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

81–90 of 484 posts

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

#81

Post by wizzwizz4 »

MadSudaca wrote: post #63
lucian1900 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McCarthyism was about class struggle. Persecuting all communists, socialists and trade unionists made it less likely the working class would rise up against the capitalist ruling class. It worked for the Nazis, after all. You seem to have internalised this logic, since you're assuming all communists are spies for another nation.

> made it less likely the working class would rise up against the capitalist ruling class It would make it less likely for the country to shoot itself in the foot and radically lower the standards of living of its citizens, like happened and, unfortunately, still happens, in every country that adopted communist ideas in their government.

I don't think “communist ideas” is well-defined. Could you explain what you mean by the phrase?

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

#82

Post by sigmaprimus »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #50
_wldu wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We cannot marginalize segments of our population based on race, nationality, religion, sex, etc. and expect to remain competitive. This is a basic truth of economics. And it's also wrong to do that to people in the first place. Americans are Americans and we all should be treated equally by our government.

No disagreement about ethics, but: > This is a basic truth of economics. Is this basic truth backed up by anything tangible? Ethnic Chinese already face unfair hurdles by the current push against standardized testing. But one more obstacle would suddenly make the US unable to compete? With whom, anyway - the only worthy competitor I can think of is hardly egalitarian. It seems like dangerously wishful thinking to me…

>>>Ethnic Chinese already face unfair hurdles by the current push against standardized testing.

Please elaborate on this argument.

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

#83

Post by jacobolus »

andi999 wrote: post #48

"The dismissal is a setback to the China Initiative, an effort started in 2018 to crack down on economic and scientific espionage by China." No, it is not. Why would it be a setback if somebody who is innocent has their case dismissed. I mean who writes such lines? Doesnt this line imply that this dismissal was a bad thing (since nobody endorses espionage).

The purpose of the China Initiative was ostensibly to root out industrial espionage. Instead they ended up investigating and prosecuting a bunch of Chinese scientists for legally trying to advance their work and careers, and haven’t yet discovered much if any industrial espionage. The worst they’ve found so far, from what I can tell, is a few undisclosed grants and minor visa violations.

Having incompetent, overzealous investigators and prosecutors ruin a bunch of innocent people’s lives for the sake of some questionable agenda they aren’t otherwise successfully advancing makes the whole endeavor seem like a farcical waste of public resources and undermines the reputation of the DOJ.

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

#84

Post by shantnutiwari »

This will just lead to a chilling effect, where scientists, esp those born outside, will be hesitant to apply for any government aid.

I vaguely remember this case when it first came out. At the time, the impression I got was: Dr Chen was passing info to Chinese agents.

And now the impression is: He had some affiliations with Chinese groups that were fully legal, and he was not required to disclose.

Which begs the question: Why was he arrested in the first place?

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

#85

Post by automatoney »

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #32

Like McCarthyism it’s a noble cause, but I can’t help but wonder if these initiatives rather tend to be outsmarted by the real spies. People who are accidentally incriminated by clerical errors and misunderstandings are much lower hanging fruit.

Behold, "a noble cause":

"On May 26, 1947, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a memo stating, 'With regard to the picture It's a Wonderful Life, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented rather obvious attempts to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a 'scrooge-type' so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. [In] addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters.' Film historian Andrew Sarris observed as 'curious' that 'the censors never noticed that the villainous Mr. Potter gets away with robbery without being caught or punished in any way'."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Wonderful_Life

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

#86

Post by mc32 »

luke0016 wrote: post #78
batushka3 wrote: post #23

Quoted post unavailable.

Some of us, governments included, believe that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." That quote is from Benjamin Franklin, one of the founders of the US government.

That is the principle, but, being a society made up of fallible people, we do have false positives.

All systems of justice contain false positives. There is no escape from it.

It’s a balance between order and disorder where too much disorder results in chaos and too much order in tyranny.

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

#87

Post by mynameishere »

jvanderbot wrote: post #79
Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not. Why on earth would you want to have a bunch of Soviet or communist Chinese spies running around?

"McCarthyism" is a derogatory term for overzealous political witch-hunts which cause irreparable harm to honest, innocent citizens. What you mean is counter-intelligence, and yes, that's absolutely an important thing.

The term probably shouldn't mean that since there actually was a wealth of communist spies, sympathizers, etc. Ie, it was not a witch hunt. McCarthy's problem was using the Congress in an executive role.

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

#88

Post by Majestic121 »

ngcc_hk wrote: post #11

Given the nuclear bomb in China was helped by out-going chinese. Given china is a world power which is communist and totalitarian in nature. Can China be treated by Soviet Union? Yes you can. By allowing china playing the hand I can got yours but you cannot go to my market, even if you are not that political one should be very careful. Bad to be racist. Sorry to lose the war yes war to communists and totalitarians. B…

I think English might not be your first language, it's not mine either, so let me know if I understood you correctly :

China got the nuclear bomb by sending Chinese people abroad, as spies or similar.

China is also a totalitarian communist regime, that should be treated as the Soviet Union was treated : not as a cooperative country, but as an adversary.

The current unbalanced attitude of China, for example taking advantage of the free market of the US while closing its own, should make anyone in the West extra careful, whether they care about geopolitics or not.

If the US/free world does not defend itself against China out of the fear of being called racist, the free world will lose against China, and everyone will be worse for it (given that we will live at the whims of a totalitarian regime)"

Is this a fair transcription ?

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

#89

Post by ping333pong »

pverghese wrote: post #62
ping333pong wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chen has to declare foreign conflicts of interest if he takes federal grants.

The prosecution themselves have said that there was no reporting requirement for that.

I got my initial understanding of the reg. from an article on Charles Lieber’s case, which boiled them down to “must report conflicts of interest.” The reality (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coi/index.htm) is more nuanced and up to the courts to decide, but as a one sentence summary I think it’s fair.
Post reply on HN