Slashdot Mirror
Scientific Research Encountering More Restrictions
vab writes "MSNBC is running an article
that details how the MIT AI Lab, the birth place of the free software movement, walked away from a $404K study because the government wanted to restrict participation by foreign students. The article talks about further restrictions the US Government is trying to impose in the name of homeland security and how other research institutions are reacting."
I'm glad MIT did the right thing and walked away from this study. It is although somewhat difficult to tell whether they did this out of a principled stand or if they did it simply because they have so many foreign students that they wouldn't be able to pull it off unless they used them. That quite possibly could be the case.
There's no reason to believe that some college student from Hong Kong is a terrorist. Sure there are some terrorists out there, but I doubt they're sweating their midterms at some university. To deny foreigners the ability to work on some stuff isn't just slightly racist, it's outrageously stupid since there are some unbelievably bright people who come to the US from other places for school.
In the financial services industry, most people have to be bonded - that is the FBI gets your fingerprints and they do some sort of rudimentary background check on you. Would that placate the "homeland security" wolves? At any rate, it would be more information on foreign students than they have on most Americans.
Sometimes I think that homeland security is the process of a bunch of people staring at a collander and trying to decide which hole to patch first. Sure it's possible to keep the total morons from pullling off something big (or burning you in the same way they did before) but how many people out there really think that with anything less than a fascist state, it's possible to secure the country against someone whose well funded, clever, and out to get the US?
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
I was a grad student at Texas Tech until a few months ago and one of my prof.s had funding from US DOD to study dispersion of chem./bio. warfare agents. The project was multi-year and for 90% of the project, no foreign national was allowed to work on it. That was finally overturned, however, mainly because there weren't enough Americans to work on it.
The project was new just before Sept. 11th and I'm not sure I can blame them for their restrictions at the time. I think they finally figured out that, at least in this case, it didn't matter who worked on the project. It wasn't going to propogate information about how to make delivery agents more effective, just how they interact with urban, rural, etc. environments.
That and Lubbock isn't a hotbed for terrorists if you know what I mean. Cow-tippers, yes. Foreign spies, no.
I for one congratulate MIT!!! It was a bold move to stand up to something as blatantly wrong as what the government was trying to do. Security must not be gained at the sacrifice of our morals. What does that say about us as a society, our nation who claims to lead all others in progressive thought. We welcomed these people to our land when no other country would take them. France gave us a statue embodying the princple. Now we want to send them away because we think all people of a race would also wish us harm. Extremists come from all races, and someday a white female American will do something terribly destructive which will result in the loss of thousands of lives. What will happen then? The government steps in and calms us down and tells us that we can't trust each other and will therefore take away every personal freedom we have in the name of making us secure? I'll spend a cold day in hell before I allow that to happen to me. So yeah, GO MIT!!!!
-Never believe in the end of something great, send it to sub-committee for further study!!! - ME
Yes, I've definitely got to get me one of them Real Genius grants.
MSNBC says: "But the National Security Agency refused to budge from a requirement that any foreigners working on a planned project at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory be screened by the government in advance, forcing the school to turn down the money in September, Powell said." You say: "MSNBC is running an article that details how the MIT AI Lab, the birth place of the free software movement, walked away from a $404K study because the government wanted to restrict participation by foreign students." Sounds like they are just checking for ties to terrorists. Where does it say that foreign students are restricted from participating?
But the National Security Agency refused to budge from a requirement that any foreigners working on a planned project at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory be screened by the government in advance
They didn't want to restrict anybody from working on anything - they just wanted to run backround checks on non-citizens working on the projects. Is that really such a big deal??
slow down there cowboy... when i grew up, i learned that people kill people. then somewhere along the way, that's been converted into guns kill people. and now you want us to believe that information kills people?
i have got to get into a new line of work!
The bottom line is that if you take someone's money - the government's, a corporation's, a foundation's, etc - you are implicitly or explicitly agreeing to the strings attached. Seldom is there a "free lunch". If there is money being offered, there is usually a reason why. I'm not entitled to have free money come raining down on me. Why should a wealthy institution like MIT? They know the game.
If I offer the FSF a $20,000 grant to develop a "Foo" software package for me, provided they design it how I want, the FSF is certainly free to turn that money down and do their own thing (or do without a Foo package). But that doesn't make me an evil man for asking the FSF to write a program that meets my needs if I give them a donation to do so. Similarly for the government.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-530647,0 0.html
After months of demanding an inquiry into the affair, Ed Crawley, the chairman of MIT's aeronautics and astronautics department, has reversed previous refusals and recommended an investigation.
The issue in question goes to the heart of missile defence technology, an article of faith among many Republicans and a key plank in Mr Bush's 2000 presidential manifesto.
Dr Postol and fellow critics say the ability of an interceptor missile to distinguish between an incoming warhead and the decoys likely to accompany it is deeply suspect. Any such doubts would cripple the credibility of the system.
Again, all as a matter of national security, and which did not make a splash stateside. The story at the link is much more detailed.
So what is the government going to do about this outbreak of integrity in the halls of learning?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
You know why America still holds its place as a technological leader? Not becoz of just american researchers but a significant foreign nationals working in America, who wouldn't have that same oppurtunity in other countries. AFAIK, America's support for intelligence and research skills over nationality has let it remain supreme.
