alt Hacker NewsI see this often that people refer to countries as actors. Are you implying that the government of these countries bought those resources and they're now owned by the government? Or are you saying that citizens/corporations of those countries are buying? I find it weird, I wouldn't use the phrase "The United States is buying XYZ" unless it was the current government doing so?
Replies
>Are you implying that the government of these countries bought those resources and they're now owned by the government
You have to take these issues with nuance instead of looking at them black and white.
If the US government gives you a billion dollar subsidy to do some particular action, is the action that is done the will of the corporation or the will of the government?
If the US government is paying private companies to 'gain information on' foreign entities, is that the will of the private companies or of the government itself?
If when a US company acquires a resource the US government can ask nicely for it with the threat of implied violence if you don't give it, is that a private resource or not?
And, note, I'm talking about the US that has relatively strong property rights and not about China where the government has far more leeway with the operation of companies, and absolutely uses them for nation state level information gathering.
China does not have a meaningful distinction between private industry and the state. She also maintains a level of surveillance and control, particularly in the IT world, that makes this hard with some level of government sanction.
It seems to be widly accepted that the Chinese State (don't know about India) often imposes on or sponsers citizens to perform actions it finds adventagious.
And, I'd say, the US is known to do this. I'll lead with 'Project Azorian' to back it up.
I'm not sure the distinction matters, and attribution is inherently hard and easy to get wrong. I frequently read Country X is doing Y, less as a indicator of government action and more of a single that we can't be more specific of who within the country is performing an action but we know the behavior is occurring there.
In the case of IP address purchases, these are publicly tied to specific public and private entities and can be easily queried through the regional registries. These private entities are frequently the same kind of shell company you'll get with hiding shady financial details.
In the US, the government can apply pressure and bargain with companies for favor, but there is no legal requirement of companies agreeing (shy of court orders). Far more than cases of corporate compliance with the government are cases of corporate defiance.
In China, there is no meaningful difference between the party and any Chinese company. Companies are seed funded by the state and carry the will of the state. There is no "come back with a court order" in China. And even if there was, the courts are also just another arm of the party.
Both.
In the case of China, I believe it's government or CCP-controlled entities, and the end-game is something more nefarious.
For India, IMO it's private industry. They're just trying to make a buck.