Slashdot Mirror
Space Shuttle Secrets Stolen For China
Ponca City, We Love You writes "The Department of Justice has announced the indictment of former Boeing engineer Dongfan Chung on charges of economic espionage in the theft of company trade secrets relating to the Space Shuttle, the C-17 military transport aircraft, and the Delta IV rocket. Chung is a native of China and a naturalized US citizen. According to the indictment, Chinese aviation industry representatives began sending Chung 'tasking' letters as early as 1979. Over the years, the letters directed Chung to collect specific technological information, including data related to the Space Shuttle and various military and civilian aircraft. Chung allegedly responded in one letter indicating a desire to contribute to the 'motherland,' the DOJ said. It was not immediately clear how much, if any, damage the alleged espionage did to US national security but DOJ officials said the cases reflect the determination of the Chinese government to penetrate US intelligence and obtain vital national defense secrets. 'Today's prosecution demonstrates that foreign spying remains a serious threat in the post-Cold War world,' said Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for National Security"
too much privatization, and not enough oversight
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
I don't know how we can recover from the Chinese gaining the secrets of the 1 MHz computers, and two billion dollar per-launch "reusable" technology. Ah well, the US probably stole that advanced technology from the crashed aliens anyway. It's only fair.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Why is it always naturalized citizens from china, or American-born citizens who's parents were born in China that are in the news for doing this?
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
Up to now, China was finding it very difficult to get their vehicles to explode.
These secrets will put them decades ahead in this area.
Should the Chinese develop warpdrive technology, we'll be sure to pass along the info to the USA.
Tit for Tat.
Life is not for the lazy.
Are the designs to the Space Shuttle even worth stealing? It's thus far proven to be an expensive and unreliable launch platform.
If anything, China would serve itself better by looking to the North, and copying Soyuz. Hell... I'm sure the Russians would be willing to sell the designs/equipment for most of their spacecraft for a very reasonable price, given their perpetual funding woes.
Even ignoring all that, it's still 1970s technology.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Seriously. At what point do we consider a country so dangerous that we will not longer do business with it? When do we finally say "go screw yourself" to dangerous governments?
Continuing to do business with China is like having a Gremlin as a pet. Or having a stuffed clown in your bedroom. Anyone growing up in the 80s will tell you those are two VERY big no-nos.
Apparently the Chinese have stolen all the information they want on how to do things. Now they're down to stealing information on how not to do a space program.
When they begin to bomb us.
Right now we are getting loads of cheap and almost okay quality products.
It's a tradeoff. I don't like it mind you. Shipping slavery to another continent is not something I approve of.
Okay, on a serious note, this is 1976(?) tech here. I can understand wanting it real bad in 1979, but, err, 32 year-old-stuff is kinda dated when you consider that we routinely give China techonology that's a whole Hell of a lot newer.
Besides, weren't they going to retire the Shuttle anyway? If China wants one so bad, why not sell 'em a used one for a decent markup?
As someone who has worked in and around certain aircraft projects a very long time ago, I can say for certain that this guy would've never even hoped to get near, say, an F-117 or B-2 project... there's too much compartmentalization (especially between NASA and the USAF/USN, for Hell's sakes...)
Given all of that - unless the guy started hacking mainframes and whatnot @ Boeing, I guess I just don't see where there would be a really huge dent in US national security at this point. He wouldn't have had the clearance, for starters.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This story is peanuts compared to the Sibel Edmonds saga.
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/article1.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/sibel-edmonds-must-be-hea_b_84781.html
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Is the CIA willing to raise their right hand and swear that they haven't tried to steal any secrets from other countries? If we are going to do these sorts of things, it's a little hypocritical to go off the deep end when another country does the same.
Bribing someone to get information - that's so last millennium. Real man just seize laptops at the immigration check point and ask politely for all the passwords.
If we were to "open source" all of this super secret technology I don't think that anything bad would happen. Many of the other nations in the world simply don't have the resources to really pursue constructing technology to do things like enter space, those that do could probably drive innovation; besides, being open about these things would probably do wonders for the perception of the US abroad.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
>Besides, I'd be surprised if we aren't doing the same thing to China, at least I'd hope we are.
I don't know. Our policy towards China has been very soft. Part of that may be the China lobby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_lobby
it's sad but true that American politicians aren't always working for the American people. Foreign interests can spread money around pretty easily, although they have to use a few levels of indirection.
