Professor Gets 4 Years in Prison for Sharing Drone Plans With Students

Hugh Pickens writes "Retired University of Tennessee Professor Dr. John Reece Roth has been sentenced to four years in prison after he allowed a Chinese graduate student to see sensitive information on Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones. In 2004, the company Roth helped found, Atmospheric Glow Technologies, won a US Air Force contract to develop a plasma actuator that could help reduce drag on the wings of drones, such as the ones the military uses. Under the contract, for which Roth was reportedly paid $6,000, he was prohibited from sharing sensitive data with foreign nationals. Despite warnings from his university's Export Control Officer, in 2006, Roth took a laptop containing sensitive plans with him on a lecture tour in China and also allowed graduate students Xin Dai of China and Sirous Nourgostar of Iran to work on the project. 'The illegal export of restricted military data represents a serious threat to national security,' says David Kris of the US Department of Justice. 'We know that foreign governments are actively seeking this information for their own military development. Today's sentence should serve as a warning to anyone who knowingly discloses restricted military data in violation of our laws.' During his trial, Roth testified that he was unaware that hiring the graduate students was a violation of his contract. 'This whole thing has not helped me, it has not helped the university,' said Roth. 'And it has probably not helped this country, either.'"

Comments

Some of my professors

[Anonymous Coward]

droned on and on too but I wouldn't send them to prison for it!

Re:Some of my professors

[BitZtream]

My god I would, all that money wasted listening to some pompous ass who actually knows very little of practical value. Its treason at the highest levels if you ask me.

Re:Why stop there..

[russotto]

Presumably because the students weren't the ones who signed the reams of paperwork acknowledging they were being given access to sensitive data and shouldn't be sharing it with foreign nationals. Unless procedures have changed a lot, you don't get legitimate access to such information without being told ad nauseum who you should and shouldn't be sharing it with and what the penalties are for breaking those rules.

Guilty.

[Petersko]

He knew he wasn't supposed to do it, he was warned not to do it, he did it anyway. He pled guilty.

If he didn't read his contract that's his problem. I also find it very unlikely.

Why is this on slashdot?

Re:Guilty.

[H0p313ss]

He knew he wasn't supposed to do it, he was warned not to do it, he did it anyway. He pled guilty. If he didn't read his contract that's his problem. I also find it very unlikely. Why is this on slashdot?

Possibly to serve as a warning to others? That might be his whole purpose in life.

Re:Guilty.

[thomasw_lrd]

Because it's another crybaby story the govt. is evil, copyright is evil, and all nerds should be allowed free access to any information that is in the entire world. I'm surprised they didn't try to tie the iphone and google into it.

Re:Guilty.

[samkass]

If he didn't read his contract that's his problem. I also find it very unlikely.

Agreed. ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) is something that all defense workers are trained in. It's also explained very carefully that if there's a violation it's not the government program's fault, it's not the company's fault, but it's the employee that's going to prison. It's a pretty strict standard. Even discussing things in the public domain for the wrong purposes can land you in hot water-- giving a citation (book name, page number) of public domain information can violate ITAR if it's in response to, say, a question about missile technology. In essence what you exported there was your expertise in leading the foreign national to that source of information.

Incidentally, these are the same regulations that kept the old PowerMac G4's from being exported and led to the "tank" commercial at the time.

Re:Guilty.

[Vellmont]

He knew he wasn't supposed to do it, he was warned not to do it, he did it anyway. He pled guilty.

Wrong, maybe, and wrong. In his trial (he didn't plead guilty, that was a different party) he said he didn't think it was illegal (see below).
(from the article and the summary, which apparently you either didn't read or comprehend)

During his trial, Roth testified that he was unaware that hiring the graduate students was a violation of his contract, otherwise he would not have participated since his plasma research also has non-military applications.

If he didn't read his contract that's his problem.

Have you ever read a real contract? Even lawyers have difficulty interpreting many of them.

Re:Guilty.

[dummondwhu]

Those of us who work in defense are trained until we're blue in the face about how to handle sensitive information, what is and is not releasable, and what an "export" is in defense terms (it's more than it sounds). My company trains us extensively on that, and maybe the company he founded didn't bother to pound these things into the heads of the people in the company, but it's just not a good excuse. If we are to be trusted to handle classified information, it's up to us to make sure we understand proper safeguarding of that info. Can I recite all the rules and regs? Hell no, but I guarantee I'm not taking any information anywhere or giving information to anyone without running it through proper channels first. That's not just common sense, but what we're trained to do on an ongoing basis.

Re:Guilty.

[dmartine40]

Have you ever read a real contract? Even lawyers have difficulty interpreting many of them.
By signing a contract, this professor agreed to all its terms an conditions, and was bound by them. After that, there really was little or no valid reason for violating it.

Re:Guilty.

[Vellmont]

Those of us who work in defense are trained until we're blue in the face about how to handle sensitive information, what is and is not releasable

He doesn't work in "defense", he's a retired University professor who works for a company doing work with plasma. Comparing him to yourself is disingenuous at best.

Universities (especially physics) works very differently than a company with regard to "classified" information. Here's how it works. You want research money. You apply for a grant from the DOE for said research money where you check "yes this has potential weapons applications" (because hey, what doesn't?). The DOE grants your request. In reality your research only meets the barest minimum for a qualification of "weapons potential". Yah, there's some kind of nonsense restriction on what you can do with it, but remember it never really had defense implications in the first place.

So, if we're talking about environments here, that's quite a different environment than the one you're describing.

Re:Guilty.

[gangien]

yet the same people want to have the government run things like health care.

Re:Guilty.

[readin]

If the guy is going to jail, doesn't that mean the information is classified? And aren't people who get clearance to see classified information supposed to go through some sort of training as part of the process of getting the clearance?

Re:Guilty.

[smack.addict]

I'd rather have government run health care than any insurance company (who, by the way, lose laptops and forget to wipe hard drives).

Re:Guilty.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

He doesn't work in "defense", he's a retired University professor who works for a company doing work with plasma. Comparing him to yourself is disingenuous at best.

Okay. I work for a university and the government working in a similar field as the professor in question. I'm familiar with the ITAR regulations, and I sign agreements to not disclose this kind of information. I'm strictly science, yet I still have to use aircraft and spacecraft that are dual purposed. I know exactly the rules he had to follow...

Universities (especially physics) works very differently than a company with regard to "classified" information.

Nope. I'm held to the same standards as my civil servant colleagues. I even have to take the same training sessions. We don't call it FIOS, or SECRET but the acronyms we use have same meanings associated with them.

Yah, there's some kind of nonsense restriction on what you can do with it, but remember it never really had defense implications in the first place.

The trouble with your argument is that the UAV in question is a UAV that is similar to the one used in defense, but assigned a civilian task. The information that he provided did compromise security.

So, if we're talking about environments here, that's quite a different environment than the one you're describing.

Different? Yes. Different enough? No. I have projects that allow non-US grad students and I have projects that don't...

Re:Guilty.

[Dravik]

It is not necessarily classified. He got popped for export restrictions. What he was working on fell under the "un-classified but sensitive" category. The technology had possible military applications and thus was banned from export from the United States. He was warned by the export control officer of the university not to take the information out of the US.

Re:Guilty.

[Lars T.]

Maybe, just maybe, this case doesn't show that Roth is a traitor, but that the military is full of idiots who don't take their jobs serious.

Re:Guilty.

[Lars T.]

By signing a contract, this professor agreed to all its terms an conditions, and was bound by them. After that, there really was little or no valid reason for violating it.

By clicking "Go away" on that EULA ...

Re:Guilty.

[Vellmont]

The trouble with your argument

The trouble with my argument is that it isn't an argument. You've taken it out of context, which was a refutation of the environment imposed on this guy.

Everyone seems to think they understand exactly what happened here from one crappy ass article written by some journalist. Presumably nobody here was at the trial, hasn't read anything else about what was disclosed, or any real specifics. This kind of case is far from simple, and making assumptions with almost nothing to go on about what compromised what, what the law states, etc is extremely misleading. I simply argue for ignorance here, not knowledge.

Re:Guilty.

[koreaman]

That's all well and good, but how relevant is it to the Cloud?

Re:Guilty.

[ScrewMaster]

Maybe, just maybe, this case doesn't show that Roth is a traitor, but that the military is full of idiots who don't take their jobs serious.

That's probably true. But now maybe, just maybe, some of those idiots will take their jobs more serious(ly.)

Re:Guilty.

[kencurry]

... I'm surprised they didn't try to tie the iphone and google into it.

the laptop was a macbook pro...

Re:Guilty.

[Lars T.]

Maybe, just maybe, this case doesn't show that Roth is a traitor, but that the military is full of idiots who don't take their jobs serious.

That's probably true. But now maybe, just maybe, some of those idiots will take their jobs more serious(ly.)

Well, since Roth goes to jail, and they maybe, just maybe even get promoted for "catching" him ...

Re:Guilty.

[kencurry]

Everyone seems to think they understand exactly what happened ... I simply argue for ignorance here, not knowledge.

the article clearly stated that he was warned not to disclose, and did it anyway. So yeah, I think that I understand exactly what happened here. You may want to "argue for ignorance" but c'mon already.