I think we should close our borders to people who only want to go to school here, and then leave the country when they finish their education!Wrong again, most of the students who come here don't make plans to leave. They settle here. In my past 3.5 yrs in college I have seen 90% of foreign nationals do something or other to stay even overstay their visa time.
Foriegn students are a big security risk! Their loyalties are always in question.
Agreed, but solution is not to close borders. And again you cannot let people walk freely in and out just for the sake of technology or research. Its neither a one line solution nor can be found in a week. May be this is the risk we have to take for the sake of free economy otherwise we have to turn like those chinese closing down thousands of internet kiosks and putting restrictions on our citizens! Not good!
2003: You must use Americans for this important work.
1941:You must use blonde haired, blue eyed Germans for this important work.
Trolling is a art,
They are our guests, and they shouldn't expect that we give them the keys and the kitchen sink.
No, it's more like "they're your guests, and you won't let them help you do the dishes because you're afraid they might steal the silverware, despite having no evidence at all to suggest they would". Yes, I'm stretching the metaphor but I feel it had to be said. "Foreign" does not equal "future terrorist" any more (or any less) than "U.S. citizen" does. We've forgotten McVeigh and Nichols *so* quickly. And the anthrax mailer remains mysteriously at large...
Freedom: "I won't!"
In the company of only their peers and an eavesdropping busboy, the group was candid and unguarded. Almost everyone had a story of a student who had been hindered by the stricter immegration rules. One expressed doubt that MIT could "be MIT" under these circumstances. Jerry Sussman--co-author of "the only good book on computer programming" (quote from a Slashdot favorite I won't name) and all-around brilliant and creative guy--said he's "been depressed for the last year". Man, that made me want to cry.
This convinced me that the problem is real, that it is hampering the advancement of learning--and that it could even lead to the unseating of the US as the center of the learned world.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
...pay attention to who's saying the government is wrong: Sheila Widnall. From 1993-1997, she was secretary of the Air Force, arguably the most technologically advanced of the four branches of the US military. For those not up on US government, the Secretary of the Air Force is the civilian head of the US Air Force. All the generals answered to her; she answered only to the Secretary of Defense, who answers to POTUS. She would have had authority and responsiblity for all the research funded by the Air Force, so she's seen both sides of this (though I don't know to what extent she micromanaged it).
She makes a VERY good point that what the government should do is to determine what's classified research and what's not. It's reasonable to restrict the participation of foreign nationals in classified research, but the concern with this grant was that it was for unclassified research.
For you cynics, note that this grant wasn't for that much money (only half a million) and was probably chosen to send a message because they didn't much want to do it anyway and it wasn't enough money to worry about.
There is no saying it was racist.
Nationalist, sure, but that isn't the same thing.
If the 'strings' had said "No French" or "No Germans", then this conversation wouldn't be happening.
In this case, the NSA wanted to pre-screen any foreign nationals working on the project.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the racism there. They didn't say that they (the foreign nationals) automatically couldn't work on the project, they just wanted to check out whichever ones did.
Profiling? Maybe. But it happens regularly in government and business. The last two companies I worked for had a much more rigorous screening process for foreign nationals. In their defense, they'd gotten burned at least once.
But then so has the US Government. I don't blame them for being careful.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
If the gov't wants security checks, and in some cases that's reasonable (remember all the military work MIT has done, most famously during WWII), that should get them on EVERYONE. Stop this xenophobic insult now.
Aside from the philosophical problem with accused foreign citizens mindlessly, need we remind the NSA of all the wonderful homegrown dangers we have managed to grow in the U.S., from Timothy McVeigh (& Nichols) to the Unabomber to the Columbine shooters to John Walker Lindh to this DC sniper bastard Muhammed, and that's just the last ten years. And and those are just the killers; don't forget double agents Aldrich Ames (CIA) and Robert Philip Hanssen (FBI). Even if you are sympathetic to some of these, consider the rest.
My argument is that if you're going to be paranoid, do be equal opportunity about it out of respect for logic and fair play. Look in your own backyard.
Personally, I think your views are shortsighted and, sorry to be so frank, wrong.
It's true that 9-11 was a terrible thing to happen. It's also true that the US has done more damage to itself in the name of "Protecting the Homeland" than any terrorist could ever do. We have restricted the very freedoms that make this country great. We have violated the rights of people because they MIGHT be someone who knows someone who's dangerous. We have detained citizens without trial or charges and forbiden them to speak with anyone, even an attorney, even a government appointed attorney. We strip search grandmothers, and detain people that have funny last names. We listen to the quisling, reporting people that don't leave tips in greasy spoons.
"Those that would trade liberity for security deserve [and will get] neither." - B. Franklin.
As for your assertion that no one thought flight school students could be terrorists, you have your facts wrong. Remember the conflab at the FBI? That's what that's about. Someone DID think there might be terrorists being trained at flight schools.
To protect ourselves from terrorist requires a scalpel, not the howtizer that's being used. The true cancer of a free society are those that would render freedom impossible. The true terrorists are they that wage war on the rights of the people. The real terror is the loosing of the dogs of a police state.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.