I'm baffled at the assumption that concrete and specific evidence of international (presumably) hostile espionage that is currently being enacted using X and Y software and Z specific techniques, would be publicly released in real time.
I can't think of a single situation in which it would be reasonable to assume that.
It's not like we even get governments or corporations saying 'oh hey, just raising the alarm that bad people are using this Photoshop feature to create fake cheques which they're then depositing into their accounts, so bank staff, be on the lookout!'
Because yeah, that's a Photoshop ad.
And it's not like espionage is new, like the Chinese side have been ramping up for decades now, or like there has ever been an expectation that companies with suspicions or evidence of international subterfuge should... should lay it all out in a public report? Is that really what the article is expecting?
I don't even think the UK has got around to officially acknowledging Funny Business in UK-Argentinian relations in any documents or events during the 80's, and the secret was rather given away around the time we went to all out literal war.
We know things must have built up before the day war was declared, but nobody expected every escalation of diplomatic unrest to be communicated to the entire nation in real time.
Because that would be deranged.
Idk, maybe I'm misunderstanding something about the article. I feel like it isn't in my field, although I'm not entirely sure what field specific knowledge I'm missing to make sense of this.
I would very much like to agree with the sentiment, I'm always down for some AI-dissing and a bit of tin foil hat Big Tech Analyses.
But I couldn't get much more than "This company is lying because it didn't give me any Chinese State secrets, let alone explain how to get stars secrets using their software,' which feels so censored as to be pointless, or just kinda wildly petty and ill informed
I can't think of a single situation in which it would be reasonable to assume that.
It's not like we even get governments or corporations saying 'oh hey, just raising the alarm that bad people are using this Photoshop feature to create fake cheques which they're then depositing into their accounts, so bank staff, be on the lookout!' Because yeah, that's a Photoshop ad.
And it's not like espionage is new, like the Chinese side have been ramping up for decades now, or like there has ever been an expectation that companies with suspicions or evidence of international subterfuge should... should lay it all out in a public report? Is that really what the article is expecting?
I don't even think the UK has got around to officially acknowledging Funny Business in UK-Argentinian relations in any documents or events during the 80's, and the secret was rather given away around the time we went to all out literal war. We know things must have built up before the day war was declared, but nobody expected every escalation of diplomatic unrest to be communicated to the entire nation in real time. Because that would be deranged.
Idk, maybe I'm misunderstanding something about the article. I feel like it isn't in my field, although I'm not entirely sure what field specific knowledge I'm missing to make sense of this.
I would very much like to agree with the sentiment, I'm always down for some AI-dissing and a bit of tin foil hat Big Tech Analyses.
But I couldn't get much more than "This company is lying because it didn't give me any Chinese State secrets, let alone explain how to get stars secrets using their software,' which feels so censored as to be pointless, or just kinda wildly petty and ill informed