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

In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 484 posts

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#261

Post by nonethewiser »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #252
nonethewiser wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how you think your point relates to it's parent. Are you just piggybacking off the point that the US does control export of semiconductor technology to make this separate point? Or are you suggesting the US shouldn't control export of semi-conductor technology in the same way they shouldn't restrict your publications on cryptography?

The parent comment says " any researcher's talk, paper, research, materials, etc. must undergo an export controls review first before it leaves the United States or is shown to a foreign national. This is SOP at every research lab in the United States. " My purpose in the comment is to point out that such review is not legally required for public academic research, and there are good constitutional and policy reasons…

Thank you for the context

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#262

Post by sam0x17 »

mc32 wrote: post #237
sam0x17 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preventing incremental material losses suffered by a U.S. mega-corporation isn't very high on my priority list and shouldn't be very high on yours, either, if you are a citizen of this planet. Many parts of the U.S. have third world conditions and the UN recently sent inspectors to parts of West Virginia because things have become so bad there. Millions are without healthcare, children are hungry, etc. Why waste even…

Oh I agree companies should have greater interest in the well being of their communities and we should effect change that makes them beholden to the communities that allowed them to prosper and not sell the communities out to the lowest bidder overseas. But… tell China this same argument. That they should not protect their self interest and see how well it goes over.

> But… tell China this same argument. That they should not protect their self interest and see how well it goes over.

Note that my argument is one of prioritization -- to protect our self-interest, we have a lot more pressing problems at home than Intel et al losing a few bucks because they let the wrong people see the secret formula, and wasting precious human and financial resources on the wrong problems can be worse than doing nothing.

As you mention, China on the other hand can afford to worry about problems like this, given their 0.7% poverty rate as of 2015 (despite some glaring issues like ethnic genocide, free speech, etc). In the U.S. we have an 11% poverty rate and nearly a million dead from COVID. We don't have time or resources to play the secret formula game with walkie-talkies in tree forts. Gotta do our homework pretty soon or it will be bed with no supper.

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#263

Post by regnull »

VictorPath wrote: post #113

> The son of two mathematics teachers who were sent to teach on farms during China’s Cultural Revolution, Dr. Chen grew up without any hope of becoming a scientist. His parents, the descendants of landowners, had a “bad classification” from the Chinese government, and were viewed suspiciously. His father warned him he would probably spend his life as a farmer. But then Mao Zedong died. Chen moved to the US to experie…

Like being accused, exonerated, and then taking a victory lap over all the major publications to the sympathetic audience. Damn you America! Just like China, no?

Also:

"The FBI documents alleged that Chen received $19 million from China's Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech).[9] [23] On January 22, 2021, MIT's President released a second statement pointing out that these funds went to not Chen, but to MIT itself to support a departmental research collaboration with SUSTech which Chen simply directed on MIT's behalf.[25] [26]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Chen_(engineer)

SUSTech, lol.

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#264

Post by Bukhmanizer »

nonethewiser wrote: post #243
VictorPath wrote: post #113

> The son of two mathematics teachers who were sent to teach on farms during China’s Cultural Revolution, Dr. Chen grew up without any hope of becoming a scientist. His parents, the descendants of landowners, had a “bad classification” from the Chinese government, and were viewed suspiciously. His father warned him he would probably spend his life as a farmer. But then Mao Zedong died. Chen moved to the US to experie…

What do you mean? I don't understand what the American equivalent of demonization of personal property and a communist uprising is.

No post body was provided.

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#265

Post by kevinventullo »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #121
bsenftner wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part is he spirit has been crushed; he can no longer work for fear of irrational and frankly random political views and actions detrimental to his health, his research, and his family. If he is to continue and regain an amount of his former life, I wager it can only occur after leaving the USA permanently.

Quoted post unavailable.

He’s tenured, why would he leave MIT? Has there been any indication the university didn’t support him?

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#266

Post by Banana699 »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #126
coliveira wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a paranoia induced reaction that is being fostered by the media and the war industry, who are interested in creating a new cold war scenario.

