As China Hacked, U.S. Businesses Turned A Blind Eye

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Tsumi, Apr 14, 2019.

  1. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,944
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Interesting article on how companies essentially allowed Chinese hacking to run rampant. What incentive would they have to stop? Also, yet another classic case of chasing short term profits at the expense of long term ones. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/7117...s-turned-a-blind-eye?utm_source=pocket-newtab

    Yet an investigation by NPR and the PBS television show Frontline into why three successive administrations failed to stop cyberhacking from China found an unlikely obstacle for the government — the victims themselves.


    Government and business leaders interviewed by NPR and Frontline said individual companies were making millions of dollars in China over the past decade and a half and didn't want to hurt short-term profits by coming forward. They demanded secrecy, even in the face of outright theft.
     
  2. HAL_404

    HAL_404 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    234
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    birds of a feather ...
     
  3. Wiffle

    Wiffle Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    291
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    What a brilliant strategy!

    Lets destroy any billion dollar long term potential and brand image recognition in exchange for millions of dollars now!

    46bd0a583047ffa69e8e14da3cd455a7f14795d9fad4e187c1cfbfd18b7b78df.jpg
     
    $trapped, Travolta, MavericK and 9 others like this.
  4. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,446
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Companies always will choose profits over patriotism.
     
  5. SJetski71

    SJetski71 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,218
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Yet an investigation by NPR and the PBS television show Frontline into why three successive administrations failed to stop cyberhacking from China found an unlikely obstacle for the government — the victims themselves.

    All of this nonsense ends now that we have a real policy-wonk US Trade Representative, and the right person for the job.
     
    Commander Shepard likes this.
  6. Jagger100

    Jagger100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,402
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Businesses in the US literally only care about the profit picture in the next 3 months, because they only care about the day to day value of the stocks. An executive would gleefully make a decision that helps the short term stock value even if it put the company on a path to bankruptcy. The only concern is if its so obvious what they're doing, they might get attention on it and hurt the stock. But if they make bad decisions the general public can't recognize, they'll make them in a heartbeat.
     
    Zarathustra[H] likes this.
  7. Jagger100

    Jagger100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,402
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    We used to have policies that kept his shit in check. But Congress is as in the pocket of these corporations and foreign countries as the Corporation's are in those countries' pocket.
     
    Bcc335 and Commander Shepard like this.
  8. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,660
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    What you did over the last quarter is what keeps shareholders happy, which keeps you employed and well compensated. This is the standard American business model when your company is publically traded. What you did in the long term doesn't make the stock go up.
     
  9. Etherton

    Etherton Will Bang for Poof

    Messages:
    6,823
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    So do consumers...
     
  10. Oldmodder

    Oldmodder Gawd

    Messages:
    596
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Profits are often disguised as patriotism. ( I think ) if its for the good of the country ( don't even have to be proven fact ) then the price tag are of little interest.
     
  11. Furious_Styles

    Furious_Styles [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,142
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Everyday LOW prices!
     
    Etherton likes this.
  12. westrock2000

    westrock2000 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,918
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    The job of capitalism is to find the cheapest way possible to manufacture something or to find the maximum profit ratio.

    The job of the government (regulation) is to make sure capitalism doesn't go too far in one direction at detrimental costs.

    It's not "anti-capitalist" to have regulation. It simply requires capitalism to find a different route.

    "Clever us of game mechanics" comes to mind.
     
    $trapped likes this.
  13. TordanGow

    TordanGow Gawd

    Messages:
    689
    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    This is why I don't use crap like Facebook, twitter. etc. Any site (like this one) that I do use has a separate email associated with it that never gets used for anything personal. I almost 100% use Virtual credit cards ( https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-card-virtual-account-numbers.php ). Etc.

    Unfortunately, this type of data loss is inherent to capitalism. Not because there is some giant plan to "get Tordangow", but because it's cheaper to deal with a data breech than it is to prevent one. Cost vs. Risk is capitalism 101. Until there is strong and punitive regulation this type of thing will happen over and over again. Losing your data is just a cost of doing business to the large corporations.
     
  14. Wiffle

    Wiffle Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    291
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    I think it all stems back to Wallstreet and how corporate laws work in the US. The problem is publicly traded companies, and the laws that dictate how they have to be run. If you as the CEO, CFO, or w/e head are not doing everything possible to maximize returns to investors, then you and your company can be held liable and sued by the investors and or fined by the FTC. Ultimately this only leaves one road open to publicly traded companies: make larger profit margins now by any means necessary.

    Before the 80s, there wasn't much of an issue with publicly traded companies, because it was individual people investing with no hope suing a company without federal assistance. Jump forward to today, and a large chunk of investments come from other publicly traded companies which only care about making money off their investments, and will sue the crap out of you if you don't deliver. If your company goes bankrupt trying to deliver on that promise... oh well, all the assets are sold off, and the big boys recoup their investments while the small fries burn.

    In the end it won't matter. With how fast technology is moving, all these corporations focusing on profits margins are only hastening towards their ends. Customers want quick and efficient delivery on their demands, but this runs contrary to profit margins, which increase as the difficulty to connect the supply to the demand goes up. Anti-competition tactics also increase profit margins, it ensures that nobody can increase the supply or the speed at which the demand is met. But, being anti-competitive only works for so long, competitors are attracted to large profit margins like flies on shit.

    Which is a terrible policy, because brand integrity is crucial for long term sustainability. Punitive legislation isn't really necessary either, because it creates consumers like you and me which refuse to do business with risky companies, and then we go about our merry way informing others to avoid the same stink.

    Warren Buffet disagrees...

    "The basic ideas of investing are to look at stocks as business, use the market's fluctuations to your advantage, and seek a margin of safety. That's what Ben Graham taught us. A hundred years from now they will still be the cornerstones of investing."
    — Warren Buffett​

    ...Sadly the rest of Murica agrees with you. But that's because most Muricans these days allow software and companies using algorithms to manage their money for them while they sip Martinis and Mimosas from their high rise condo in Dubai. They are happy with their 1-2% returns, which is bread crumbs compared to what they could be making.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  15. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,660
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    It's not just "Muricans" it's everyone, yeah Warren Buffet disagrees, and far for me to tell him he's wrong but when stock prices skyrocket for companies that are operating at a loss for their entire existence or stock prices plummet because the CEO took ONE PUFF of a joint on a podcast, then how a company actually is working is irrelevant, and it's not just Muricans doing all this investing either. Companies lay off thousands of employees, not because they have to, or they don't need their labor but removing that money from the bottom line translates to increase profits, which makes said CEO a richer person because the stock price will go up as a result of that reported profit. The entire stock market is just fucked in that regard.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  16. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,408
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Well, for most companies patriotism isn't even a question as it has no bearing at all. It's not even a choice. I don't mean this in a bad way either.

    It's simply that for most companies, patriotism is not part of the business line and I fully understand it. If I was the CEO of say, Craftsman, and during a meeting one of my people suggested something because it was patriotic, I'd probably fire him. Craftsman Tools is a company and it's in the business of business, not of being patriotic. I'd tell that guy to get his head out of his ass and into the right game or find a new game.

    I know a lot of you guys have some pretty jaded ideas of businesses and how they love their profits. But when I hear some of what you guys say I'm like Doh! No shit Sherlock.

    I company is a collection of people who are supposed to be working together for mutual benefit. It's families with kids, their lives are hanging out there on these decisions as well.

    I'm just saying that not everything is a company's profits. A company has profits and it has costs. If the costs are too great and the profits too low, then there is a problem and it's not just a problem in the boardroom.
     
  17. MavericK

    MavericK Zero Cool

    Messages:
    28,561
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Literally the AAA game publishing industry.
     
  18. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,652
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Yep, our entire quarterly earnings system encourages short term thinking to the detriment of long term success. It's a real pity.
     
  19. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,408
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    It's really not true of any of our really successful businesses though is it?

    There are some that manage to do both. They manage the near term while planning for the long term.

    It's the rest, they are the ones that don't last which is unfortunate because they are the ones that squander excellent opportunities to create strong lasting companies.

    EDITED: I should add that some business sectors are more conducive to long term planning, they are less volatile that others. I think it's the companies in business sectors that deal with rapid innovation and change that suffer the most and are most challenged when it comes to long term planning.