It's Official: NSA Spying Is Hurting the US Tech Economy 270
An anonymous reader writes China is backing away from U.S. tech brands for state purchases after NSA revelations, according to Reuters. This confirms what many U.S. technology companies have been saying for the past year: the activities by the NSA are harming their businesses in crucial growth markets, including China. From the article: "A new report confirmed key brands, including Cisco, Apple, Intel, and McAfee -- among others -- have been dropped from the Chinese government's list of authorized brands, a Reuters report said Wednesday. The number of approved foreign technology brands fell by a third, based on an analysis of the procurement list. Less than half of those companies with security products remain on the list."
McAfee? (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell does McAfee do to earn money, why the hell it is still alive, and what makes it a key company? Seriously, what.
Re:McAfee? (Score:5, Insightful)
They sell malware for computer OEMs to preinstall. Also for some reason the US government loves the product.
Re: (Score:2)
They install it even on computers running on sensitive government networks. That is the baffling part.
Re: McAfee? (Score:2)
And this is supposed to make us feel good? I would suggest that the use of Symantec products could, in some circumstances, be seen as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Re: (Score:3)
McAfee makes new computers run like shit. Intel and AMD pay them. If Chinese computer users get more than 10% of the CPU they paid for McAfee has failed at their job.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Intel pay McAfee? They own them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Intel pay McAfee? They own them.
The NSA pays them to install McAfee on each computer.
Re:McAfee? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, since you asked seriously, they are the world's largest dedicated security technology company, now wholly owned by Intel, and their antivirus software still ranks in the top 10 in a lot of reviews. That's what they do to earn money, anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Top 10 sellers? No doubt. Among the best 10? Not a chance.
More basically, I don't understand how anybody can trust them. The current version might no longer be properly called 'a virus', but they are still a former virus writing company. That can _never_ change.
Re: (Score:2)
Top 10? In units sold maybe. Certainly not in performance. Neither in speed, nor detection, nor ... anything. Unless "turns an i7 into an i386" becomes something we consider important in such a software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try, John.
Of course they are (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course they are (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the NSA.
Can you blame them?
Re:Of course they are (Score:5, Insightful)
But I'm not living in China. I'm living in the US. So I'll blame the NSA (which is breaking the law, by the way) rather than China (which probably isn't breaking their laws).
Mind you, it's not that they're breaking the law that I mind, it's that they're snooping on me, but if the laws were actually enforced against the powerful I'd have much less objection. Since they aren't, I don't consider them binding on anyone. You obey the law, when it is unjust, only to avoid danger of punishment, but given the current government, that's no guarantee you won't be punished anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, interestingly the US customers are also backing away from Chinese products for the same reasons the Chinese are backing away from American products. So who is hurt again? All you have to do to see who this hurts and who it benefits is to look at the trade balance. Since Americans buy more Chinese stuff than Chinese buy American stuff, it seems to me the obvious answer is that it will help the US "tech economy."
Also, most of the American exports are not commodity items that can be replaced, but factory
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, interestingly the US customers are also backing away from Chinese products for the same reasons the Chinese are backing away from American products. So who is hurt again?
Quite possibly both. It's only likely to 'balance out' if there's an American product equivalent for every Chinese product, and vice-versa.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep on telling yourself that until you notice that those 5 axis milling machines have "made in China" plates on them.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say, "all manufacturing equipment is made in the USA," so I'm not sure what your point is. Your comment implies it is identifying an error in my analysis, yet the substance fails to raise any point.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why its so sad that the NSA did this. The US could have grabbed a lot of the market if we could have assured users that our equipment was trustworthy. It would have taken some time, but eventually we would have grabbed market share from China. Now that everyone assumes both countries are spying on their hardware, we no longer have that competitive advantage.
No one believes they can't get the stuff (Score:2)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
And remember that this will not change. If you buy U.S brands of electronic devices, you WILL be spied upon. The U.S has long since stopped being a country to trust and rely on, and the U.S and its exported products are now something we should instead be wary of.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, the alternatives suck also. The recent revelations are that most if not all countries are dirty liars when it comes to spying.
who's spying (Score:4, Insightful)
Each product spec sheet should include a list of all countries that will be spying on you as a result of your purchase. Then you can compare various models and decide who would make you most happy if they were to know everything about you. Customer transparency. Customer choice. Even Apple can get behind that!