Incorrect. It is a MORAL issue. Technology stolen from the US companies is advancing the national security agendas of countries with no regard for human rights and the rule of law. It is immoral to turn a blind eye to this very real threat.

With all due respect, this is completely irrelevant. This same technology and better is being sold out to countries like Saudi Arabia[1] and Israel[2], which are not exactly shining beacons of human rights.

What seems to be the argument here ? "If China wants to use US tech to oppress and kill people with no regard for human rights and the rule of law... they have to PAY for it first, like all respectable totalitarians do"?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Israel

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#267

Post by dang »

coliveira wrote: post #96
lordnacho wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are also accusations of nothing specific. "Association with China" doesn't seem like it's specific enough to warrant sanction, all it can do it make people suspicious, which it does regardless of whether you've even done anything with China. I accept the US is having a power struggle with China at the moment, but this is not the way to win it. People who aren't actually in favor of freedom will welcome this "rec…

[flagged]

Please do not take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. It leads to predictable, tedious, and nasty flamewar—the opposite of what we want here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#268

Post by jrockway »

regnull wrote: post #263
VictorPath wrote: post #113

> The son of two mathematics teachers who were sent to teach on farms during China’s Cultural Revolution, Dr. Chen grew up without any hope of becoming a scientist. His parents, the descendants of landowners, had a “bad classification” from the Chinese government, and were viewed suspiciously. His father warned him he would probably spend his life as a farmer. But then Mao Zedong died. Chen moved to the US to experie…

Like being accused, exonerated, and then taking a victory lap over all the major publications to the sympathetic audience. Damn you America! Just like China, no? Also: "The FBI documents alleged that Chen received $19 million from China's Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech).[9] [23] On January 22, 2021, MIT's President released a second statement pointing out that these funds went to not Chen, but…

I think the "accused" part is the problem. Interacting with the court system is expensive both financially and emotionally. We need to be very careful where we apply it, and that means being careful about who we accuse and for what reasons.

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#269

Post by quantgenius »

newnamenewface wrote: post #149
shadowgovt wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like saving a billion dollars in redundant work, which is a net societal gain. Now consumers have two companies to choose chips from instead of one functional monopoly due to a trade secret moat... Win for consumers. ;) ... Hence my unease with the way the question is phrased. I'm not saying we should either mandate corporate espionage or enforce some kind of punishments for not publicizing designs, but my p…

> Now consumers have two companies to choose chips from instead of one functional monopoly due to a trade secret moat... Win for consumers. If we were considering this purely from the lens of consumer choice, allowing IP theft seems like a no-brainer. But it's pretty clear from the last few years how important supply chains are to the countries they reside in (and how their absence is strongly felt). To phrase it ano…

It's not a gain even purely from the lens of consumer choice unless there is only one iteration of chip improvements ever. Why? Because if this is permitted, there will be no company A to do the research to create the next generation of chips and innovation basically halts.

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#270

Post by matthewdgreen »

dnautics wrote: post #247
matthewdgreen wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a professor in the field of cryptography and there are export restrictions here as well. Under no circumstances would I allow the US government to block publication of my papers or talks based on the theory that my speech is “a technology export.” It’s not even clear that this would be allowed under the First Amendment. The government could obviously try to advance that theory, but I strongly suspect they would…

If you didn't take money from the federal government, I would be inclined to agree with you, that export controls are an abridgement of the freedom of speech, but if your work is taxpayer-funded, then the government absolutely has the authority to restrict how you use the fruits of those funds; if you cannot abide by them then perhaps consider stop taking federal funds?

I think you are 100% backwards in your thinking here. If the US taxpayer funds research then public funders actually have a very high bar in their ability to restrict the publication of that research. For the simple reason that the taxpayer funds it and government restrictions on speech face a very high Constitutional bar. By contrast if I take funding from Amazon or Apple it’s much easier for them to demand NDAs and speech restrictions. (Which I have been asked for and wouldn’t agree to.)
Post reply on HN