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

391–400 of 484 posts

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

#391

Post by hollerith »

DocTomoe wrote: post #53
teh_klev wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> were the affiliations unremarkable and not reportable but prosecutors screwed up? Yes, the prosecutors royally screwed up. From the article: "Prosecutors had floated the idea of a deferred prosecution agreement, which would have allowed him to return to work and apply for government grants in the future. In return, said his lawyer, Mr. Fisher, he would have to admit to having some ties to China, none of them a viol…

Sounds like a prosecutor was afraid to get sued into oblivion/have his future political ambitions ruined by this affair, and strong-armed the good doctor into signing a document to avoid this going to court, where outcomes are pretty much random.

>Sounds like a prosecutor was afraid to get sued into oblivion

Federal prosecutors cannot be sued:

https://fedsoc.org/events/prosecutorial-immunity

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

#392

Post by kelnos »

tsol wrote: post #31

>The dismissal is a setback to the China Initiative, an effort started in 2018 to crack down on economic and scientific espionage by China. Many of the prosecutions, like the case against Dr. Chen, do not allege espionage or theft of information, but something narrower: failing to disclose Chinese affiliations in grant applications to U.S. agencies. Critics say it has instilled a pervasive atmosphere of fear among sc…

The problem is also that it targets a specific group for the (alleged!) actions of a tiny fraction of that group. That sort of thing creates an unwarranted atmosphere of distrust that hurts everyone.

A broad-based initiative to stop economic and scientific espionage? Sure, that could be a good idea. A targeted initiative that obviously will end up demonizing a particular race/nationality/ancestry of people? No, not good at all.

I absolutely agree that the investigating parties need to have higher standards of investigation. But the entire framing of it as the "China Initiative", literally an intent to target people for persecution based on their national origin, is a huge problem.

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

#393

Post by stronglikedan »

thereddaikon wrote: post #376
perihelions wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case went beyond false accusations. According to the professor's lawyers [0], the government possessed exculpatory evidence and knowingly withheld it from the defense -- a theoretically-illegal Brady violation [1]. > " As my team of lawyers argued, Bonavolonta and his agents ignored basic exculpatory evidence, failed to interview critical witnesses until after I was arrested, and dramatically embellished facts i…

As I said in another thread, you cannot expect groups to self police. The legal system will never hold these people accountable because it works against their interests to. This is basic human nature and true everywhere. This is why companies don't admit to wrong doing for dumping waste. This is why the fia doesn't admit it fixed the f1 championship. And this is why dirty cops don't go to prison. You want change? Mak…

self-policing aside, we've become so entrenched in crony capitalism, that we can't even get checks-and-balances right anymore between branches

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

#394

Post by DenisM »

kashunstva wrote: post #219
FredPret wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) I doubt you're actually working class, even if you're working for money 2) Capitalism is a decentralized system of allocating resources. By working and investing (even if just owning a retirement plan), you are taking part in it all. You may now collect your monocle and top hat. 3) Getting paid some fraction between 0 and 1 of the value you create is a fact of nature for all actors in the system. The company has t…

> it's been working well for centuries, It depends on one's definition of _working well_. The neoliberal economic school would wholeheartedly agree. But the disproportionate distribution of gains since the early 1980's says otherwise. Of course, that's a values-laden discussion that's probably not a great fit for HN. If the system works immeasurably well for the 0.1% and dreadfully for the bottom 20% such that on ave…

Here's my argument in favor of the system working well:

The quality of life for 99.99% of the population has increased more in the last 100 years than it did in the first 10,000 years of the human civilization. For a graphic example consider Charles Dickens *, he documented how people lived in the 19th century and it reads absolutely horrifying and unthinkable today.

Yes the rich are getting richer faster than the poor are improving their lot. However the poor's quality of life went up tremendously - housing, sanitation, hygiene, calories/nutrients, medical care, workplace safety, transportation, life expectancy, education, you name it. There is simply more wealth to go around today. Is the wealth distribution just? We can debate that **. Is the capitalist system improving lives across the board? Most certainly yes.

* or Friedrich Engels

** personally I would avoid this frame completely, but hey

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

#395

Post by DenisM »

kragen wrote: post #385
DenisM wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have broken a number of guidelines in your various comments, for example: Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." (this comment above) Be kind. Don't be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30116919 Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also…

While in some cases you are not correct, in other cases you are, and I appreciate the reminder.

Thank you.

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

#396

Post by thereddaikon »

stronglikedan wrote: post #393
thereddaikon wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said in another thread, you cannot expect groups to self police. The legal system will never hold these people accountable because it works against their interests to. This is basic human nature and true everywhere. This is why companies don't admit to wrong doing for dumping waste. This is why the fia doesn't admit it fixed the f1 championship. And this is why dirty cops don't go to prison. You want change? Mak…

self-policing aside, we've become so entrenched in crony capitalism, that we can't even get checks-and-balances right anymore between branches

Entropy isn't just a concept in physics but equally applies to institutions. Early on things work well because the mission isn't muddied and people are idealistic. Things can work well for a time with reforms here and there but eventually the rot grows and brings it down. This is in part why no empire was ever permanent. Sometimes its just better to do a reset with the lessons learned and start off just a little bit better.

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

#397

Post by nobody9999 »

dnautics wrote: post #377
nobody9999 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I suggest you think about why a general gets treated differently than a private citizen. I didn't realize that being an academic at a private research institution was equivalent to being a member of the armed forces. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I should have realized that they were exactly the same thing. Please.