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:5, Interesting)
You got it backwards. If I have to choose someone who will spy on me, I want it to be a country as far away as possible, one that I will never get near. I don't give two shits about the Chinese knowing something about me, it's my own government I'm worried about. I'd have to piss off China really badly for them to throw me into a gulag - it's just too much hassle. For my government, it's as easy as sending a patrol car or two.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's pretty unlikely a Western government will steal the identy of one of its citizens and drain their bank account. I wouldn't put that past China and its armies of hackers. If you live in the US or various other countries the Chinese also have nuclear weapons aimed at you. I doubt any nuclear armed Western nation will nuke its own cities or people. If you are traveling in China it doesn't take that much for them to throw you in jail. Give it a try some time. Why not go demonstate on the anni
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's pretty unlikely a Western government will steal the identy of one of its citizens and drain their bank account.
You mean like that recent case where the police stole a woman's identity and used it to build a cover as a prostitute?
Or are you referring to all of the people in the US who have their assets seized without trial? Now with parallel construction, it can be done with even less justification than before.
Has China ever done any of this stuff to us, ever? Because the US has done this stuff to its own citizens plenty of times. So why should I be so afraid of China, when the biggest danger my wellbeing comes from
Re: (Score:3)
Civil asset forture isn't related to any of that. Parallel construction isn't either.
And why is that? I gave very real examples of what our government can and does do to its citizens. To quote the poster you originally responded to, "For my government, it's as easy as sending a patrol car or two." And I noticed that you never addressed the identity theft part...
As to "fantasyland," it's aways a pleasure to deal with the uninformed and mistaken.
Yes, I believe a newspaper article about something that hasn't happened falls squarely in the realm of fantasyland. We have contingency plans to nuke them as well.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
and now that everyone 'knows' the nsa has exceeded their charter, the problem will be fixed and all will return to normal.
no? you don't agree?
neither do I! we'll NEVER be able to know, for sure, if they have disbanded, continued or even increased their hidden powers.
they can say 'ok, you caught us, we'll start following the law again' but even congresscritters won't know for sure. anyone who does know for sure, will NOT be telling us any truth about it, either.
so, what do you have from this? complete and permanent lack of trust in the three letter agencies in the US, and the equivalent ones overseas in pretty much every country.
why even talk about this anymore? those that have this power won't ever give it up, we will continue to be kept in the dark and nothing will change for the better.
cat is out of the bag, won't get back in and now we all have to live with cats, everywhere. so to to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S has long since stopped being a country to trust and rely on, and the U.S and its exported products are now something we should instead be wary of.
So, what is it you suggest instead? Buying from and trusting your country? Which one is it? What country is both so trustworthy that we should believe the rants of ACs and is also able to manufacture enough to meet the demand for goods across the whole world?
People should be equally wary of stupid crap like you posted.
Re:Good indeed, for open source (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that you can't see the faulty code in closed proprietary software doesn't mean that it has no exploits. You clearly haven't worked in proprietary software development teams and seen the incompetent vomit that goes into products.
Vulnerabilities are detectable by boundary testing and fuzzing just as easily in closed software as in open software, but in very stark contrast, in closed software there is no possibility of the community finding the faulty code and reporting it, so typically the vast majority of vulnerabilities never get fixed.
The initial bug rates per KLoC don't vary between closed and open projects. The difference is that in open software, bugs are rapidly found and eliminated, so you've completely misunderstood what you're seeing. The high rates of 0-day reporting show the process of fault elimination working rapidly in open source, whereas in closed software it's far slower and so the faults hang around far longer.
Maybe you should think a little about what it means before posting a nonsense conclusion.
Nononono... (Score:5, Funny)
... it's Snowdens fault for telling, not the NSA's fault for spying...
Re:Nononono... (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of the old joke:
Question for great Radio Eriwan: Could the catastrophe of Chernobyl have been averted?
Answer from great Radio Eriwan: Yes, in principle. But the Swedes blabbed.