Re:Guilty.

[Pichu0102]

Probably because he likely didn't have a devious reason to do it, and is now sentenced to 4 years of prison rape or even

Re:Guilty.

[hawk]

Oh, you cynic.

Why would anyone smart enough to get a Ph.D. even suspect that, after working on classified information, he shouldn't disclose that information to a student hand-selected to study with him by a totalitarian government with a history of using its military to take over others, repress dissent, and threaten other nations?

hawk

Re:Guilty.

[SanguineV]

PhDs aren't granted for common sense.

Re:Guilty.

[H0p313ss]

That might be his whole purpose in life.

Oh STFU, you religious nut.

Actually... I'm an atheist and I was referring to a slogan on a popular poster. Hope those meds work out for ya...

Re:Guilty.

[Reservoir Penguin]

For a second I though you were describing the US. What countries did Iran use it's military to take over exactly? On the other hand Iran did see US and NATO take over a country it borders in the east and just two years later the same warmongers took over a country it borders in the west. And then they try to incite a figging "Orange" Revolution. I'd be worried and developing nuclear weapons like mad.

Re:Guilty.

[Atroxodisse]

If he was working for defense, then he was working for defense, regardless of whether he was on contract or an employee or if his company was selling goods that were considered to have possibly uses as a weapons(and even if they don't). Everything is subject to export control laws. Everything. http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm
I work for a software security company. We have to watch training videos frequently to be reminded of the export control laws. You can't even talk about your products to foreign nationals without a permit. And yes, information is considered an export. In fact, just taking the laptop out of the country with that information was a violation.

Re:Guilty.

[greyhueofdoubt]

In essence what you exported there was your expertise in leading the foreign national to that source of information.

I'd like to add to this, because many people here on /. who don't have experience in these areas often ask, "Why is it illegal for a member of the military/Boeing employee/Raytheon employee/etc to say publicly what can already be found easily on wikipedia or other sources?"

The answer is: Because it verifies facts. An article by AP about the air force's new musical ice-cream truck UAV could only be written based on publicly-available facts or deduction. Once a member of the Air Force confirms to the press or anyone else that yes, we have a new ice-cream UAV and it is delicious, the subject is confirmed. Every member of the DoD, DoD contractors, and DoD researchers is like a walking snopes.com in that everything they say is scrutinized and accepted as the acting ultimate authority on the subject.

Here's a real world example based on my own experiences. There are maps online of a certain base in Iraq that give very detailed, very accurate information. You can find it, but I won't tell you which one it is. OK. But when we do our predeployment briefing to that base, and which uses *that map*, and which is given by Intel and is secret/noforn- ALL cell phones go away, all the doors are closed, and all the window blinds are closed. The fact that we are using that map as a fact... Makes that map a *Fact*. Capital "F".

See?

I realize that's at odds with much of what slashdottery stands for, but when lives are on the line secrecy matters. It may seem silly but it matters enough to people in the loop (like me...) to keep certain things under wraps.

Another real-world example: My base public relations officer called me in Iraq (from the U.S.) to talk to me about my blog (which was about my deployment). He cautioned me, in no uncertain terms, to be "very, very careful what I include in my essays." And this was after I took pains to change names, places, times, patterns, etc so that my account could easily be from any shitty place* in the world if you didn't personally know where I was.

-b

*No offense Iraq, it was just the weather. No really.

Re:Guilty.

[dummondwhu]

It has absolutely zero to do with environment. The guy was in possession of export-controlled material. I don't care if he was a defense contractor, a university professor, or a waiter. If you want to play ball on that field, then you follow the rules of that game. Period.

No one forced him down that path, and he was warned about the situation. There is simply no valid excuse.

Re:Guilty.

[iocat]

Iran uses it military to attack US forces in Iraq via its bomb supplying proxies. It uses it proxies in Lebanon to attack Israel civilians with missiles. It uses its proxies in Afghanistan to attack US and government forces. In most cases, the proxies are aided directly by members of its elite Revolutionary Guards. When its people protest a statistically false election, they are beaten and shot in the street, while the propaganda machine tries to lame the West for "inciting" the protests. And some total dumb fucks, like you, seem to believe them.

Additionally, Iran has illegally mined international waters and killed US sailors with mines. (Google Operation Praying Mantis). Iran's president was likely personally involved in the illegal hostage taking of US diplomatic personel in the 1970s.

Re:Guilty.

[Concerned Onlooker]

Shoot. I wish I'd know that before I wrote my dissertation on it.

Re:Guilty.

[BitZtream]

So true. PhDs are granted because you were someones bitch for 4+ years, nothing more. If anything one could argue that PhDs are given only to idiots who stay and deal with it rather than having the common sense to leave, get a job, and make twice as much than you will when you get out.

Okay, so if you are going into academia you're going to have to get a PhD since they have to self perpetuate.

And yes, I know a little about PhD programs. My family has 2 PhDs and my wife is a real doctor.

Re:Guilty.

[Reservoir Penguin]

This is small potatoes that every country of any aspiration is involved in, in the 70s and 80s Western countries had thousands of military advisers all over Asia, Africa and Latin America. Not even in the same league as invading another country, something neither China nor Iran was involved in. At least in the case of China you could theoretically count the Korean War, but even in that case it was the West that was running around in it's backyard.

Re:Guilty.

[jonaskoelker]

PhDs aren't granted for common sense.

Can be, if you study psychology ;-)

I'm only realizing the pun as I'm writing this: I meant that as "in psychology you can study common sense", but I see how you can interpret it as results of psychology being common sense.

There's an interesting study showing that people say "that's just common sense" when presented with the results of psychological experiments; when asked to predict the outcomes before the fact, though, people do as well as tossed coins. Make of that what you will.

Re:Guilty.

[stephanruby]

Here's a real world example based on my own experiences...

That's it. See you in four years. I hope the Karma was worth it.

Re:Guilty.

[stephanruby]

Agreed. ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) is something that all defense workers are trained in.

Except that he wasn't an employee, he was a consultant/contractor who earned a measly $6,000 from the US Air Force. It's such a low amount, he probably got it from a drone contest or something. And I'm sorry, but a EULA from ITAR a la Netscape doesn't constitute proper training, and an occasional mass email from an Exports Control Officer doesn't constitute a proper warning either. Who reads those anyway? Do you? Do you think a seventy year old would? Damn, I should probably take a look at the National Security-related papers I've signed every time I've entered a Nokia building. The US is going crazy again.

Re:Guilty.

[Draek]

And in academia, the general rule isn't "keep it all to yourself".

Re:Guilty.

[mattwarden]

Don't be an idiot. He is guilty and should go to jail. The government acted in accordance with the Constitution and good sense. Your attempt to politicize this only shows that you have no real grasp of the arguments of the critics of the government and instead blindly dismiss them with little thought.

Re:Guilty.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I'm not - if he were a judge, he'd be disqualified from being a juror.

Re:Guilty.

[DeVilla]

What countries did Iran use it's military to take over exactly?

You might not have picked up on it, but I think he was probably talking mainly about China there. Iocat has already mentioned a few of the nice things Iran is known for, but I think my favorite is that their President managed to both make a sceptical of himself denying the holocaust while promising to out-do the holocaust. Now that takes some imagination.

Re:Guilty.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Have you ever read a real contract? Even lawyers have difficulty interpreting many of them.

I was asked to do some subcontracting on a DoD project regarding porting some software to linux. IIRC, the contract was 265 pages. This was a small project.

My choices were:

1. sign it without understanding it
2. hire a lawyer to understand it - even if he understood it completely, it would have taken any profit out of the deal
3. drop it
4. find a different way to interface with the project

. The last approach yielded an 8-page contract instead.

I can't fault this guy for not understanding his contract nor condone his sentence, but he should have just not taken the money in the first place.

Re:Why stop there..

[danking]

I don't think you can be sentenced for that if they were allowed to work on a project. It wasn't their responsibility to confirm that the contract their employer/teacher had signed had stipulations on certain foreign nationals working on the project.

Lamest court defense ever

[Mad Marlin]

I had no idea that the US Military would get pissed if I shared details about how to build flying robots with people from Iran and China! I swear it!

Re:Lamest court defense ever

[someonehasmyname]

I'm sure the drag related tech isn't the only useful stuff they found in the plans. They're probably using them to supe up their own rigs, as well as get a better understanding of OUR drone's radar footprint, etc.

Not long enough

[m509272]

Should have been 40 years, idiot. Just bringing the laptop to China is shear stupidity.

Re:Not long enough

[Robin47]

Should have been 40 years, idiot. Just bringing the laptop to China is shear stupidity.

Especially after being told not to...

Re:Not long enough

[SheeEttin]

shear stupidity

Maybe, but his haircut is irrelevant. This was just irresponsible.

Re:Not long enough

[Wrath0fb0b]

Especially after being told not to...

I don't truck much with "being told" what to do.

I do truck with signing a contract that lays out very explicitly what obligations and restrictions to which you you are voluntarily agreeing. He knew (or absolutely should have known) that when you sign a contract to consult for the DOD, you are accepting these restrictions.

This is about as much YRO (which has meant YR for a long time now anyway) as any other mundane contractual disputes that turn up.

