Comment by derefr
11 days ago
I feel like you're underestimating the average large state actor's ability to employ subtlety when they really care about a long-term foreign intelligence operation.
For example, it doesn't have to be the case that DJI has ever been told to collect data for the CCP. That would be a big OPSEC violation — as soon as anyone in the foreign media learned of it, DJI would be as dead as Huawei or Tiktok.
Instead, it could just as well be that the CCP have left DJI themselves untouched, but have instead manipulated market conditions around them: arranging it so that DJI "just seems to never be able to" hire any security experts; and so that DJI (and everyone else) hire product managers from a pool trained on CCP-sponsored university programs and industry media sources, that have those product managers parroting "useful" beliefs like "more analytics is always better."
> arranging it so that DJI "just seems to never be able to" hire any security experts
They're foot-nuking themselves this way, as well. Due to their poor security, DJI are also easily compromised by Western interests and collect a ton of data about Chinese drone operations. I suppose someone could argue they decided that this is worth the cost of the operation, etc., but it seems... odd.
> hire product managers from a pool trained on CCP-sponsored university programs and industry media sources, that have those product managers parroting "useful" beliefs like "more analytics is always better."
The CCP don't need to do any work to make this happen. I totally agree that they benefit, thus my "indistinguishable from malware" comment. But this is how product management works worldwide. Maybe the modern obsession with product telemetry has been a years-long deep intelligence op, but I think it's easier to attribute to standard corporate behavior.