The obvious capitalist solution (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Baby steps; the first step is to use component manufacturers in Taiwan. Though yes, eventually tech component manufacturer will be one of the many, many things that the tech business landscape will need to reconcile while not jeopardizing civilization. That means no tech product hyperinflation, and a minimum on sweatshop hunting.
The way I see it, China is going to continue on this tack, which was probably planned years or decades ago (hmmm, 5-year plan, I remember hearing that terminology somewhere...).
Re: (Score:2)
Easily done, after all many outsource to mainland China so volume won't be a problem.
Next?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it would be possible to offshore overall fewer jobs to China specifically but for the same net cost of the
Re:The obvious capitalist solution (Score:4, Informative)
It's [247wallst.com] already [forbes.com] happening. [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's also amazing how long a workforce can refuse to do a damn thing while protesting 'fascists' wanting them to actually work and pay taxes. e.g. Greece.
The devil is in the details. We can't treat China the same as Greece. That said there is little the Chinese could do to work any more aggressively. They are already turned up to 11.
It would/will take generations to get the Greeks to work hard and pay taxes. It took generations of Ottoman rule to train them to cheat and scam at everything.
It takes mo
Sorry but I have to bite (Score:2)
When I was growing up Greek migrants in my area effectively demonstrated the definition of working hard. I'll bet it was the same where you live as well.
Sometimes posts here just reveal far too much information about the poster and nothing at all about the topic at hand.
Cue the NSA... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is hilarious... (Score:5, Interesting)
In every other conceivable respect, this isn't funny at all. It's just that they think we'll fall for that, and for the most part, we are. But neither these businesses nor the NSA will. The end result will be that China will start buying these products again and it will be spun to us as the result of some kind of breakthrough negotiation. I give it a year, but they might pull a headline grabber and make it happen sooner if it was primarily a bid for lower prices all along.
Re:This is hilarious... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you have any proof that China systematically back-doors hardware before it leaves the country? I have not seen any, just lots of innuendo from US companies trying to make out that China is as bad as they are and you are screwed either way.
The US is exceptionally bad. It spends more money spying on people than anyone else. It has more extensive programmes than anyone else we know of, except perhaps the UK who they are close partners with. Let's not pretend that everyone is as bad, because they are not. There is zero evidence that China installs backdoors in routers or hard drive firmware before they go through customs, for example, while we have photos of the US doing it.
China is bad, but all the evidence suggests that the US is worse. Most of us prefer an evidence based approach to our paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
China is bad, but all the evidence suggests that the US is worse.
Maybe China is just much better at preventing the Chinese Edward Snowdens from exposing China programs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Have we forgotten all of the articles about router backdoors installed at the factory? Remember the Cisco stories? We already know the NSA installs their back doors at the factory. That's not news. Besides having been told this before, where would it be more feasible to accomplish this? Should we ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing it so that US businesses will pressure the NSA to stop, and then if it succeeds, China will have the upper hand in espionage.
Boo fucking hoo. If the NSA had not abused its privileges, they would not be in this position now. They should have stuck to their job instead of trying so hard to become Big Brother. This could potentially tumble America into destruction. They should have thought of that before they started this bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
My guess is that local (Chinese) companies have gotten good enough that China feels that with a bit of a boost they can do all that is needed, so they don't need the US companies anymore.
I don't have any evidence, so I could well be wrong, but nobody else has been presenting much in the way of evidence either. And this lets them cut off imports from the US in a way palatable to the world community. (Even if they aren't believed, it's a damn good excuse.)
hackers oligarchs & thugs (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm 100% in favor of strict NSA accountability, but it's wrong to blame the NSA as if they aren't at least partially working for the right reasons.
Blame hackers, oligarchs, and wannabe international gangsters first and foremost. The NSA must be held accountable with hardcore oversight, but we need law enforcement and defense.
Also, the tone of this article is weird, it seems to put China as some kind of arbiter of global trade ethics:
Cisco, Apple, Intel, and McAfee -- among others -- have been dropped from the Chinese government's list of authorized brands,
China's government is a totalitarian, freedom depriving monolith. The people of China are victims.
