undefined | Better HN

0 pointsalephnerd5d ago0 comments

> My point was that there are different perspectives on national security. If everything ASML (or another similar company) knows became public knowledge, it would be bad for its business. It might also be inconvenient to some foreign interests. But would it be an actual national security issue to the host country

Yes for the Netherlands as well as other countries. Netherlands, the US, and Taiwan (because ASML's core IP is dependent on US DoE's Cymer and Taiwan's HMI) are treat the technology used for semiconductor fabrication as dual use export controlled technology critical for national security.

> It might be that the people do not consider it a serious crime

In Taiwan (and especially at TSMC) everyone is taught that the technology surrounding sub-7nm fabrication is export controlled and national security adjacent.

> I'm not sure how the "importance" of various countries is related to the discussion. Or what Russia or the US does

To show that your experience with Finland frankly doesn't matter in the discussion. When someone mentions Bruxelles or the EU, we don't mean Finland or Slovenia or Luxembourg.

Though I would be curious if your defense would be accepted by the Finnish government if you attempted something similar at Patria Oyj.

You highly underestimate the severity with which data and IP exfiltration for dual use technologies is prosecuted and treated in all countries. And if deep down you think that is wrong, if you were an employee of mine I would make you were fired and blackballed.

0 comments

jltsiren5d ago

This branch of the discussion was about "European governments" not treating theft of dual use technology from ASML as a national security concern. Except when it also involved a breach of sanctions against Russia.

Your perspective on national security is that of top leaders, whose opinions are shaped by their interactions with other leaders and policy experts. But in a democracy, legislators often matter more than leaders. Because legislators have to take public opinion (as mediated by the electoral system) into account, their interests tend to be in conflict with the leaders. And then, no matter how convincingly the leaders and policy experts argue for their positions, the legislators often win.

Patria is a poor example, because defense is an explicit national security concern in the relevant laws. Dual use technologies are not. Finland did not treat espionage against Nokia particularly seriously back in its glory days. While there were some attempts to tighten the laws, they met heavy opposition and had to be watered down. Ultimately Nokia was just a business, and there is always a degree of public schadenfreude when big important people fail to protect their secrets.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jltsiren5d ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse