymer and Taiwan's HMI) are treat the technology used for semiconductor fabrication as dual use export controlled technology critical for national security.

> It might be that the people do not consider it a serious crime

In Taiwan (and especially at TSMC) everyone is taught that the technology surrounding sub-7nm fabrication is export controlled and national security adjacent.

> I'm not sure how the "importance" of various countries is related to the discussion. Or what Russia or the US does

To show that your experience with Finland frankly doesn't matter in the discussion. When someone mentions Bruxelles or the EU, we don't mean Finland or Slovenia or Luxembourg.

Though I would be curious if your defense would be accepted by the Finnish government if you attempted something similar at Patria Oyj.

You highly underestimate the severity with which data and IP exfiltration for dual use technologies is prosecuted and treated in all countries. And if deep down you think that is wrong, if you were an employee of mine I would make you were fired and blackballed.

[jltsiren]

This branch of the discussion was about "European governments" not treating theft of dual use technology from ASML as a national security concern. Except when it also involved a breach of sanctions against Russia.

Your perspective on national security is that of top leaders, whose opinions are shaped by their interactions with other leaders and policy experts. But in a democracy, legislators often matter more than leaders. Because legislators have to take public opinion (as mediated by the electoral system) into account, their interests tend to be in conflict with the leaders. And then, no matter how convincingly the leaders and policy experts argue for their positions, the legislators often win.

Patria is a poor example, because defense is an explicit national security concern in the relevant laws. Dual use technologies are not. Finland did not treat espionage against Nokia particularly seriously back in its glory days. While there were some attempts to tighten the laws, they met heavy opposition and had to be watered down. Ultimately Nokia was just a business, and there is always a degree of public schadenfreude when big important people fail to protect their secrets.