[mike_hearn]

Still, “it’s perfectly appropriate for us to do everything we can to embarrass and punish the Chinese if they’re in our systems, whether or not we’re in theirs,” said former National Security Agency general counsel Stewart A. Baker. “It’s the case that the U.S. and Russia and other countries are much more cautious about getting caught because they think there are going to be consequences. It’s only the Chinese that think there are no consequences to getting caught.”

Stewart Baker making himself look foolish again! Last time he popped up on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8559454

I really wonder how someone can come out with stuff like this. I doubt the PRC feels one iota of embarrassment for even one split second, and if senior US officials really bring up Chinese state sponsored hacking "every time they meet with their counterparts in Beijing" then the US Government is living up to its reputation as plumbing the depths of hypocrisy. They embarrass only themselves.

[zaroth]

Obama is heading to China again, time to publish a story about them hacking again? This quote was interesting because it seems to confirm that the whole story is smoke and mirrors for some political agenda.

Before Snowden I actually bought into this whole 'the Chinese are hacking us' refrain. I don't see how they can keep up with it with a straight face anymore.

I think the US has zero credibility pointing the finger here. Spend 1/10th as much on defense as offense and then maybe complain your system protected by default passwords and zero encryption got "hacked".

[mpyne]

The PRC doesn't feel embarrassment about this, but not because of anything the US is or isn't doing. The way they see it, espionage is a fair method of catching up to (and then exceeding) the US, and if it keeps working then maybe the US should actually do something about it. After all, it's not like the Chinese ever voted for strong "intellectual property" protection, they see it as a rule imposed on them by the rest of the world instead of some universal behavioral norm.

The US complaining about their hacking just proves to them how effective it is.

Now, the US engages in strategic espionage for different reasons (just as China actually engages in strategic espionage, which the US doesn't complain about in public). But US representatives should be embarrassed here just because their whining proves the point to the PRC.

[mjklin]

> Chinese

> voted

Might be the first time I've ever seen those two words together in a sentence.

[mpyne]

You should pay attention to the UN more then, even if they do usually abstain from voting.

[diminoten]

The US doesn't engage in economic espionage, and then turn around and give/sell intellectual property to US companies.

[drderidder]

In fact their pals at CSEC were found to be doing exactly that. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/brazil-spying-repo...

[diminoten]

Which private US company received this information in an attempt to boost that company's economic power?

I can't find that information in the article.

[xorcist]

There are several mentions of this in the Snowden papers. I think the most well known is Boeing, in their dealings against Airbus.

[diminoten]

That's not in the Snowden papers, and the actual source for that is highly suspect.

I forget the name of that project, but the Wikipedia page's reference are all terrible. Not a single one stands up to scrutiny.

[jrochkind1]

How are you sure of this? I wouldn't be.

And you're saying it's somehow a different class of ethical conundrum to engage in espionage to kill people, or to engage in it for economic advantage, and killing people is more ethical?

I am not surprised the state-capitalist Chinese see it differently, and are okay with both.

[diminoten]

I'm about as sure of this as I am of unicorns not existing.

As to the ethical dilemma, I'm only noting a difference.

[jrochkind1]

Brazil is less sure. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-braz...

The NYT says it's a "fine line"

> But the government does not deny it routinely spies to advance American economic advantage, which is part of its broad definition of how it protects American national security. In short, the officials say, while the N.S.A. cannot spy on Airbus and give the results to Boeing, it is free to spy on European or Asian trade negotiators and use the results to help American trade officials — and, by extension, the American industries and workers they are trying to bolster.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/business/us-snooping-on-co...

[diminoten]

That's an editorial, so it's the view of one guy who works at the NYT, and not an all-that-well backed up view, to boot.

And I think fine lines are important lines.

[jrochkind1]

Cause at this point everyone knows the US is trying to get into _everyone's_ systems, so it probably sounded hypocritical to himself for him to say it's a big deal when China does it. He's got to come up with something.

It's too late for "gentlemen do not read each other's mail".