There's important nuance here that has a large impact. I'm not talking about geopolitical espionage, which I'd agree goes in all directions.
I'm talking about concerted IP / business secrets theft which is then funneled to domestic companies. I call these companies "state-controlled" because they are ultimately susceptible to the authoritarian central government's will.
I can't think of anywhere else in the world where this is not only routine, but coordinated at massive scale. Can you inform me what I'm missing?
Edit: I disagree with your last point too. There's been plenty of reporting on Chinese IP theft dating back years, it's only increased in prominence. Trump is waging the trade war partially because of the history of hacking. It was a point of contention throughout Obama's admin too, but Trump is handling it his way. (Obama's answer was TPP, but deployed too late)
> I call these companies "state-controlled" because they are ultimately susceptible to the authoritarian central government's will.
If the companies are susceptible to the government's will, then attacks against the government would also be attacks on the companies. Defense and recovery against geopolitical espionage diverts resources away from those companies. Why is the drain on profit industrial espionage causes a problem while a drain on resources is acceptable?
You’re making a distinction between cyber industrial espionage and cyber geopolitical espionage and I’m not. I would classify all of these actions under the broad umbrella of cyber warfare. In this context, the OP’s assertion that Europe and the U.S need to “join the hard line on China” is based on the fundamentally flawed assumption that the EU and the U.S are simply innocent victims of cyber attacks. It implies that they, as pure, liberal and democratic as they are, have never, and would never engage in such reprehensible and illegal activities as hacking, unlike the big bad evil Chinese. It is my view that this is an untenable and fundamentally flawed position.
> I can't think of anywhere else in the world where this is not only routine, but coordinated at massive scale. Can you inform me what I'm missing?
Why would you need me to inform you about something that I’ve never claimed? My claim is that nobody’s hands are clean when it comes to cyber warfare, not that China has never before engaged in the type of espionage you describe.
> Edit: I disagree with your last point too. There's been plenty of reporting on Chinese IP theft dating back years, it's only increased in prominence. Trump is waging the trade war partially because of the history of hacking. It was a point of contention throughout Obama's admin too, but Trump is handling it his way. (Obama's answer was TPP, but deployed too late)
I’ve addressed the industrial espionage point above. As far as the trade war: Trump is waging his trade war because of the trade imbalance between the U.S and China as he has repeated ad nauseam since day one. There was a particular point in time (probably around the time of the as-of-yet unsubstantiated and unretracted Bloomberg Supermicro story) where the hacking narrative was retroactively shoehorned in as a reason. I stand by my opinion that the timing of this report, along with the other recent mountains of anti-China mainstream media stories and social media posts, is highly suspect.
I'm talking about concerted IP / business secrets theft which is then funneled to domestic companies. I call these companies "state-controlled" because they are ultimately susceptible to the authoritarian central government's will.
I can't think of anywhere else in the world where this is not only routine, but coordinated at massive scale. Can you inform me what I'm missing?
Edit: I disagree with your last point too. There's been plenty of reporting on Chinese IP theft dating back years, it's only increased in prominence. Trump is waging the trade war partially because of the history of hacking. It was a point of contention throughout Obama's admin too, but Trump is handling it his way. (Obama's answer was TPP, but deployed too late)