I wonder if other industrial-revolution monopolies in history also led to corporate-disobedience - akin to civil disobedience - where employees intentionally break rules considered unethical.
Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded
31–40 of 97 posts
Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one reason why US visa application forms include a question which basically asks "Are you a spy?". Which might seem silly because obviously a real spy would never answer yes. But the real point of the question is that if the government finds later that someone lied on the form it becomes easier to charge them with a crime or deport them. Edit: some of you take comments way too literally so for your benefit he…
The system described sounds like a terrible idea. In order to prove someone lied on the form when they said "No" to "Are you a spy?", you have to prove they're a spy. At that point, you're free to deport them; the form is irrelevant.
No, it's not that simple. The question isn't literally "are you a spy", I'm sure it's a more relaxed version, e.g. "have you ever been employed by a foreign government" or some such. The point is to lower the barrier of proof. The government doesn't have to prove someone is an actual "spy", with the gray area that can entail, only that they lied on the form.
It's a similar idea behind the recent "Have you traded in any cryptocurrency" IRS question on tax returns. The idea is that it prevents anyone from claiming ignorance as to their responsibilities to disclose.
Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one reason why US visa application forms include a question which basically asks "Are you a spy?". Which might seem silly because obviously a real spy would never answer yes. But the real point of the question is that if the government finds later that someone lied on the form it becomes easier to charge them with a crime or deport them. Edit: some of you take comments way too literally so for your benefit he…
The system described sounds like a terrible idea. In order to prove someone lied on the form when they said "No" to "Are you a spy?", you have to prove they're a spy. At that point, you're free to deport them; the form is irrelevant.
I'd wager there is no outright "Are you a spy?" question, but questions written that are highly likely make or break questions (Who's your current employer? Listing a foreign government as your employer on a student visa application may often be a deal breaker depending on the relationship between the countries). By giving a false answer, you've committed fraud. It doesn't even require you to be a proper spy of any sort to have motive to give a false answer.
Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded
#34Haha, their spies are undone by their bureaucrats. Amazing.
Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded
#35Seems a bit racist. Israel/Finland/Germany all have universal conscription so they don't get harassed like the Chinese.
1. Fabricating of immigration documents is illegal everywhere in the world. Try doing that in Canada, that has stricter immigration laws than US.
2. There is this national security risk with China. Just the other day, there was the top article on HN about a US firm having been hacked by China over a time period of years! This is not an isolated incident either.
3. Koreans like myself won't be denied entering even though we are same Asian race. We also have the mandatory military service, and have to mention it every time to enter US.
4. Nobody in the US California and New York calls it racism when you makes it harder for us to accepted to Harvard and Stanford because same test scores as Caucasians, we get dinged on the personality. This is a clear example of an actual racism.
5. China and Korea are both countries. Not races. NOT ALL Asians are Chinese. If I may suggest thinking a bit more before claiming to be on our side :(
Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded
#36> "This prosecution will help to protect elite institutions like Stanford from illicit foreign influences."
...how?
I assume everyone was aware that if she said something, it was being said by her. Where does the illicit foreign influence come in?
Suppose her cover story had been completely accurate -- instead of being a member of the PLA, she was someone who had "only" served in the PLA for 11 years. That person had no problem getting a visa. Is there a difference in her expected influence on Stanford?
> "Time and again, the Chinese government prioritizes stealing U.S. research and taking advantage of our universities over obeying international norms."
Ok, but that would clearly be happening with civilian researchers too. Also, we publish our research on purpose. You can't steal public information. Was she admitted to a classified research program as a presumably-reformed 11-year veteran of the PLA?
Why isn't there an indictment for espionage, or theft of private information, or anything similar to these complaints? What exactly is Stanford being protected from?
Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
The file is still there. A regular delete just tells the disk that the segments of memory are available to be overwritten. Zeroing out (or /dev/urandom) the memory is an option, but even that is not 100% safe, especially when it comes to forensic labs with the ability to read and analyze platters removed from a complete, sealed disk. Really safe deleters will overwrite the segments of memory multiple times to scrambl…
> but even that is not 100% safe, especially when it comes to forensic labs with the ability to read and analyze platters removed from a complete, sealed disk. No, this is completely impossible and noone has ever done it. (An exception would be HDDs with bad block mapping because they might not actually erase some sector.) SSDs don't even have platters and you could probably recover things from the flash, but you can…
>Deletion programs do this because it looks cool. It's not necessary - literally noone has ever recovered anything from a zeroed out HD sector.
anything of value
From what I recall, with an electron microscope you can detect polarity around the edges of bits for certain magnetic storage devices and I recall seeing a paper where this was stepped through a several bits were recovered with fairly good success rates. This is part of the reason behind the old rationale of overwriting multiple passes.
With that said, given current data density for anything useful, reassembling anything remotely useful from such an approach would be nearly impossible and take a huge amount of time.
With NAND based storage, none of this applies or at least has entirely different context to consider.
Edit, was curious, here's a reference you could follow to the actual paper for empirical backup: https://www.sans.org/blog/overwriting-hard-drive-data/
Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
The file is still there. A regular delete just tells the disk that the segments of memory are available to be overwritten. Zeroing out (or /dev/urandom) the memory is an option, but even that is not 100% safe, especially when it comes to forensic labs with the ability to read and analyze platters removed from a complete, sealed disk. Really safe deleters will overwrite the segments of memory multiple times to scrambl…
> but even that is not 100% safe, especially when it comes to forensic labs with the ability to read and analyze platters removed from a complete, sealed disk. No, this is completely impossible and noone has ever done it. (An exception would be HDDs with bad block mapping because they might not actually erase some sector.) SSDs don't even have platters and you could probably recover things from the flash, but you can…
[deleted]
Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded
#39Seems a bit racist. Israel/Finland/Germany all have universal conscription so they don't get harassed like the Chinese.
[deleted]
Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded
#40> "This prosecution will help to protect elite institutions like Stanford from illicit foreign influences." ...how? I assume everyone was aware that if she said something, it was being said by her. Where does the illicit foreign influence come in? Suppose her cover story had been completely accurate -- instead of being a member of the PLA, she was someone who had "only" served in the PLA for 11 years. That person had…
If there was nothing nefarious going on, why did she attempt to conceal her identity?