Our policy, especially our trade policy, towards China has gotten ridiculous. We offer extremely low tariffs on Chinese imports, while Chinese tariffs are high. We ask them to put some effort in stopping the pirating of US products, and they respond by banning various US movies.
Also, it's distinctly *not* in America's interest to be propping up China's communist regime by keeping China profitable. In the short term we have some economic ties to China that are hard to break. In the long term, it's almost guaranteed that there will be some military conflict with China, a country that possesses a number of thermonuclear weapons mounted on ICBM's, as long as the communist party runs the country since they depend on ultra-nationalist and anti-american rhetoric to maintain political control of the country.
Even though the communist party knows that war with America would be a bad idea, they've relied so heavily on nationalist rhetoric, that position western powers and especially America as China's enemy, that they would have no choice but to go to war with us in a number of situations. For instance, whenever Taiwan gets around to declaring independence the Chinese government will be compelled by popular mandate to enter into war to occupy the island. The Chinese don't perceive Taiwan as an independent country and formal secession would be perceived as some kind of western aggression against Chinese territory.
I think that war with China would be a very bad idea for the US as well. We have them thoroughly outclassed in terms of naval and air forces, but that isn't all that helpful while they still have ICBM's. However, we need to negotiate more strongly and less naively, and put some effort into hamstringing China's long term economic growth, probably by cutting them off from oil supplies and imposing some prohibitive tariffs. China's growth is largely what sustains the communist party, and a strong economic downturn over a few years would probably result in a change of government.
You're right to imply there is heightened sensitivity toward Chinese offenses in the media; of course, that's for good reason. Some of the answer is human nature, and some of it is cultural.
If it's "always China" now, it is instructive to remember that it always used to be Japan. Honest Japanese Americans and all Asian Americans mistaken as vaguely Japanese struggled for decades against FUD per what their forefathers had done in World War II. In the 80s it was more about competitive concerns, but the under toe of fear was still strong. Only with the rise of China, a common rival if not opponent for Japan and the U.S., and as well with Japan's economic setbacks, did heightened reporting of Japanese espionage recede, whether governmental or IP theft. It's instructive to remember because: some of it is just about the human need for an opponent.
Much of the answer is also, really just about China or rather Chinese culture, if not Asian versus European sensitivities. When I say it's for "good reason" that the U.S. media is especially sensitive to Chinese espionage, I observe not only from ample public evidence of organized governmental and corporate infiltration, but also from personal experience. I've had too many acquaintances from Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong as well as China who I knew were tasked to steal IP. It was a regular part of their experience where I studied (Cornell, Harvard) and later worked -- should they steal? Was it wrong? Often, family back in Asia were recruited to send tasking letters, putting all the more pressure on. It was almost never governmental at all in my experience, just corporate espionage such as theft of code, designs, chemical formulae and processes, kitchen sinks ...
I've heard less of it but similarly in Korean, Japanese, Filipino, and other East Asian circles. I'm born and raised American, and married to a citizen of India and working in software --> I have a lot of exposure to Indian culture --> IP theft is much less prevalent in South Asia than in the farther East. Anecdotally and from some academic reading when I majored in political science, it seems to be broadly East Asian but especially Chinese. I'm not saying the Chinese are less ethical, except from an especially American perspective; rather, it is the sense among Chinese that corporate espionage and spying in general is a fair competitive practice.
In the United States especially but all throughout the West, we have a fundamental cultural difference with the Chinese on this note. Oh sure, we do a lot of spying and stealing, but we generally think it's a moral wrong to do so. This doesn't mean we don't spy, but it means that when we do it, is always against a static coefficient of cultural friction; we are starting from a position that spying and IP theft are wrong.
In China and broadly Asia, IP is almost a misnomer -- ideas are not so much property at all, as part of the more general philosophical difference in which individual ownership and property are fundamentally weaker concepts over there. The degree to which Chinese spy is altogether different because the general assumption is that nearly everyone is doing it and to the greatest extent they can. They hide their spying of course, but not so much because they feel it is wrong, more simply because it is more effective when hidden. Because the Chinese execute against a kinetic coefficient of cultural friction, they enjoy a basic competitive advantage against Western entities.
In the U.S. therefore, we are not only afraid that the Chinese are spying. We are even more afraid that they don't think it's wrong, that they're effectively doing it every chance they get, that we have been largely ignorant of this basic cultural difference for decades, and frankly, that they are better at it than we are.