Re:Not long enough

[patro]

Should have been 40 years, idiot. Just bringing the laptop to China is shear stupidity.

Not really relevant. The data can be copied from it just as easily in the US.

Even the " prohibited from sharing sensitive data with foreign nationals" condition is a fluff, since a foreign nation can simply pay a US citizen to get the data.

Re:Not long enough

[Ironsides]

Tad excessive? You've never heard of the Rosenbergs, I take it. What country are you from?

Re:Not long enough

[the eric conspiracy]

The contract is was an agreement by the professor to conduct certain work with the Air Force in return for funding. Part of this gave the professor access to sensitive military information. That information is protected by other laws, in particular the US Arms Export Control Act.

The professor is going to jail not for problems with observing the contract, but for breaking a pretty serious national security law.

Re:Not long enough

[the eric conspiracy]

Even the " prohibited from sharing sensitive data with foreign nationals" condition is a fluff, since a foreign nation can simply pay a US citizen to get the data.

That US citizen would then be subject to the same legal sanctions the Professor got under the US laws prohibiting export of this information.

Re:Not long enough

[Nutria]

Why was this perfectly valid counter-example modded Troll?

Re:Not long enough

[binarylarry]

So you're saying, if the GP was BIASED toward this individual, he wouldn't argue for stiffer punishment.

Do you even think these fucking things through before you post?

Re:Not long enough

[Wrath0fb0b]

The professor is going to jail not for problems with observing the contract, but for breaking a pretty serious national security law.

Yes, but the contract makes clear that the information being disclosed is, in fact, protected. I would be more sympathetic to his position if the national security implications were a total mystery to him, instead of being clearly laid out.

Re:Not long enough

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Even the " prohibited from sharing sensitive data with foreign nationals" condition is a fluff, since a foreign nation can simply pay a US citizen to get the data.

The point is that any US citizen who /has/ that information is not permitted to share it. I'm sure some do and don't get caught at it - but that doesn't mean that they're not in violation of both their contractual obligations and applicable laws.

Re:Not long enough

[ScrewMaster]

Contractual or not, four years for sharing some plans seems tad excessive.

Oh well. I guess you have to be American to understand the American judicial system.

What? My goodness, that anti-American commentary is become less and less rational on a daily basis.

Look, there's a lot of technology that could be used to kill a lot of people if the wrong hands get access to it. The American taxpayer paid for that R&D, and it should be used in our interests, not to aid an inimical foreign power like China (no, they're not our friends, and probably never will be.) I understand that you're just trying to get in a jab at the hated Americans, but ask yourself how the Russians, or the Iranians, or the Israelis, or the Chinese or ... well, pretty much ANY country that has made a significant investment in military technology would (and have) handled similar cases. Compared to some of those countries, this is a slap on the wrist. I mean, after all the agreements he signed, just taking that laptop to CHINA, of all places, should have earned him a lot more than four years. I suspect the Feds cut him some slack.

I'm sorry that you're ignorant of such matters, but you know, that is a curable condition.

Re:Not long enough

[ScrewMaster]

Why was this perfectly valid counter-example modded Troll?

Because Slashdot will pretty much give a loaded gun to an idiot, mod-points-wise.

Re:Not long enough

[ScrewMaster]

Even the " prohibited from sharing sensitive data with foreign nationals" condition is a fluff, since a foreign nation can simply pay a US citizen to get the data.

That US citizen would then be subject to the same legal sanctions the Professor got under the US laws prohibiting export of this information.

That's actually the problem with a lot of our interaction in the "global economy". Take medical transcription, for example ... a lot of that is being outsourced to India. And when it gets stolen by some Indian bastard trying to make a quick buck, there's absolutely nothing our government can do. The thief is not subject to United States law. Consequently, there's no deterrent effect whatsoever when it comes to ripping off confidential data from our government or our citizens, and that's the reason the professor was prohibited from using foreign nationals on his project. Did he intend to act in a treasonous or near-treasonous manner? Perhaps not. But it's damned hard to argue that he didn't know better.

Re:Not long enough

[Dhalka226]

I don't truck much with "being told" what to do.

Well, I'm no expert but an Export Control Officer sounds awfully like a person whose job it is to tell this professor that he's about to break the law. He doesn't have to listen, I suppose; nobody does. But it does remove his ability to plead ignorance on the topic. He was warned that exactly what happened might happen. No sympathy from me there.

This is about as much YRO (which has meant YR for a long time now anyway) as any other mundane contractual disputes that turn up.

I agree that this is a flimsy case for an article supposedly talking about our rights, as if sharing sensitive information under a government contract is somehow a right. That said, I wouldn't boil it down so far as "any other mundane contractual dispute" if we're talking about something that comes with jail time. That's not a breach of contract issue, that's a broken law issue.

Re:Not long enough

[mpe]

Tad excessive? You've never heard of the Rosenbergs, I take it. What country are you from?

Pity they didn't use the same approach with Jonathan Pollard.

Re:Not long enough

[Artifakt]

Honestly, would you let this guy out first, or are there some people you'd put ahead of him? Even if we're jailing more people than we should, is he one of the ones we shouldn't?

Re:Not long enough

[10101001 10101001]

Look, there's a lot of technology that could be used to kill a lot of people if the wrong hands get access to it. The American taxpayer paid for that R&D, and it should be used in our interests, not to aid an inimical foreign power like China (no, they're not our friends, and probably never will be.)

Just a minor correction: Look, there's a lot of technology that could be used to kill a lot of people. The American taxpayer paid for that R&D, and it should be used in our interests.

That much better sums up your real sentiment, I think. We spent billions of dollars to have an edge at killing people, and you and others don't want China to get that same edge for free. Of course, no matter how good the schematics, it's not absolutely free of R&D, not to mention the actual cost of creation. Given how much the US outspends the whole world in military spending, it's really a moot point anyways.

Me? I wish instead of focusing so much on what "the wrong hands" of other countries might do, we'd focus more on what "the right hands" of our own country are doing. Ie, I wish we'd stop killing innocent people.

Re:Not long enough

[eloquent_loser]

The American taxpayer paid for that R&D, and it should be used in our interests, not to aid an inimical foreign power like China (no, they're not our friends, and probably never will be.)

You would probably be better off reigning in Yahoo, Google and Sony et al from colluding with the Chinese government in oppression of its citizens instead of jailing one of your own for engaging in open academic discourse. One should be discouraged, the other encouraged. America, with astounding regularity, reverses intelligence in astounding ways.

Re:Not long enough

[shutdown -p now]

Contractual or not, four years for sharing some plans seems tad excessive.

I'm not an American, and I think that four years for a very real leak of sensitive military information is quite mild, and only shows to point out the difference between U.S. (and other Western countries), and, say, China - consider what would happen to a Chinese professor in a similar situation.

Re:Not long enough

[Reservoir Penguin]

Well whose fault is it really? When was the last time you saw a US university graduate program in hard sciences that had more than a token share of US citizens? It's not his fault that most of his students are Chinese, Russians and Iranians. I'm surprised the professor himself wasn't Chinese.

Re:Not long enough

[purduephotog]

On September 12, 2008, co-defendant Morton Sobell admitted that he and Julius Rosenberg were guilty of spying for the Soviet Union. He believed Ethel was aware of the espionage, but did not actively participate.[7]

? Did I miss something here- they were guilty of espionage.

I think he got off lightly. What's worse now is all the crap the REST of us will have to deal with because this fuck-nit couldn't follow the warnings and restrictions set forth by his company.

Actually, what is worse is everyone else- there are 1800 people in my company alone. We each have to take 3 hours of ITAR/EAR training, AT LEAST- I think I've done about 10 hours in the past year. That money gets charged to the government.

Guess who pays it? Guess who's gonna pay even MORE because of this nitwit.

Re:Not long enough

[welcher]

Honestly, it all sounds kinda minor to me. The guy has had his career ruined over some apparently small technical issue of an airplane. 4 years sounds like a lot to me - acts as a strong deterrent and a punishment. But 40 years, as the parent was baying for, that's real string-em-up mentality.

And seeing you ask, there are plenty I'd let out sooner - the many thousands doing time for drug offenses would be a good place to start. You

Re:Not long enough

[BitZtream]

What country do you live in? I'm sure it falls into one of two groups:

1) This would be considered treason, you'd simply be shot, if you were lucky you might get a trial first.

2) This wouldn't matter as the country realizes that it doesn't have anything worth keeping secret, so it doesn't bother with laws to deal with those situations.

Yes, I'm American. Yes, the entire EU does fall into one of those categories, before you rant about how it doesn't, do some research.

Re:Not long enough

[FilatovEV]

Russia would handle similar cases similarly, but I don't remember a professor in Russia jailed for engaging his student to work! It's fully your American invention, and I'm glad to see that you are feeling well about it.

Re:Not long enough

[ScrewMaster]

"Look, there's a lot of technology that could be used to kill a lot of people if the wrong hands get access to it."

