Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#61

Post by notadev »

desine wrote: post #13
lopatin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Follow up question, as someone who knows even less about forensics, what kind of traces stay on a hard drive if you just delete a file?

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…

They probably copied the drive way before she ever realized she was under surveillance.

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#62

Post by zapita »

refenestrator wrote: post #52
zapita wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there was nothing nefarious going on, why did she attempt to conceal her identity?

What nefarious goal could there be for this medical research? Are we at the point of zero-sum where a successful treatment in China is a loss for us? Sure, deport her if she lied, but I'd stop way short of 'nefarious' myself.

That doesn’t answer the question of why she attempted to conceal her identity.

There’s also the question of why the PLA would bother to assign an active duty soldier, with instructions to break US law, if there wasn’t some purpose which the US government would consider nefarious. If this is just harmless scientific collaboration, then why is the military involved?

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#63

Post by Godel_unicode »

noir_lord wrote: post #17
desine wrote: post #13

Earlier 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…

The world has moved on. You can’t transplant a platter into another reader, the old days of Guttman method don’t really apply anymore, density is so high that outside of research settings it’s just not practical. That said I still put a drill through mine before disposing of them, because close to zero isn’t zero.

It really hasn't, though. There are tons of data recovery services which will, for a fee, recover data from damaged hard drives. The process for recovering data forensically can be quite similar, depending on what the person did to "delete" it.

https://www.ontrack.com/en-us/data-recovery/hard-drive

https://www.gillware.com/hard-drive-data-recovery/scratched-...

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#64

Post by Godel_unicode »

Judgmentality wrote: post #56
layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can’t transplant a platter into another reader Then why do I get tons of results on YouTube of people doing exactly that, when searching for “HDD transplant”?

I typed it into YouTube and every result (of the first dozen or so) is years old, including the most recent video citing an example where it's impossible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bml8ovt4nfI

From 2020 (it's about drive savers):

https://youtu.be/v0QkafslnrM

https://drivesaversdatarecovery.com/data-recovery-services/d...

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#65

Post by [deleted] »

soheil wrote: post #45
nradov wrote: post #23

Earlier 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…

So you're saying when the government finds out a person is a spy that in itself is no big deal and that the government then still needs to find a horrendously more sinister thing they did like... lying?! in order to charge them with something?

[deleted]

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#66

Post by HarryHirsch »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #58
HarryHirsch wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is: why bother prosecuting that crap when patently no state secrets are involved? Why not simply revoke the visa, deport the person and ban her from re-entry? Do they want to create uncertainty for people who have served in the PLA or generally discourage Chinese researchers from working in the US? The purpose of the exercise is wholly unclear! What is the Department of State up to?

They want to discourage people from doing the things with which she is charged; lying on visa applications, obstructing justice, and making false statements. Those all seem like good goals to me?

It seems like a misdirection of resources to me, like the cops catching speeders on open roads. Instead of investigating and preventing crime they stop someone who is above the speed limit, talk to them really condescendingly and issue a fine. That stuff does wonders for the perception of law enforcement but lines the city's coffers.

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#67

Post by Judgmentality »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #64
Judgmentality wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I typed it into YouTube and every result (of the first dozen or so) is years old, including the most recent video citing an example where it's impossible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bml8ovt4nfI

From 2020 (it's about drive savers): https://youtu.be/v0QkafslnrM https://drivesaversdatarecovery.com/data-recovery-services/d...

I wonder if they can recover the HD the other video says is impossible.

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#68

Post by thaumasiotes »

refurb wrote: post #57
thaumasiotes wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our open institutions don't work in a world filled with rich nation states with bad intentions How does that sentiment apply here? Suppose the maximum possible malice on the part of the CCP, the PLA, and Song Chen. What could they have accomplished by getting a neurologist into a research project?

Stealing IP that rightfully belonged to Stanford, starting their own institute in China based on it and then owning the entire field?

The concept of "stealing IP that rightfully belonged to Stanford" does not obviously apply to a research university. There is no way for Stanford to claim ownership of research IP without publishing that IP. If the CCP wants to steal it, they can read Stanford's papers.

Then, on a more fundamental level, the more people who know how to do neurology research, the better. There's no way for the world to be made worse through too much neurology research. The more they do in China, the less everyone else needs to do everywhere else.

But the even more important problem with your scenario is that it is completely unaffected by whether, at the time she's studying at Stanford, Song Chen is also on the PLA payroll. Learning Stanford's research methods and then moving on with their lives is the entire point of anyone joining a research project at Stanford. If she hadn't been formally employed by the PLA, she would have been not just entitled, but expected to do everything you just described. And it was fine in that hypothetical case. She got a permit specifically allowing her to do it. So why isn't it fine here?

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#69

Post by thaumasiotes »

XorNot wrote: post #51
Jtsummers wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

The upfront declaration is "I have not worked for a foreign intelligence service" or something as blunt. "spy" wouldn't be used because it's too specific - a good lawyer could drive a wedge in the distinction between "spy" and "employee, not a spy". This isn't 4D chess, it's creating a reason you can detain someone once you know what they're upto without having to blow what you know about their real activities (which…

> This isn't 4D chess, it's creating a reason you can detain someone once you know what they're up to without having to blow what you know about their real activities (which might lead to too many shutting down before you want them too).

This seems like a stretch. Any spy who gets detained for vague, amorphous reasons is going to assume they were detained for being a spy. Once you detain them, you have to hold on to them, and you've already revealed the fact that you suspect them. There's nobody out there going "oh look, they arrested our spy. Let's just leave everything out in the open and hope it was a coincidence."

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#70

Post by renewiltord »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #43
renewiltord wrote: post #34

Haha, their spies are undone by their bureaucrats. Amazing.

I have to admit, I wonder why she needs to submit documentation to the consulate specifying that Beijing Xi Diaoyutai Hospital is a front for PLA-employed doctors. Shouldn't they know?

Considering I've definitely been part of businesses which self information about some company back to them, I wouldn't be surprised if they just didn't.
Post reply on HN