I see the angle, when we put spyware in tech like this there are consequences and it's probably overreach by the NSA, but TFA is criticizing from the wrong angle.
China is not a threat to us. That's the core misunderstanding. How many books, blog posts, articles by Thomas Friedman have there been about the "China Rising" nonsense? We don't owe China like a bank...they ***invested in the US*** by buying our bonds...you don't invest in something you are trying to destroy.
China's financial sovlency depends on the US's ability to honor our bonds. They hitched their wagons to our economy.
Also, China is a pollution wasteland. Human and chemical. Their disasterous one child policy has ruined the population balance of a generation and they have to run their city marathons in smog so thick it's visible at ground level.
I want the US to be a good influence on China. I want our policies to promote them making the right decisions for their people.
Re:hackers oligarchs & thugs (Score:5, Insightful)
For a long time the intelligence community has been putting capability well ahead of results. From my meager experience I would guess that most of these capabilities produce little actual actionable results. More likely tese are a direct result of having to keep showing really cool possibilities to keep their fiefdom funded. Actual results driven funding would reault in much more human level intelligence, but that is hard and not sexy.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? The results are clear and effective. General Petraeus and Mr. Spitzer found out the hard way.
I would be surprised if these capabilities were not abused to blackmail or otherwise coerce leaders of industry and members of congress.
Someone has a LOT of power at their fingertips now because of these "programs". People are getting hurt already.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your first sentence makes sense.
But this isn't just about Chinese firms ditching US products because of something they read in the Snowden gazette. The Chinese government has altered the allowed purchasing list for government related purchases. (Pray they don't alter it any further.)
Snowden only provided evidence of what pretty much anyone with half a brain already suspected was happening. Do you somehow think that someone in the Chinese intelligence community didn't already know about this and that without
The Chinese can do more ... (Score:3)
... to affect change than the American citizen, because, well, money.
Why would I trust YOUR government? (Score:2)
Re:Terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
That's interesting because terrorists have been announcing that one of their goals is to have an impact on the US economy.
Is the article's point saying that the terrorists have won?
The terrorists already won long ago when Dubya and a willing Congress shredded our civil liberties after 9/11.
Re:Terrorists (Score:4, Funny)
The terrorists already won long ago when Dubya and a willing Congress shredded our civil liberties after 9/11.
Thats okay, this guy will save us as soon as he gets in office...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs
Re:Terrorists (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I understood the post. They were attempting to try to put words in my mouth as if I support Obama.
Re:Terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I've provided plenty of criticism of Obama over the years on this site. Just because a single post only mentioned Dubya doesn't mean I support Obama.
Re:Terrorists (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, they were shredded before 9/11. 9/11 just made it so they didn't have to hide that fact anymore.
I'd say that they were frayed prior to 9/11, but that was Christmas.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, who let them do it?
I guess the pain ain't big enough yet, I don't see many people hitting the streets with a "gimme liberty or death" yell.
Re:Terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and guess what the vast majority of PATRIOT Act powers are used for, and what the 'anti-terrorism' grant dollars buy... the largest category is by far drug crimes, with terrorism coming in dead last. Law enforcement was foaming at the mouth over all the post-9/11 authority, but it sure as hell wasn't because it helped them fight terrorism- it let them make even more money, through grants and forfeitures, and superior-pleasing arrests, by fighting more drug crimes.
**And it was not 'ended' or 'reformed' by Holder, worst case of wholesale swallowing of media spin ever; it merely made it a requirement to only forfeit under federal law if you make it a joint investigation, makes it no harder to forfeit under state law, or for the feds on their own, or really at all since all it takes is putting a feds name on the paper to say it's joint)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey look a frothing-at-the-mouth idiot. I didn't vote for Obama and I've called him out dozens and dozens and dozens on times, but thanks for the amusement. I get no end of laughs when I say anything about Dubya and his defense squad blows their stacks. Then if I call out Obama, even in the very same story at some other point, I get the same thing from the Obama defenders who then bash me and decry "But Bush!!". I don't buy into your partisan bullshit, little troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I don't buy into the partisan bullshit. That's not to say there haven't been things both of them have done that I've supported but I don't play the "RAH RAH RAH! My team!!!" game that you seem to. I'm more than willing to call both parties out for their bullshit.