Listen, if you work at a private research institution and you raise funds through a nonprofit (like, say HHMI), then by all means, do what you want. You are not beholden to the taxpayer. Money from the government absolutely comes with strings attached. Do you think that an employee of Lockheed Martin would be able leak secret plane information on a government contract to an adversarial country with impunity, just bec…

There's a difference between classified information and scientific research. Yes, some scientific research could be classified, but unless the government can show "national security implications" (a pretty low bar, IMHO), they should not be restricting the flow of speech or ideas.

A general officer in the military is not only covered by the Constitution, but by the UCMJ[0].

As such, your comparison is flawed.

We're (or at least TFA and me) aren't talking about folks subject to NDAs or restrictions based on "national security."

Private companies and private citizens can (at least in the US), limit and censor speech and information as much as they want -- and for the most part be supported by the courts (vis a vis NDAs and the like).

The government on the other hand is explicitly barred from banning most speech (there are exceptions of course, including libel/slander and/or disclosing classified information to unauthorized folks -- note that publishing such information has been held to be "free speech" -- it's the folks who disclosed such information that could be civilly (in the case of an NDA) or criminally (in the case of classified information) liable.

However, the government is barred from restricting speech except in those narrow circumstances.

Please explain how such narrow circumstances apply in this case? Or, absent those circumstances, under what legal framework would government restrictions on speech apply even to government-funded research? Please do explain. I'd be fascinated to hear it.

I'll repeat, and I'll use the words of those who wrote the law of the land. Hopefully, you'll understand the second time around:

   Congress shall make no law respecting an 
   establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 
   free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom 
   of speech, or of the press; or the right of the 
   people peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
   the government for a redress of grievances.
About which part of the above do you disagree?

If you feel the above is in error, I suggest taking the steps defined here[1]. Good luck with that.

[0] https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-uniform-code-...

[1] https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

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

#398

Post by Banana699 »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #315
Banana699 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 totalitaria…

Your point being: since the US provides aid to countries whose human rights records are controversial China should be free to steal and misuse US intellectual property. Great argument. Have fun in a world where China's views on human rights prevail. I'm sure you & your family and their families will be very happy.

>Your point being: since the US provides aid to countries whose human rights records are controversial China should be free to steal and misuse US intellectual property.

That's not my point at all. My point is that it's hypocritical to worry about China using stolen US tech to augment and cement it's oppressive regime when there are countries whose entire dark existence is carved out of US tech and support.

Quantitatively speaking, the marginal utility that China gets from each stolen piece of US tech is probably lower than what they get from each million dollar the US government borrows from them, or each 100000 teenager who downloads tiktok, or from each 100 customer who buy their phones. What I'm trying to say here is that China is not dependent on stolen R&D to opress and brutalize people, they can opress and brutalize people perfectly fine without it, it's just an added bonus on what they already can do.

On the other hand US support for the 2 countries that I mentioned is literally keeping them together against astounding resistence, I would gladly bet my life they would fall apart in So to sum up : I don't think your offense at China's use of US tech is proportional to the amount of damage that tech actually ends up doing. There are other countries where US tech and arms are at least 2 orders of magnitude more destructive and suffering-inducing.

>human rights records are controversial

What a creative way to understate the fact that one of the countries mentioned cut a journalist in half with a chainsaw, while the other bombs civilians on a yearly basis and kills literal babies. "Controversial" is how you describe an things where there are credible differences of opinion on; not raw, pure evil.

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

#399

Post by nobody9999 »

dnautics wrote: post #349
nobody9999 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? Not sure if you're familiar with this bit[0]: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *or abridging the freedom of speech*, Are you arguing that taking public money obviates the above? I'd say that since…

going to quote my sibling child comment here: If you are, say a high ranking general at the pentagon -- which is a position directly paid by the government, then can you claim "first amendment" if you pass military secrets on to an adversarial government? Of course not. I suggest you think about why a general gets treated differently than a private citizen. Suppose you are a private citizen and manage to snap a pictu…

>I suggest you think about why a general gets treated differently than a private citizen.

It's called the Uniform Code of Military Justice[0], and only applies to military personnel. That's why a general gets treated differently to a private citizen.

[0] https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-uniform-code-...

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

#400

Post by dnautics »

nobody9999 wrote: post #397
dnautics wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listen, if you work at a private research institution and you raise funds through a nonprofit (like, say HHMI), then by all means, do what you want. You are not beholden to the taxpayer. Money from the government absolutely comes with strings attached. Do you think that an employee of Lockheed Martin would be able leak secret plane information on a government contract to an adversarial country with impunity, just bec…

There's a difference between classified information and scientific research. Yes, some scientific research could be classified, but unless the government can show "national security implications" (a pretty low bar, IMHO), they should not be restricting the flow of speech or ideas. A general officer in the military is not only covered by the Constitution, but by the UCMJ[0]. As such, your comparison is flawed. We're (…

You act as if I haven't read the constitution. I've pored over the constitution so many times, I'm well versed in obscurities down to the twenty dollar clause and the post roads clause.

Can you explain to me how classifying content is not an abridgement of free speech in an absolute reading of the constitution?

"Congress shall make no law.."

It does not say "Congress shall make no law, unless it's classified"

The UCMJ is (of course) congressional law, so by your analysis, the UCMJ would be in abeyance of the first amendment.

Post reply on HN