The Us Is Now the Largest Investor in Commercial Spyware
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
arstechnica.comTechstoryHigh profile
controversialmixed
Debate
80/100
SurveillanceSpywareCybersecurityInvestment
Key topics
Surveillance
Spyware
Cybersecurity
Investment
The US has become the largest investor in commercial spyware, sparking concerns about surveillance and cybersecurity, while others see it as a necessary measure for national security.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
47m
Peak period
24
0-2h
Avg / period
8.3
Comment distribution50 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 50 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 11, 2025 at 10:51 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 11, 2025 at 11:39 AM EDT
47m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
24 comments in 0-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 12, 2025 at 4:05 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45212370Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 5:42:25 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
:-D
Report: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/re...
Dataset: https://github.com/ac-csi/mythical-beasts
Consider the incentives. Surveillance is costly. The only way to justify increasing surveillance costs is to demonstrate increasing intervention in criminal activity. If traditional crime is reduced, new crimes need to be introduced.
Once all the enemies of the state have been eliminated, it becomes mandatory to introduce new enemies of the state so they, too, can be rounded up. Eventually there will be no one left to come for and the surveillance technology will go unmonitored.
In my experience, it's social crises that tend to be used to justify authoritarian power grabs - whether that's a political killing or a worldwide contagion.
One might be tempted towards the conclusion that dystopian surveillance doesn't materially impact crime rates and that if we want to solve the latter, we need a different solution than the former.
The bigger question is: why would you expect the US not to be the largest investor? CNE vendors are tech companies. The US is the largest investor in tech companies.
Mostly because $FAV_TECH_COMPANY constantly tells me they love privacy. They fight backdoors in court, they rush out security patches and closely coordinate with the government to ensure I'm safe. Every advertisement seems to reinforce the idea that they cared about my security, I guess I put too much faith in the principles of private enterprise.
Don't take my word for it, though. Scroll through the rest of the comments in this thread, I counted all of three unique users that took this article at face-value. The fact that we see this cognitive dissonance on HN should really reinforce how unimportant online security is to Silicon Valley.
It's a direct answer to the question you posed, which was email-quoted in the first line of the comment.
It relates the point of view of someone who's substantially tech-ignorant and -in part because they simply don't have time or energy to think much on the topic- entirely unaware of how the intelligence and infosec world works. People like that make up a somewhat-surprising fraction of the US population. Sometimes folks who work in computers are a member of this subset of the population!
Whether there's any overlap between them and enemies of the people will heavily depend on the latter's ability to steer towards good governance. The track record for the past few decades hasn't been great.
1) If you're counting investment, you should count it in dollars, not number of investors or corporate entity locations.
2) This is missing at least two extremely well-known CNE vendors, which makes me doubt its accuracy.
3) The takeaway from the graph on Mythical Beasts [1] should be that the industry is _very small_, not that it's very big.
4) Americans should be happy that the US government is the biggest player. Would you prefer to have China or Russia or the Middle East be the biggest player? Get a warrant -> own a phone is a very straightforward process that fits into existing models of civil liberties in the US.
[1]: https://mythicalbeasts.atlanticcouncil.org/
To be fair, an objective person might prefer to have _no_ "big players"
Whether a biased or self-interested commenter on the subject believes this is possible or not doesn't eliminate the possibilty of this preference
It is like asking whether a voter would prefer to have the "biggest players" giving funds to X candidate or Y candidate, ignoring whether the voter would actually prefer campaign finance reform instead
People talk about US as if it’s some kind of lala land! Every country, every person should take active measures to protect itself from US influence.
I dont really trust the intent of any information I read online. This article could well be part of a influence campaign by a foreign power.
"Because if you talk about something the most, this means you have it the most.." is how most people perceive things. Of course, the opposite is often true.
If the absolute value of China + Russia + ME was the same, but US went down? Yeah, probably. Doubly so if sales going down meant less R&D investment and therefore lower quality software.
The headline can't be taken at face value. "Largest" is based on the number of investing entities (including individuals), not something more objective like dollars invested. Also, the US is not making these decisions as the headline implies.
My home country does not have formal diplomatic ties with them, yet we purchased and deployed surveillance tech from this country.
We live in a truly dystopian nightmare.
17 more comments available on Hacker News