Re:Terrorists (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, at least...
It's funny to watch the whole spiel from across the pond. I know, maybe it's the distance and the loss of resolution distance entails, but I can't really see that much of a difference between those two parties that you have. It's pretty much the same party to me, maybe with a strawberry flavor here and a blueberry flavor there, but slushy is slushy. The basic ingredients are the same crap, the rest is flavoring. Artificial flavoring.
But yet you see people bicker with an insane drive to ensure that THEIR side of The Party isn't to blame, it's ALL the other side's fault. I look at the whole mess and can only think that you're sitting in a swimming pool with a line splitting it off in the middle, with either side blaming the other one for pissing in the pool but neither even thinking about getting out and draining the water.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the problem with the political system isn't it, two main parties, both pretty similar, both sponsored by the same corporates. None of them I agree with, and if you vote for someone else, people will say don't do that its a wasted vote. It gives the perception of choice without actually providing you with one.
I say vote the way you want. I also say you should be able to vote no confidence in any of them. I don't know what you do if no confidence was significant, probably wouldn't make a difference but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hate to take the side of the frothing tard that the GP is, but the Democrats had 50-49 majority control of the Senate when the Patriot Act was voted on. It wasn't 51-49 because of the 1 seat being vacant due to Paul Wellstone dying the day the Patriot Act vote happened in the Senate.
Re:Terrorists (Score:4, Informative)
Oops, wrong year since Paul Wellstone died in 2002. So it was 51-49 Democratic Control when the vote happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The original Patriot Act vote was 98-1 (a Democrat being the only "no" vote)
When the Patriot Act was renewed in 2006, there were 10 "no" votes. Here are the senators who voted "no"
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)
No Republican voted against the Patriot Act, either time it was before the Senate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're the one who dragged "Dubya" into this and tried to lay it at his feet.
I didn't lay anything at his feet beyond what he himself did. Which is that he and the Democratic-controlled Senate were complicit in shredding civil liberties after 9/11. I'm sorry that saying anything bad about Dubya makes you such a flailing tard. Not my fault that you're such a partisan twit.
Gotta love how the "BOOOSH lied, people died!" fools shut the hell up when confronted with "If you like your plan, you can keep it" or "If you like your doctor you can keep him" or "No more illegal wiretapping of American citizens" or "no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime" or "no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war" or, wonder of wonders, "NO MORE IGNORING THE LAW WHEN IT IS INCONVENIENT", like, say Obamacare deadlines or immigration laws...
I don't see how any of that applies to me since I don't and never did vote or support Dubya's or Obama's stances on surveillance. But that doesn't change the fact that Dubya is the president who signed the Patriot A
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah bad shit like the Clipper chip was being done under Clinton's watch and I never claimed that the only times civil liberties were shredded was during Dubya. But the "THE TERRISTS!!!" bullshit line to hyperdrive surveillance powers and shred liberties was done during Dubya's reign with the passing of the Patriot Act. But he is not the only one responsible for the reprehensible bill as there were plenty of Democrats supporting it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a "low bar," that is pointing out rubbish, the disparity between what is claimed and reality. You may need a taste of that yourself.
So you say there was a problem with one visitor of the 60,000,000 people that visit the US each year? That is "scary" as a "way things are headed" AKA a "trend." Do you think it will hit 2 in 60,000,000 soon?
Re: (Score:3)
Say what you want (even though their aims were never to conquer the US), but their tiny little attack scared the US into giving up freedom and entering a war (or two) which caused nothing but fertile ground for more terrorists to attack the US. I'm sure if the terrorists were able to fly a plane into a building which would directly achieve that, and did so, they would have been very happy with the outcome. So yeah - while the terrorists haven't won, they certainly have some excellent allies in the US gove
Re: (Score:2)
When the Ruskie's stated that the US would collapse from within they weren't kidding. Interesting that they fell victim to the same things, and that most are side stepping the issues created for the airline industries by the rest of all this bullshit. Terrorists's impact the US economy? They couldn't possibly compete with our own stupidity...