Expect it to be "always China" for a long time to come, and expect culturally American, ethnically Chinese, and good honest engineers and professionals in the U.S. to suffer the prejudicial consequences. BG
And how would you fill up your WalMarts? Americans don't manufacture anything anymore... who's gonna make yer [stuff]?
India, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, Columbia, etc. There are plenty of democracies or semi-democracies that would love to have our business.
And/or, we could put our own rust-belt back to work so maybe their crime and poverty will go down. The "evils" of protectionism are exaggerated by business lobbyists.
Table-ized A.I.
Even ignoring all that, it's still 1970s technology.
Yeesh, this canard again. Look, when we really think about it, don't you think it's only an occasionally useful rule of thumb that the age of a technology has some correlation to its quality and cleverness? Why should it? Is it really reasonable to assume that every technological problem has an infinite number of solutions, which will always be discovered in ascending order of cleverness?
I mean, do we argue that astronauts shouldn't use ball-point pens in orbit because that's 1960s technology, and surely there must be something better now? That they shouldn't use handkerchiefs to blow their nose because that's 16th century technology? NASA shouldn't use wheels on the design of a moon rover because wheels were invented 5000 years ago? They should use something other than calculus to calculate orbits because it was invented in the 1620s and hasn't changed a bit since? Sometimes the best solution to a problem is an old and well-known one. Newer isn't automatically better.
It seems to me that the Space Shuttle was designed at the end of the golden age of rocketry: in the 50s and 60s clever youngsters went into aerospace the way they went into computers and the Internet in the 80s and 90s. It was exciting, it was way out on the frontier, and it paid decently. NASA and their contractors collected most of the best, and they did pretty impressive engineering work. Yes, they didn't have some of the fancy electronics parts their descendants have now, but avionics is only part of the spacecraft -- and when you're talking about a spacecraft that has to survive two very high-energy events (launch and re-entry) -- the quality and coolness of the avionics is probably not the key criterion for design success. Something like airframe design, system robustness, and a canny use of materials is probably way more important.
Since the 1980s, however, aerospace engineering talent in the US has aged and shrunk, and far fewer of the best and brightest go into the field. Furthermore, the excitement and potential glory of a real frontier-type mission is missing. Designing reliable electric bus connectors for solar-power panels on the ISS isn't quite the same as trying to squeeze an extra 5 ounces out of the weight of the first manned Mars lander. It doesn't attract the very best young talent.
So it may very well be that the "1970s technology" design of the SS is as good or better than what could be done today, avionics aside. Certainly the difficulty which private aerospace has had recently in trying to duplicate, essentially, the circa 1965 Saturn 1B medium-lift launch vehicle should make one pause thoughtfully before concluding that it's just a piece of cake to design a combination heavy-lift vehicle and re-usable manned spaceplane seating 10 that leaves the SS in the dust. I mean, if it were easy to do better -- wouldn't someone have done so, already? It's not like there isn't a fortune to be made by the first organization that can get 50 tons of cargo and a crew of 10 to LEO for 10% of the price of a SS launch.
With another Clinton in the White House the Chinese will be able to just ask for what they want.
Thanks Bill and
Loral Corp.
Hope you both burn in hell.
SueSue
Nothing new there. Besides, I'd be amazed if e.g. India, Pakistan, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, and Iran weren't also active (or trying to be active) in this field.
Why then do we hear often about Chinese espionage? Is it just that Chinese espionage makes good headlines?
Well ... perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there are so many (very good) ethnically Chinese engineers and scientists in the US, in all walks of life. Due to do Americans not being interested in an arduous career in Engineering or the Sciences when they can instead aim at Management, Legal services, or brokerage I'm told. Well, admittedly the Chinese government is quite organised about industrial espionage, and it's easier to get a rapport with an ethnic countryman than with some foreigner.
So ... if we assume a fixed promillage of the population open to espionage proposals, we must expect Chinese to be over-represented.
Besides which ... it's not as if the US doesn't commit industrial espionage of itself (primarily in the EU; see e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/31/ianblack).
Lets just save our righteous indignation for a more worthy cause and simply shore up security on projects and firms that are attractive targets, shall we?