So you're the right hands to have access to it and kill alot of people with it, like you're currently doing? :)

I know you're trying to be funny (and you were, actually, I did set myself up for that one) but as it happens you're absolutely correct. Because we paid for it. It's ours. Are you saying that we should share our military tech with hostile foreign powers ... what, out of some misguided idea of "fairness"? This is not about fairness. It's about us versus them, just like it's been throughout history. Fact is, my friend, nothing has really changed except that our toys are a lot more dangerous than they used to be. Furthermore, if China, or Russia or anyone else would like to have the same toys, they should be required to spend their own hard earned monetary units upon them.

The way I see it, our government has a mandate to protect us. Not the Chinese. Not the Russians. Not the Israelis, or the various Arab nations, or anyone else. That means that money we spend on weapons (regardless of whether you agree that spending was wise) should be used for our purposes, not anyone else's. If they want them, let them pay for them. Oh, I'm sorry, the investment is too great? You can't afford them? Well, then maybe you don't need them after all. Build some more plowshares instead.

Now, given America's declining economic base, odds are we won't be able to afford this stuff much longer either. Might ask yourself this question: when America's ability to project power has largely disappeared, when nations like Russia and the rapidly-militarizing China are free to do as they please again ... will this be an improvement?

Everything they steal from us now is something that can be used against everyone later.

Re:Not long enough

[Hal_Porter]

Just a minor correction: Look, there's a lot of technology that could be used to kill a lot of people. The American taxpayer paid for that R&D, and it should be used in our interests.

Well is that a bad thing? If the US tax payer paid for the technology it should be used in the interests of the US? This isn't like a football match where both sides are interchangeable. The US system is much more free than China or Irans If people are going to be killed with technology paid for by the US tax payer those people should be the ones fighting for the rival system, not ones fighting for the US one. That's the reason that the US funds defence R&D - it wants to maintain and extend its technological advantage.

Because every now and then you will be forced to fight to make sure that free societies survive and spread and unfree societies are rolled back and eventually eradicated. And with a technological advantage you end up with Desert Storm style turkey shoots where the unfree side is slaughtered efficiently with high tech gizmos and the free side takes very light casualties. I think it is in the public interest for this to be the norm - and I don't just mean the interests of the US public.

Seriously, read up on D Day for what sort of casualties US soldiers take when the unfree side has technological parity. And its more serious than that - modern free societies compared to 1940's ones have an allergy to even light military casualties whereas unfree societies can hurl their more numerous but badly equipped troops in human wave attacks and then kill anyone who complains.

For freedom and democracy to survive long term it is vitally important that the perception in unfree societies is that their armies will be decimated like the Iraqi army if they challenge free societies openly.

Re:Not long enough

[rbochan]

...four years for a very real leak of sensitive military information is quite mild...

Yes. It's a good thing he didn't have a bag of weed or flash a boobie on the TV or he'd _really_ be screwed.

Re:Not long enough

[idlemachine]

Look, there's a lot of technology that could be used to kill a lot of people if the wrong hands get access to it.

From the perspective of someone outside of the US, it looks like a lot of that technology has been and is being used to kill a lot of people.

Thank god it's in the right hands, yeah? We couldn't have just anyone burning the living shit out of others with white phosphorus now, could we?

Keep fighting that good fight!

Re:Not long enough

[m509272]

this guy should have been skinned alive

Re:Not long enough

[Hal_Porter]

No, that was not an example of the US being forced to fight.

Lying or stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see, he signed a contract saying he was prohibited from sharing sensitive data with foreign nationals, then he shared it with forign nationals. Now he says "he was unaware that hiring the graduate students (to do work in the project) was a violation of his contract"? He's either too stupid to be a professor, or he's lying.

Have fun in prison bub.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[Kell Bengal]

He made a poor choice, for sure, but a lot of academics live and work in a 'publish freely, collaborate frequently' mind-set that helps share knowledge and advance human understanding. The whole culture of scientific openness, testability and peer review is strongly at odds with the secrecy-is-paramount function of military endeavours. The two must work together if militaries are to benefit from the latest scientific knowledge but the goals of academics and military are not the same and I'm not surprised it leads to such mistakes.

I'm a university UAV researcher myself; I know lots of folks who work with the military to get funding to do research they think is important. It comes with the territory, and most of us are pretty cluey about the defense applications of what we do. I have been to plenty of conferences where the guys from Iran and China are presenting trivial results or not bothering to present at all, only to attend every potentially valuable seminar they can. We know they're trying to use our stuff, they know they're trying to use our stuff, but we feel that sharing knowledge and putting it out there is crucial for the science.

For that reason people are careful about the alliances they make with the military. Working on national security stuff generally means you can't publish anything valuable you come up. I know a few collegues well who can't say what they did between years X and Y when they go for a job interview - it can be kryptonite to your career.

I don't think this guy was necessarily stupid or foolish - I think he was careless after being so used to the routine of publish or perish that he forgot who his collaborators were, and that was his mistake.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[Green Salad]

I simply don't buy into any arguments presented thus far, for defending a lighter sentence.

I'm the absent-minded type. From experience, I can assure people that the sheer number of security briefings, security awareness tests and periodioc recertifications and signed contracts makes it so even the dumbest idiot can't claim they weren't aware. And yeah, it's corny or awkward as it is to say "I've agreed not to discuss it" to a loved one or potential employer.

With experience, you learn to deflect the "but surely you trust me, don't you?" with "I trust you and think you deserve to know. However, that is not the issue. I gave a solemn promise and feel an ethical duty to make my word mean something. Please don't continue to put me in awkward situations or I will start to think less of you."

The interview process in my own company involves and ethics/honor test that asks the applicant about classified work and if they start to give details, they're not invited back. Who wants to hire dishonorable people to work next to them? Not me.

As far as employment, you can get validation that you were legitimately employed and others in the reseach/tech/engineering industry are used to dealing with it. All classified programs will have an associated FSO (Facility Security Officer) that can provide you process guidance and that persons name and contact info is made clear in the security training and if anyone legitimately wants help with this, drop me a line and I'll do my best.

From experience, the real issue is lack of maturity and strong personal sense of ethics.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[Mike Buddha]

I think he was careless after being so used to the routine of publish or perish that he forgot who his collaborators were, and that was his mistake.

But he was also convicted of bringing data in his computer to China, even though he was warned by the university's Export Control Officer not to. That doesn't seem like an honest mistake. He was warned that this was a violation of ITAR and he chose to do it anyways. I have a feeling, no proof, that this was the more egregious of the two sets of charges.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[Nutria]

I don't think this guy was necessarily stupid or foolish - I think he was careless after being so used to the routine of publish or perish that he forgot who his collaborators were, and that was his mistake.

When I warn my children over and over and over not to do X, and then they do X, with the sorry-ass excuse, "oh, I forgot, sorry", I don't send them on their way with a mild slap on the wrist...

unpleasantness (sometimes physical, sometimes emotional) occurs, and it definitely hurts them more than it hurts me!

Re:Lying or stupid?

[LurkerXXX]

Sorry, I'm not buying it. I do medical research. Mostly open NIH funded stuff, but sometimes when grants are tough to come by I work on pharmaceutical company projects, which I sign NDAs about. I'm very careful not to let information protected by that NDA from slipping into conversation with other folks, let alone putting people from competitors on the project...

The guy was far more than careless.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[bzipitidoo]

Thank you for saying all that.

The punishment doesn't strike me as particularly useful either. Seems too severe, especially when considering that he likely didn't mean to hurt the US. Do they want to scare off everyone? At the least it will cost more money to persuade others to work with them. I sure wouldn't go for a pitiful $6000 to face risks like that. Now we have one scientist locked up for 4 years where he probably can't do anything useful at all. And his career is toast. Maybe that part doesn't matter so much since he's retired, but for a young person it could be a life wrecker. It strikes me rather like the threat to shut down the Blackberrys in RIM vs NTP, or telling Vonage they can't sign up new customers, or the way the RIAA has forced a few alleged file sharers to drop out of college. Or the quaint fundamentalist Islamic custom of amputating the right hands of thieves. We shouldn't cause excessive damage when trying to achieve justice. Why not instead hit him with a fine, take away his access, and let him work on something else? Are scientists who are willing to bear the costs of working with the military as plentiful and disposable as all that?

Re:Lying or stupid?

[PhxBlue]

The punishment doesn't strike me as particularly useful either. Seems too severe, especially when considering that he likely didn't mean to hurt the US.

Drunken drivers don't mean to kill people, but they do. If you can't be bothered to think through possible consequences before you do something, then you get to endure those consequences later.

Me, I'd rather not see Department of Defense employees not helping Iran and China with their own UAS programs if it's all the same.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am getting a PhD in mathematics and I can tell you this kind of story significantly influences my decision of whether to work for the government. There is plenty of other places to work where there aren't onerous restrictions placed on me and where I don't run the risk of being jailed for showing a powerpoint presentation of what amount to publicly available information to the bad guys of the decade.

No thanks.

Interestingly enough, captcha = morphism

Re:Lying or stupid?

[hedwards]

Well, not that's the way it works. It's not that different than if I were to show up to work without my license. I have one, but not having it on my person at work is a gross misdemeanor. There's any number of legitimate reasons why one might forget, but ultimately, I'm still liable if that happens.

I'm not really sure why this would be any different.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[Kell Bengal]

True, except that the atomic research that produced The Bomb was conducted under supreme secrecy. The foundational research was widely known to all (hint: the secret is to bang the glowing rocks together).

In the case of UAVs, it is not a trivial thing to take a specific finding from a paper and implement it in a working UAV. Furthermore, we are not currently at war with a beligerent power like in WWII and, as I stated in my original post, the really important military specific stuff does not generally get disclosed.

The sorts of things that do get published in journals are the kinds of thing that have broader application and which don't rely on existing classified info. You can write a perfectly good UAV paper that advances the state of the art without using or divulging military secrets.

I find it ironic that you say people distrust academics, when they're the only people who really do make a full disclosure of their work. If it wasn't for researchers we would not have the cutting edge technology you enjoy today.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[abigsmurf]

The punishment will serve it's purpose well. You do not share state secrets, even if your intentions are innocent. You do not treat them so lightly as to absent mindedly give them out. This is an incredibly important message for the government to send out. If you send out a message of "oh you silly sausage, I'll let it go this time" you'll have leaks left right and center. It doesn't matter how innocous the person you're revealing it to seems. Spies go out their ways to be innocuous, or will try to get information from people you've told (which is even worse as it makes the spies much harder to identify). Giving out military secrets costs lives. Freedom of information is all well and good until people then use that information too kill (not just in warfare but innocent civilians, political opponents etc.)

Re:Lying or stupid?

[kencurry]

Thank you for saying all that.

The punishment doesn't strike me as particularly useful either. Seems too severe, especially when considering that he likely didn't mean to hurt the US. Do they want to scare off everyone? ...

Huh? that's the whole point of putting him in prison. Society cannot trust him, so we pay to lock him up. hopefully he will learn his lesson in there, but at least he can't do any damage to our country from inside prison. And yes, we do want to scare off everyone else who is thinking about doing what he did.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[Artifakt]

It does pose an occasional hardship. I've applied at places that were totally clueless before. When your interviewer asks if you've ever had any management experience and you tell him you were a company commander, and he gets this blank look and you have to explain how you supervised and directed 90 or so people and had legal responsibility for over 1 billion dollars of equipment, and he still doesn't really see how that's management, and he says "But did you ever have to make any life or death decisions?", you don't direct him to an FSO or anybody else over the classified bits, you just leave, because if you put this clown in touch with anybody, he will screw you up somehow. I've bailed on four or five job interviews because the guy asking the questions had no idea that anybody really had a classified background, in businesses where he damned well should have. Never tried to get any of them fired, nor sued the companies involved, but maybe someone should have done that too. And no, I don't think these were people playing dumb to check my ethics, I think they were just dumb and not very ethical themselves, and some of them had probably had as many briefings and signings as professor Roth.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[LurkerXXX]

Why is this coward's post insightful?

Plenty of mathematicians work with private companies that also make them sign NDAs where they could be sued for everything (or more) than they're worth if they break them.

Don't sign agreements you don't intend to abide by. This goes for everything, not just government business.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[ahabswhale]

He was expressly told not to take the information out of the US, and then he goes ahead and does it anyway. He's a fucking traitor, end of story. He knowingly and intentionally broke the law (not that it actually matters). It has nothing whatsoever to do with how much he was paid to do the research. The problem with people like you who know nothing about information security is that you don't have the slightest clue as to how much damage this stuff can cause nor do you understand how clever foreign governments are at acquiring such information. In addition, the costs to the US government (and consequently the taxpayer) can be enormous. He's very lucky he only got 4 yrs.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[BitZtream]

To summarize this post, you should have simply said 'then he falls into the stupid' category.

I know one person who is not allowed to talk about what he did for several years of his life. He is still well respected and known in his field and those years don't come up very often for him, when they do, all it takes is a phone call to verify that he did indeed work for the government for several years and no they aren't allowed to tell what he did, but he's in good standing with them.

Maybe he's special, but I doubt it, my guess is when you're dealing the the technology at this level then it is accepted that there are going to be things you can't talk about and in fact is a good thing that you don't talk about it since then they can have a little more faith in you not telling everyone about their own little secrets.

Well, that and knowing that the guy will have no problem getting past the security requirements for big DOD contracts helps a tad bit to. This things can in fact be a goldmine for your career. Perhaps something else is preventing your collegues from getting jobs.

This guy won't get one because he's an idiot with a big mouth, they won't even get to his level of stupidity before turning him down.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[elnyka]

I don't think this guy was necessarily stupid or foolish - I think he was careless after being so used to the routine of publish or perish that he forgot who his collaborators were, and that was his mistake.

After being warned on the subject, and knowing full well the stakes (no one lives under a rock long enough to not know), a sheer amount of stupidity and lack of judgment is required to commit such a mistake.

Re:Lying or stupid?

[Kell Bengal]

As a matter of fact, you're spot on when you say "All it takes is a phone call". My colleagues in defence research do rely on the golden phone call when going for jobs; most private industry employers will be satisfied with that. However, that doesn't help you when you're going for something like a tenured faculty position which relies on things like extensive publication history and peer review.

It's easy to close doors in academia if you aren't continuously publishing; I made a very concious decision in my career to leave a potentially lucrative private industry job (but not military related) simply so that I could continue to write the papers need to secure further academic research positions in the future.

Taking three or more years 'off' without a paper is career suicide if you have your sights set on professorship.

Re:Enough already

[solevita]

I guess you meant to say:

Having said that, had the person in charge had training with the military, it would have been common sense for him to NOT share sensitive data...but because he had no military background, he had no forethought for such things.

Still, I've never done anything for the military and I still wouldn't give secrets to the Chinese and Iranians. Not unless I got a free holiday out of it, or maybe some beers.

He got what he deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't work on a top-secret project without signing very serious agreements with Uncle Sam. It just doesn't happen. Therefore he knew damned well he wasn't allowed to share this information, but did so anyway. What the fuck did he expect? What the fuck would *you* expect? If you expected to get away with something like that without consequence, you're a fucking moron.

What the...?!

[ZarathustraDK]

and Sirous Nourgostar of Iran to work

Did George Lucas get offspring in Iran or something?

Re:What the...?!

[ScrewMaster]

and Sirous Nourgostar of Iran to work

Did George Lucas get offspring in Iran or something?

+5: Fucking Epic.

As a guy who works on this sort of stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not entirely surprised by either the sentence, or the seeming lack of security consciousness on the part of the professor and possibly his school. When working on defense-related work it's always best to treat sensitive material with the respect it deserves - in many cases there's no need to go overboard with encryption, physical security, or whatnot, but reasonable measures (e.g., not bringing the Goddamned laptop overseas) should always be taken.

However, from what I heard, the project Dr. Roth was working on wasn't entirely black-ops sort of stuff - he was merely integrating technology previously developed by himself (and others) under funding not remotely related to defense.

Re:Why stop there..

[Dolphinzilla]

while it is certainly unfortunate that they got sensitive data - the violation of the ITAR was the professors alone and I am glad he was found guilty - aside from the obvious security issues giving away technology weakens our economic and business advantages as well - part of doing business in this country is playing by the rules - if you don't want to play by these rules, then work on non ITAR technologies instead

Antithetical to "education".

[pla]

"Openness", both ideologically and in the FOSS sense, forms one of the core requirements of successful academia.

I don't blame or absolve the professor - He had a contract, and I suppose the legal details of this boil down to a matter of contract law (though I most certainly do have a problem with prison time rather than monetary damages for breach of contract). But I do blame both his university and the government itself.

I blame the university for undermining any sense of credibility by selling out to the highest bidder at the expense of discrimination against an arbitrary list of students - Students who paid the same tuition as every other student, yet cannot experience the same intellectual freedoms as their peers all because some magic list-of-the-week says their Fearless Leader (whom in many cases they came to the US because they don't like the policies or education climate back home) pissed in our Cheerios.
And I blame the government for foisting their homework onto a domain that largely considers secrecy either beneath consideration or outright contemptible. Don't want foreign students to have access to military projects? Simple - Give those projects to standard military-industrial contractors familiar with paranoid levels of obfuscation and mistrust such as Lockheed, Grumman, Boeing or the like. And if they do decide to tap academia for parts of their research, I blame them for not taking care to prevent any one group from having "enough" information to do anything useful with.


You don't spank a baby for giggling at butterflies, and you don't hold it accountable if you give it a gun and someone gets hurt. Simple as that.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[Anonymous Coward]

the contract was awarded to the company the professor founded, not the professor himself or the university. the fact that this guy teaches is just a coincidence as far as the law is concerned -- he was working on a gov't contract for a company that was fully briefed on the situation and he violated the terms. this has nothing to do with education, really.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[bkpark]

at the expense of discrimination against an arbitrary list of students - Students who paid the same tuition as every other student, yet cannot experience the same intellectual freedoms as their peers all because some magic list-of-the-week says their Fearless Leader (whom in many cases they came to the US because they don't like the policies or education climate back home) pissed in our Cheerios.

'Hate to pull you down from your clouds, but you are way off. First of all, none of these graduate students, at least in physical sciences, actually "pay tuition". Usually in one way (working as teaching assistant or research assistant) or another (grants and fellowships), they will not only attend the school tuition-free, they will also get paid living expenses. I should know, I'm one of these graduate students (although not an international one).

In fact, if it's a public institution, these foreign graduate students actually cost the department extra in the "out-of-state fee", because the department usually ending up paying for these (usually in the amount of $10,000 per year) which foreign graduate students have to pay until they pass their qualifiers (or some such mark which happens on the third or fourth year, if they are on track to graduate fast), whereas domestic students, even if they are not from within the state, would qualify for in-state tuition within a year. This is often used as a justification for having a higher standard for foreign student admission.

Also, if you want to argue about intellectual freedom, don't pull a double standard and argue against the whole idea of classified projects and all those informations that are supposedly too sensitive for taxpayers to know and yet cost them money. I might agree with you there.

Once you have accepted the existence of classified information, well, why should these foreign graduate students have access to these when most of the population with actual vested interest in this country cannot get access to this information, and not without going through some sort of clearance process?

It's easy to talk about "intellectual freedom" and "freedom of information" (BTW, none of these are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, the way freedom of speech is, especially if you accept classifying information as being constitutional) when you ignore the reality, just like it's easy for liberals to talk about "spreading the wealth" and having a "safety net" that lets the unemployed live in luxury, as long as they ignore the realities of the real world economics.

When you are ready to come back down to earth and discuss in earnest with the limitations of the real world in mind, then perhaps your arguments will make more sense.

P.S. BTW, this isn't about the academia. This is about a defense contractor sharing information he shouldn't. Do you think Lockheed-Martin should freely share information about all the bombers and stealth fighters they build?

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[blueg3]

Students who paid the same tuition as every other student, yet cannot experience the same intellectual freedoms as their peers all because some magic list-of-the-week says their Fearless Leader (whom in many cases they came to the US because they don't like the policies or education climate back home) pissed in our Cheerios.

Actually, ITAR regulations require that no foreign nationals work on the project -- not just ones from countries like China and Iran. Many universities (or individual professors) do actually reject any ITAR projects, since it places significant restrictions on them and their students.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[pla]

this has nothing to do with education, really.

If true, I would indeed change my tone somewhat, but several parts of the story make no sense if we consider this "just" a private company doing military research.

First, why did his university's ExCO have any knowledge of or involvement in his lecture tour in China? If university material, then he committed his crime "for" the university; If purely private material from his company, he arguably violated his contract just by letting them review it.

Second, why did he have grad students working on projects for his company? Research assistant positions commonly come with the territory, but student visas do not equal work visas. Placing them with a private organization not affiliated with the university would likely violated immigration laws, not just the terms of an overblown NDA.

This all makes sense only in one context - The "company" existed as a shell entirely under control of the university for the sole purpose of marketing their IP (IP likely derived from public funds in this case, making the distinction between "university" and "company" even more dubious). Not an uncommon arrangement.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[Labarna]

I am glad that the academics who worked on the Manhattan Project did not feel this way. Although it is difficult to keep secrets for forever, some need to be kept (to at the very least make "the other side" spend a lot of money to discover them).

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[DerekLyons]

"Openness", both ideologically and in the FOSS sense, forms one of the core requirements of successful academia.

So what? Academia isn't under discussion - corporate research and development is.
 
 

I don't blame or absolve the professor - He had a contract, and I suppose the legal details of this boil down to a matter of contract law (though I most certainly do have a problem with prison time rather than monetary damages for breach of contract).

He didn't go to prison because he broke his contract - he went to prison because he broke the law.
 
[Handwaving horsecrap deleted as not worth commenting on.]
 
 

You don't spank a baby for giggling at butterflies, and you don't hold it accountable if you give it a gun and someone gets hurt.

Since it was an adult 'given the gun' - how the fuck is a baby relevant? The professor signed the contract, the professor was given specific warning, how the hell is he not accountable?

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[physicsphairy]

I blame the university for undermining any sense of credibility by selling out to the highest bidder at the expense of discrimination against an arbitrary list of students - Students who paid the same tuition as every other student, yet cannot experience the same intellectual freedoms as their peers

We are talking about a project funded by DOE grant money, not student tuition, and usually the way these things work is that the university skims a whole lot off of that and effectively the DOE subsidizes the tuition of the foreign nationals by providing these projects.

But I don't think the argument holds water anyway. I mean, I pay my taxes the same as anyone else, but would you honestly say this merits my having equal access to nuclear missile silos and chemical weapons laboratories as any other citizen? Should any shareholder of Intel be able to come prancing about in the chip fabrication facility? Should the banker I mortgaged my house to be able to drop in for breakfast whenever he wants? It appears fairly intuitive to me that making an investment in something does not automatically mean you should be able to run in and grab whatever you feel is an equitable share of the benefits.

because some magic list-of-the-week says their Fearless Leader (whom in many cases they came to the US because they don't like the policies or education climate back home) pissed in our Cheerios.

Yes, and why do you think Fearless Leader was willing to let them go in the first place, hmm? Maybe he's just a real swell guy... but any realistic effort at national security requires considering other possibilities.

And I blame the government for foisting their homework onto a domain that largely considers secrecy either beneath consideration or outright contemptible. Don't want foreign students to have access to military projects? Simple - Give those projects to standard military-industrial contractors familiar with paranoid levels of obfuscation and mistrust such as Lockheed, Grumman, Boeing or the like.

That is a nice generalization about academics, but maybe the ones who voluntarily work on military projects which require secrecy don't exactly fall into your blanket description. We aren't talking about the draft here. And I think you grossly underestimate the entrenchment of academics in military research. Why don't you lookup who worked on the Manhattan project and see how many of them were "standard military-industrial contractors." Los Alamos labs (and other labs) are run by universities on the military's behalf.

I blame them for not taking care to prevent any one group from having "enough" information to do anything useful with.

Why would you give them information they couldn't do anything useful with? What would be the point of giving them information at all?

I doubt there is much I can say to dissuade you that it is not the military's fault, since hey they're the bad guys right? But there are a vast number of practical justifications for their present interactions with academics, and I assure you that no one is forcefully compelled to accept these grant-funded projections (by contrast, you generally must fight to get them). You don't have to like it, but acting like this is a case of an innocent guy getting caught up in the system is myopic at best.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[westlake]

He had a contract, and I suppose the legal details of this boil down to a matter of contract law (though I most certainly do have a problem with prison time rather than monetary damages for breach of contract).

This is a supremely stupid way to look at what happened.

This guy exposed "sensitive" materials to Chinese nationals. That puts them at hazard at well.

The minimal risk is interrogation, an attempt to extract whatever they have learned. The maximum risk is that they might be regarded as traitors themselves - if only for their silence.

The Chinese prof who exposes military secrets to an American is hung or shot to set the right example.

And I blame the government for foisting their homework onto a domain that largely considers secrecy either beneath consideration or outright contemptible.

"Only the Sith believes in absolutes."

Any academic will tell you that openness has its limits.

In the medical and social sciences, for example, there are many things you can't meaningfully study without promising anonymity to the people you need to talk to - - to work with.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[david.emery]

Hey, if you don't like the restrictions, DON'T TAKE THE MONEY!

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[konigstein]

"Students who paid the same tuition as every other student, yet cannot experience the same intellectual freedoms as their peers

The reason that the NO. FORN classification exist, and especially in this circumstance, is that we cannot know exactly WHO paid for that tuition. Sure, the money flowed from their account to the school's, but was the student given a bag of cash and told to keep their eyes open?

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[Dravik]

The Manhattan Project wasn't kept secret. One of the personnel working on it sold the information to the Russians. The project was compromised before we dropped the first bomb.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[koreaman]

What do you expect from the type of person who tries to shoehorn discussion of FOSS into completely unrelated discussions.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[ScrewMaster]

Many universities (or individual professors) do actually reject any ITAR projects, since it places significant restrictions on them and their students.

Correct. And they're within their rights to do just that. This guy apparently did not.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[genner]

The Manhattan Project wasn't kept secret. One of the personnel working on it sold the information to the Russians. The project was compromised before we dropped the first bomb.

and we were all so happy about that during the cold war.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[greyhueofdoubt]

Give those projects to standard military-industrial contractors

Um. Once you accept the contract (and the $$$) you *are* a standard military-industrial contractor. You can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen.

If the professors and students that you speak so highly of embrace and love openness to much, they wouldn't accept gov't contracts in the first place. End of story.

The DoD doesn't foist 'homework' on hapless professors. The DoD is not some brilliant but lazy bureaucrat sitting in a stuffy office dreaming of ways to buck his responsibility. The DoD says, "Hey, we need to know more about plasma and wings and stuff," and then the DoD says, "Hey, I know these guys at XXU who are working on that, should I contact them?" And then the people at XXU can either agree or disagree to accept funding and a research goal. You make it sound like some sort of draft. It isn't.

-b

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[ahabswhale]

So you blame everyone but the guy who broke the law? Brilliant. So, if someone shoots and kills everyone in your family, your cool with him getting away with it scott free because he had a shitty childhood?

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[BitZtream]

You don't spank a baby for giggling at butterflies, and you don't hold it accountable if you give it a gun and someone gets hurt. Simple as that.

Good thing the goverment doesn't let babies do this sort of thing then isn't it?

You DO however hold an adult accountable for their actions, guess what, you even do with children! You give them slack for the learning process, but you damn sure punish them when they know they did something wrong and did it anyway. Okay, YOU may not, but I do, and so do most parents.

Of course, we're not talking about a baby giggling at butterflies are we? We're talking about an adult, an educated one at that, who willfully ignored the rules that he no doubt read himself and had read to him multiple times and signed a document stating that he agreed to.

You punish severely, and make sure everyone else knows that saying 'I didn't know' is not an acceptable excuse at this level, ever.

What do you propose instead, we say 'bad boy!', smack him on the hand, and then act surprised when someone does it next week, says the same thing, gets off, and suddenly leaves for some random company where he has a few million sitting in a bank account?

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[DNS-and-BIND]

discrimination against an arbitrary list of students - Students who paid the same tuition as every other student, yet cannot experience the same intellectual freedoms as their peers

Hey guy, try going to China and getting a look at defense materials if you aren't Chinese. Pretending security is some sort of negative aspect, purely unique to our own culture is just ridiculous. But hey, nothing like a good self-hating rant to keep society healthy.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[Goldsmith]

It's fine to say this is about a defense contractor, but really, this whole fiasco is to be expected when the basic research for the US is based almost entirely in academia.

It's stupid for the government to expect that a system largely based on foreign labor and open discussion (academic research) is a safe and appropriate place for our military research and training to be done.

If we want research to be done in a professional manner, we're going to have to train and hire professionals.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[mattwarden]

> Hate to pull you down from your clouds, but you are way off. First of all,
> none of these graduate students, at least in physical sciences, actually
> "pay tuition". Usually in one way (working as teaching assistant or
> research assistant) or another (grants and fellowships), they will not
> only attend the school tuition-free, they will also get paid living
> expenses. I should know, I'm one of these graduate students (although
> not an international one).

Let me guess... you're not a grad student in the study of economics.

You are making the mistake of equating currency with the only form of payment. If I mow your lawn, whether you pay me $20 worth of paper money, gold, or chickens is completely irrelevant. This "tuition-free" school it not free at all. The school is entering into a transaction with the student to exchange schooling for research. Or, society is entering into a transaction with the student to exchange schooling for future benefits.

You are suggesting that people are handing out schooling with no expectation of any return. Not only is that unsound, it's also ridiculous. All schools would be out of business in no time.

> In fact, if it's a public institution, these foreign graduate
> students actually cost the department... This is often used as a
> justification for having a higher standard for foreign student admission.

Again, you essentially point out the economics at work yet seem to be completely oblivious to them at the same time. It costs the school more for international students, therefore they want more out of international students.

> It's easy to talk about "intellectual freedom" and "freedom of information"
> (BTW, none of these are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution,

You are right and you are wrong. You are right in that it is not an explicit right laid out. However, if it was not granted by the Constitution, it probably wouldn't exist. The truth is, the very structure of our government (short-term, elected officials) coupled with some power remaining with the states (2nd Amendment, 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment) creates a need for transparency, for the sake of the elected officials. If the people and the states do not trust what the federal government is doing, they will rebel (by refusing to enforce federal laws, by refusing to collect federal tax dollars, or by force).

> liberals to talk about "spreading the wealth" and having a "safety net"
> that lets the unemployed live in luxury, as long as they ignore the
> realities of the real world economics.

The irony of you pointing out ignorance to economics is a bit amusing.

> Do you think Lockheed-Martin should freely share information about all
> the bombers and stealth fighters they build?

It depends on who owns the intellectual property and/or the terms of the contract. This is not a question of morality, as you imply with the question including the word "should". LM has every right to give information they own to anyone they want, until that right is restricted by contract, to which both parties agree.

This isn't hard stuff.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[freedom_india]

Righhhhttt.
And exposing a CIA agent for her husband's refusal to paint Iraq as nuke owners is patriotism i guess,

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[bkpark]

Er, when did I say anything about there being no opportunity to the graduate students? I am no "student" of economics, but I did take basic high school economics. I know that, by attending graduate school in physics for 5, 6 years, I am giving up the salary I may have earned during those years.

However, what the GP claimed was that the international students actually *paid* tuition. All I claimed was that they didn't actually pay any tuition.

As real as opportunity cost is, it hasn't actually been actualized yet—for one, the courts won't let you recover damages calculated in terms of "opportunity cost" beyond wages lost (i.e. things that are absolutely for certain, not, e.g. wages that I *might* have earned)—and it's dishonest to talk about opportunity cost as if it's actual, real, already-happened cost.

As for the rest of your post, it's a baloney based on a complete misunderstanding of mine, so I don't think it deserves a response.

Re:Antithetical to "education".

[mattwarden]

> Er, when did I say anything about there being no opportunity to the graduate
> students? I am no "student" of economics, but I did take basic high school
> economics. I know that, by attending graduate school in physics for 5, 6
> years, I am giving up the salary I may have earned during those years.

Sir, I'm at a loss where you think I even mentioned opportunity cost. I guess in a roundabout way you could say that the students are working in assistanceships and therefore cannot work and therefore are paying an opportunity cost, but that is unnecessarily complicated, and the opportunity cost does not benefit the school. What benefits the school is the work itself. That is the tuition payment.

> However, what the GP claimed was that the international students actually
> *paid* tuition. All I claimed was that they didn't actually pay any tuition.

They didn't hand over dollars or euro, but they definitely did pay tuition. Value is transferred from the student to the school, it's just not contained in currency.

> As real as opportunity cost is, it hasn't actually been actualized yet--for
> one, the courts won't let you recover damages calculated in terms of
> "opportunity cost" beyond wages lost (i.e. things that are absolutely for
> certain, not, e.g. wages that I *might* have earned)--and it's dishonest to
> talk about opportunity cost as if it's actual, real, already-happened cost.

Buddy, you don't know what you're talking about. If you stop doing your assistanceship and expect to still be able to go to school, and then sue the school when it kicks you out, you better believe the courts will uphold this. Again, it has nothing to do with opportunity cost, and I suspect you're latching onto that keyword because you don't understand it. It has to do with contract arrangements and a VERY REAL transfer of value from the student to the school. If that transfer stops, then the school is no longer obligated to offer its value in return. It's very simple...

> As for the rest of your post, it's a baloney based on a complete
> misunderstanding of mine, so I don't think it deserves a response.

No, it's not baloney and it wasn't based on a misunderstanding of your post. But if you don't feel like you're able to respond, by all means feel free to ignore it.

Plasma actuator

[Bromskloss]

Forget the prison sentence, I want to learn about the "plasma actuator that could help reduce drag on the wings of drones". (This is a tech site, remember?) So, how do these work?

Re:Plasma actuator

[Camaro]

I'd love to tell you but first of all, are you from China or Iran?

Re:Plasma actuator

[thepainguy]

Here's a good starting point for learning about plasma actuators...

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/AFRL_Proves_Feasibility_Of_Plasma_Actuators.html

Then just Google "plasma actuator". There's lots of good information in the public domain.

Re:Plasma actuator

[powerlord]

Forget the prison sentence, I want to learn about the "plasma actuator that could help reduce drag on the wings of drones". (This is a tech site, remember?) So, how do these work?

We could tell you, but then we'd have to imprison you.

Been there, done that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so I'm in Canada, and everyone knows that Canadians are slackers when it comes to security (sarcasm for the humor challenged).

The prof had to be ignoring the rules deliberately. The paperwork I had to sign required the details of every student working on the project. They didn't have to be security cleared but they sure did have to be Canadian or American. There was no chance to skip over that clause in the contract; a security guy read it to me out loud and made damn sure I understood what it meant.

Re:Been there, done that ...

[legirons]

The paperwork I had to sign required the details of every student working on the project. They didn't have to be security cleared but they sure did have to be Canadian or American.

we have rules like that too. they're not much related to actual security problems, but they are damned useful in circumventing employment discrimation laws...

Not interesting.

[CougMerrik]

When you accept work that requires government clearance, you are subject to a number of rules regarding the export of technology and know-how that is of importance to National Security. You're probably told repeatedly about such things. Sorry, I don't want the Iranians making their own UAVs off our designs. Guy's an idiot for taking sensitive material overseas in his laptop in the first place. Military and Defense technology isn't something we should be "open" about when there's real regimes out there who don't believe in the same freedoms and basic human rights we take for granted. Crap like this is why we the Russians got the bomb, why the North Koreans have the bomb, etc... Why would you be in favor of these places that don't prize freedom or equality getting their hands on this stuff?

Re:Why stop there..

[Kartoffel]

They could be, but more likely they'll just have their student visas terminated and be sent back to China.

American Engineering Research == Foreign Students

[Anonymous Coward]

A big problem/bug/feature of American academic engineering research groups is that the graduate students and post-docs are predominantly foreign, typically from China and India. American citizens with advanced engineering degrees are a dying breed - Americans don't (in general) aspire to get PhDs in engineering.

So if you are soliciting proposals to American universities for defense-related research, be warned that whomever is doing the research (even if they themselves are citizens and cleared) are likely doing that research in a room full of foreign nationals.

Re:Why stop there..

