Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded • Hacker News Board

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#91

Post by refurb » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:08 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #87

refurb wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way for Stanford to claim ownership of research IP without publishing that IP. Have you heard of research getting scooped? Take research that isn’t complete, publish/patent first and now it’s yours. Now China can claim IP ownership so Stanford can’t use it. So no, there is no benefit to research being freely disseminated especially to authoritarian countries that are politically opposed to the West. And n…

> Now China can claim IP ownership so Stanford can’t use it. Hmm? How would that work? Please provide an example of what you have in mind. Research getting scooped is about fighting over who gets official credit for the discovery.

The US, and most countries have moved to a first to file patent system. Whoever files first owns the IP. The Chinese could further develop the research than patent it in the US.

If they don’t patent it, they could publish it ahead of Stanford and get credit for the discovery. It happens all the time even ignoring China’s growing presence.

Scooping research can be either publishing or patenting.

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#92

Post by refenestrator » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 4:03 AM UTC

zapita wrote: post #86

thaumasiotes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s also the question of why the PLA would bother to assign an active duty soldier This is a real reach; her non-fictitious employer was the Air Force General Hospital. Being employed by the military doesn't make you a soldier.

Thank you for answering my question instead of grandstanding. I had missed that crucial piece of information.

I wasn't trying to grandstand, sorry if it sounded like it, and cheers. Really respect this post.

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#93

Post by XorNot » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 6:03 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #69

XorNot wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Spies are still generally legal residents of the countries they spy on. You can't just pick them up via civilian authorities without due process.

Lying on official documents is an easy win which doesn't disclose technology and tactics. Its not apriori illegal to have worked for a foreign government's intelligence services - but it is to lie about it on official documents.

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#94

Post by noir_lord » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 9:03 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #76

noir_lord wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A drill is pointless because it only damages a tiny part of the platter. That might deter commercial recovery companies, but probably not the feds (depending on how big of a target you have on your back).

Not when it shatters the glass/ceramic platters and shards fall out (which is nearly every drive I've put a drill through for the last while).

Note: I do overwrite the drives (DBAN) then drill them and these are going to recycling anyway - it's quantifying the risk - I drill the drives because they usually have had customer or client data on them at some point so it's just good practice.

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#95

Post by loceng » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 2:36 PM UTC

Are there likely to be many more researchers in the US who's purpose was similar?

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#96

Post by zapita » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

refenestrator wrote: post #92

zapita wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for answering my question instead of grandstanding. I had missed that crucial piece of information.

I wasn't trying to grandstand, sorry if it sounded like it, and cheers. Really respect this post.

Honestly I do it too. We get conditioned to assume every disagreement or question is in bad faith, because most of the time it is... Then we pounce and it becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy. In this case I didn’t read the original material carefully enough and made a fool of myself, so can’t blame anyone for assuming I was asking in bad faith.

By the way I agree with you that this topic is over-propagandized, by both sides. It makes it extra difficult to have good faith debates over it.

Re: Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded

#97

Post by ManBlanket » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

kevinventullo wrote: post #3

The superseding indictment alleges that she then attempted to delete a digital folder of documents on an external hard drive that she possessed containing records relating to her military service and visa fraud, including: - A digital version of a letter from Song, written in Chinese and addressed to the People’s Republic of China consulate in New York, in which Song explained that her stated employer, “Beijing Xi Di…

After reading these charges it sounds like less of a spy situation and more of an unfortunate past she was knew would conflict with her current goal of getting the F out of China. I'm pretty skeptical because like most cases involving state security, this one involves a desperate rube and a grandiose story that'll bolster some agents' careers. Maybe she didn't think her service was that relevant to working in neurology, but destroying a hard drive would make it seem like she was really a spy? Like she'd rather everyone forget about it because it never should have been of concern to begin with. I have neglected to check the, "Have you ever been charged with a crime?" box on job applications and if for some reason my mug shots were hanging about my workstation I'd throw them in the trash. Maybe I can or can't relate but I see why someone would go to some effort to keep something like that from coming to light without committing to the foregone conclusion implied by the charges. To be honest this story seems barely newsworthy, I have known a lot of grad students who lie on their Visa documents. But in this day and age people want to read news about Chinese spies being deported, so god help her that's what the news is going to report.