As a military employee working for the USCG, we have two types of security clearances. The first level of security is "secret", which is what I have, and you fill out a number of questions on an electronic format and then it takes between 3-6 months on average to get clearance. "Secret" clearance gives you access to semi-restricted assets, like server rooms. The second level of security is "top secret", and it's a very thorough check of your background, but by having it you gain access to buildings that have additional electronic locking mechanisms and other privileges, including a secured data network. Having a security clearance is of course very valuable, because you can basically work for more branches of the federal government if you have one. Also, websites like www.clearancejobs.com can show you additional jobs...to check on your security clearance status, you need to know, or talk to someone who deals with security (such as a Command Security Officer) clearance-related topics.
Just because you get modded "insightful" on Slashdot doesn't mean you actually are in real life.
Security Clearance investigations are expensive. Polygraph test add to the expense.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
No, actually we don't, and yes, China is. One of many, as it happens, but they're about the biggest threat we have to our sovereignty at the moment (we're way too dependent upon China, which means we are neither a free nor an independent nation.) Hell, they're the biggest threat we have to just being able to clothe ourselves and keep the lights on.
Now, our government may need enemies in order to justify increasing levels of control over the U.S. population, but to make a sweeping statement that "Americans just need AN ENEMY" is ridiculous, and just a tad bigoted.
Keep trying for that +5 Insightful, though.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Excerpt:
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
No, let's encourage more people to be techies, engineers, and scientists, and pay them better than dumbass MBAs for a change.
And let's take away China's "Most Favored" trading status, if they keep up this shit. Why not? I do not feel obligated to help other nations that then turn around and dump on us.
Polygraphs are done for a wide range of reasons--even city police dispatchers from CA to NC get them...as to the feds, they are ridiculously anal. Even _non-sensitive_ internships and volunteer work with federal agencies have to deal with a full FBI background, reference and credit checks--Just for being in the building. And being in a sensitive position (not secret or top secret) requires full medical disclosure of all records and a more thorough FBI check and interviews (sometimes a polygraph).
There are two or three different overall investigation programs at the federal level for security procedures, perhaps some of them are more lax (or enlightened), but I doubt polygraph is avoided for the cost. If anything, it probably produces false positives that single out minorities: "Have you ever done anything that might be considered amoral?" Right after sex practice questions. Asked to a lesbian police applicant. They told her she did "bad" on the test, made her take it three times, in an unventilated room. Noone bothered to explain to her that social anxiety and leading questions were probably impacting the results...
However ... I do see a few probl... err ... I mean of course "Opportunities" here.
The first one being the opportunity to convince management in the US to pay engineers and scientists more and/or MBA's less.
The second one would be to convince them to stop seeing the engineering and R&D departments as regrettable cost centers to be outsourced and/or off-shored at the first opportunity.
The third opportunity would be to convince industry to offer Ph.D's opportunities (and to some extent academic entry-level positions) that make it less of a financial risk to do a Ph.D.
Prospects for Ph.D's (depending on discipline of course) can be so awful that you have to basically tell students: "Don't do a Ph.D. unless you (a) really derive fulfillment from doing research / teaching even if you're paid half to 1/3 of what you'd get in industry and (b) you are in the top 5% of your class, or you won't be able to get tenured".
Well ... industrial espionage is part of doing business. Between companies as much as between countries. Besides, trade is a two-way street. It's not as if the US are providing China with development aid. The US are benefiting from cheap Chinese products too. Have you ever considered what the impact on the US would be if there were to be say, 30% import tariffs on Chinese goods?
All those PC's, printers, T-shirts, hand tools, shoes, toys, and what not? First you'd kick off a vicious round of inflation if you did ... plus you'd be seriously hurting the bottom line of such all-American companies that have off-shored their manufactoring operations to China (just think of HP).
Generally speaking, you'd saddle lots of US companies with higher costs which would make them vulnerable in the current economic downturn *and* make them less competitive with e.g. EU-based companies.
Sure ... it would hurt China. They might even have riots. But it would hurt the US too. Very much so I'd say. So let's just be very sure about the cost-benefit ratio of such measures before we seriously propose them, ok? Like it or not, the US is as much networked into the global economy as China, the EU, and OPEC.
It's not to say that the US can't rescind China's "most favoured nation" state. Of course it can! The question is: what are the costs and what are the benefits. And I submit that the costs just might be a bit steep for the satisfaction of making our displeasure about industrial espionage known.
"But the Bush administration did nothing."
Methinks this will become a common ending to encyclopedia articles in the not so distant future.