Re:What about Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about Snowden (Score:5, Informative)
I support Congressman Thomas Massie (R) - Kentucky for that reason. I have a lot of respect for him being one of the few that actually went on record publicly stating in a televised interview that Snowden did a service to the people. I commend him for that courage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
See, that's what happens when you freely intermingle your illegal and unconstitutional activities with those which you are supposed to be pursuing. Snowden didn't reveal names of agents, for example, but is it really his fault when shining the light on the bad also revealed the proper activity?
Like it or not, that was (and is) the game the NSA is playing. By treating vulnerabilities as weapons and not disclosing them properly to the parties who could fix them not only did the NSA have increased ability to spy on others, but so did others on us. In their hubris, the NSA apparently thinks that only they are cool enough to take advantage.
The same is true when the NSA targeted individuals in corporations like Gemalto. Those actions were wrong and not in the NSAs charter. Sure, some of the results of the operations might conceivably have helped efforts that were within their purview, but you can't tell and their actions were simply wrong.
So *maybe* the NSAs actions helped keep America a little safer. Though they can't find any evidence of that (the shameful attempts at lies were exposed). But what we *do* know is that by undermining digital security they have made both American citizens and American corporations more vulnerable.
What the NSA has done is the equivalent of using dynamite to destroy the enemy's boat. Unfortunately, it is the same boat the NSA is on and everyone is going down together.
Re:What about Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As it should.
They want to play at being toy soldiers? Then get rid of the pissing in pockets network of expensive external contractors and pay them as soldiers. No more Hollywood set designers to fit out an operations room to an Exec's SF dreams. On military salaries and not being able to apply titles like VP of whatever it's less likely to attract the corrupt who created the sprawling web it currentl
Re:What about Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like blaming the cheerleader that the team lost the big game because she reported the star quarterback raped her.
It was the NSA's choice to engage in ethically questionable actions. These events are the fallout from that decision. That the NSA's actions in spying on citizens without legal authority, warrant, or adequate oversight should affect international business by undermining worldwide trust in the nation is, frankly, exactly what the NSA should have expected.
Re: (Score:2)
This is like blaming the cheerleader that the team lost the big game because she reported the star quarterback raped her.
No, this is like the team water boy stealing the team's playbook and scouting reports, moving to the arch rival's town, and having it published in the town papers of all of the team's opponents, along with secret routes into the local malls that extremists would like to use to drop a bomb or two among the shoppers.
You're in over your head on the legality of this. Congress, the executive branch, and the courts have repeatedly authorized and supported the NSA actions.
Here's a Pro Tip for you: As a practical
Re: (Score:2)
Papers please.
Re:What about Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
One could argue that it's Snowden's revelations are hurting the economy. The NSA is supposed to be spying on foreign entities.
If the NSA are supposed to be spying on foreign entities, then it stands to reason that Snowden telling everyone this would not be a huge revelation; it would be just stating the obvious. As such, Snowden could not have hurt the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA is supposed to be spying on foreign entities. No constitutional issues there at all.
Please to be explaining how a United States Citizen is classified as "foreign entities" in your mind?
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone that WOULD stand up to this must have a strong core belief system that won't be swayed by earthly gains (a fundamentalist Christian, for example, or a strong environmentalist/humanitarian). But such a person would never be voted for by the public, because their strong beilefs would instantly disqualify them to voters of the other party. People with strong convictions will absolutely lose a presidential election.
Re:Chinese industrial policy (Score:5, Funny)
China steals tech, and they want to develop its industries in all fields. Such as stealing wind turbine tech from American Superconductor, high speed rail tech from Japan, France, and Germany, and car tech from the major car manufacturers.
Well, what do you expect? Like a lot of Americans, they believe we stole the tech from aliens in Area 52.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"China steals tech, and they want to develop its industries in all fields. Such as stealing wind turbine tech from American Superconductor, high speed rail tech from Japan, France, and Germany, and car tech from the major car manufacturers."
It's only natural for a developing country to steal tech from more advanced countries. The US use to do it hundreds of years ago when they were still developing compared to Europe. It was only after they "caught up" and started trying to push ahead that they gave a fuck
Re: (Score:2)
Your points would be well taken if you were right.