[caladine]

My experience with US security clearance was exactly as you describe. I literally had 8 hours of reading/signing documents and had to sign at least 3 that told me explicitly who I could and could not talk to about what I was doing. Each was read to me after I read it myself, and they went line by line to make sure I understood it. Roth is completely full of crap if he claims he didn't know. The process left me with the distinct impression that if I even had a hint that I shouldn't be talking about it or wasn't sure, I should keep my big mouth shut. The funny part is, I'm not sure I actually saw anything classified during my stint. Not that I'm going to be talking about any of it, because I'm just not sure, but still. Doubly funny was debriefing, that also took 8 hours where they went over everything again that I had gone through when I received clearance in the first place.

I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[thepainguy]

...until I Googled "plamsa actuator" and found a relevant article ranked number one...

http://www.engr.uky.edu/~jdjacob/fml/research/plasma/index.html

...and a bunch of other good articles listed after it.

Does the DOD think they not have the Internet in China and Iran?

Just by reading this article, you can get a good sense of the concept, which has to do with creating high-speed, non-mechanical aircraft control surfaces via boundary layer manipulation. Is this really that big of a secret?

I'll post more on this after I investigate the thump on the roof and see who's at the front door.

Re:I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[thepainguy]

Yes, I'm replying to myself...

It's kind of funny (or pathetic) but many advanced technologies (like stealth and hypersonics) start out this way. Some guy in some academic lad has a weird idea that actually works. The DOD then takes the concept black and tries to wipe out all traces of the idea's prior existence. They weren't very good at that back in the 70s and 80s and there's no way they are going to be able to do that today, given the power of the Web.

Re:I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[copponex]

That doesn't remove their obligation to crush anyone who threatens their authority.

Secret military contracts and projects are unethical, unconstitutional, and ineffective, because they are always misused. Without accountability, there's no hope for good behavior, especially when you're dealing in unlimited power. In order to keep their houses in order, the DoD and CIA and other organizations who don't even have names are required to commit evil on top of evil.

I think the only thing more preposterous to the founding fathers than handing any part of our national security to a privately owned entity like Northrop Grumman or Lockheed is that we are then expected to remain unquestionably faithful to the unelected officials who execute said contracts, and hand them hundreds of billions of dollars.

Re:I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[thepainguy]

Black projects are most likely inEFFICIENT (and even that's debatable, at least when Lockheed's Skunk Works is concerned), but it's not accurate to say that they are inEFFECTIVE. A number of very interesting projects came out of the black world, including the SR-71, U-2, and F-117.

Of course, a lot of money has also been just pissed away.

Re:I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[copponex]

If we hadn't been threatening half the world and arming the other, what would be the practical application for stealth and high altitude bombers? Could you have developed these applications for less money for other purposes?

I think the argument for military spending because 10% of the amazing technology they produce can be used for something other than killing humans is a poor one.

Re:I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[TheRaven64]

The reason for classifying it is that, without the DoD's extra work, it's difficult to know which ideas really work. There are lots of ideas coming out of academia that look great on paper but won't actually work due to engineering limitations or overlooked variables. If you know which are worth investigating further (because someone else has already done the feasibility analysis) then your R&D costs are much lower. Considering the fact that modern war basically boils down to economics, it's a legitimate concern.

Re:I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[PhxBlue]

Does the DOD think they not have the Internet in China and Iran?

I don't know, isn't most of China firewalled? And isn't most of Iran under an Internet blackout thanks to the election protests? Still, you make a good point ... if it's out there, it's out there. Of course, that doesn't mean the DOD should make it easier for adversaries to gain information.

Re:I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[Artifakt]

Look, we'll tell you what the thump on the roof was AFTER you prove you're not a Chines or Iranian grad student, and not until then - Got it?.

Re:I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[troll8901]

What, no helicopter sound?

Re:I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[greyhueofdoubt]

I really hate to do this but I wrote a response to your very question earlier in this discussion and I feel like you should read it:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1291249&cid=28577863

Long story short: There is a big difference between finding something on the internet and hearing someone in the DoD say it as a fact.

-b

Re:I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[BitZtream]

Did it not occur to you that he may have been working on something not posted in that first google result, or known in general, yet still related to plasma actuators?

I can find a shitload of information on the Internet and build my own jet aircraft. That doesn't mean I'll have the avionics or whatever little bits of information that really make our combat aircraft the amazing craft they are.

Re:I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[JohnFluxx]

Sounds very much like when people complain about drug companies copying a herbal drug that was already in use by some african tribe. There are a lot of different herbal drugs and someone has to put a lot of time and effort into scientifically determining effectiveness, side effects, etc of each one.

Re:I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence...

[Kagura]

It was a stealth helicopter. It's funding wasn't revoked. ;)

$6K - WTF?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What the hell kind of contract with the DoD is only $6K?
The cost of a security clearance for one person is at least $40K.
Maybe it was one stage of a multi-stage contract, but with the way the news and prosecutors like to exaggerate everything you think they would have quoted the cost of the entire thing.

Re:$6K - WTF?

[bkpark]

What the hell kind of contract with the DoD is only $6K?

There must be a typo somewhere. My travel grant to India this year is not too far off from that amount.

Or, if there was no mistake, that's probably the consulting fee personally paid to the professor himself (usually grants pay for grad students, postdocs, and equipments, not the professor's salary, although probably his travel expenses and such).

P.S. According to the AP article linked from TFA, "Roth, 71, testified at trial that he didn't believe he broke the law because the research had yet to produce anything tangible. He said he received only about $6,000 from the contract."

So $6k is the amount disbursed so far; there's no mention of how much was the grant itself.

Re:$6K - WTF?

[DustyShadow]

Export restrictions are different from security clearances.

Re:$6K - WTF?

[greyhueofdoubt]

The cost of a security clearance for one person is at least $40K.

citation needed? My security clearance consisted of 20 pages of a computer-generated/printed questionnaire and a few phone calls. Please extrapolate this into $40K.

-b

Re:$6K - WTF?

[ahabswhale]

He was contracted through a defense contractor. I'm sure the defense contractor got a lot more than $6k. Apparently he's a better researcher than negotiator.

Re:$6K - WTF?

[MattskEE]

$40k? I know clearances aren't cheap, but even assuming a total overhead rate of 500% and $50k/year that works out to 320 hours worth of work. It's certainly the correct order of magnitude, but I'm willing to bet it costs less than half of that. Furthermore, in my experience, limited to graduate studies at a single university, most engineering professors have held clearances at some point in their lives, and the re-investigation is much cheaper than the first investigation. And several of these clearances were paid for by defense companies that the professors have consulted with at some point in their careers. And just for fun, I googled it: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/security2_4.htm. The cost according to this article, for top secret clearance, is $3-15k.

The contract is clearly worth more than $6k, and the summary clearly states only that the professor was paid $6k. You think the entire contract went to one person? Professors tend to consult at the high level, helping the company determine what approach they will use, checking up on the peons to make sure everything is going well, not getting into the details that less expensive people will attend to. The contract as a whole would almost certainly have been worth at least $50k, and that's at the low end of Phase I research.

An marican hero

[hogggwallop]

The professor did the world a favor. Sharing defense technology means conflicting powers are on equal strength and are less likely to go to war.

Re:An marican hero

[BZ]

That worked really well in 1914!

Re:An marican hero

[poity]

But when everyone is confident that everyone else would do everything to avoid war, wouldn't each of them be more inclined to pursue increasingly provocative actions in the economic and political arenas due to this "assurance"?

Re:An marican hero

[ScrewMaster]

The professor did the world a favor. Sharing defense technology means conflicting powers are on equal strength and are less likely to go to war.

My god, I think he really believes that. What makes people less likely to go to war is having wealth and prosperity ... something to lose, in other words. Giving away advanced military technology just makes it that much easier for a nation that has imperialistic tendencies to try and make something of it. You really need to have a better grasp of history than what you're displaying here.

The unfortunate truth is that being merely at technological parity, militarily-speaking, is not sufficient to dissuade some people from going to war anyways. You have to have demonstrably superior capabilities to have any chance at a deterrent effect. And that isn't counting the pathological types who simply don't care if you kill them or not so long as they can take you with them. Regardless, you want your enemies to know, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, that if they try anything they're going to take an awful pasting. And that means making damn sure they can't equal your ability to wage war without making at least the same investment. Granted, that also means that you shouldn't give them too much reason to want to make that investment, but in either case you don't make it easy for them.

So far as I'm concerned this "well, heck, they're going to get it anyways" attitude is damn near treasonous. I hope that our military R&D types don't share your relative ignorance, because we need to deny our enemies access to our most significant advances. Put it this way: it cost us a lot of money and time: we should see to it that it costs them the same. If it takes China or any other hostile power 'x" number of years to equal our current capabilities, well, that's 'x' years of relative peace we're going to have, because they won't be tempted to try anything. Put them on equal footing, and there's no telling what might happen.

Re:Why stop there..

[legirons]

that's just for grunts. Once you get really senior, you can show classified documents to press photographers in public

I remember the first time I signed...

[sirwired]

The first time I obtained security clearance, we were all told that not only were we barred for life from talking about any classified data without permission, but that they would keep the physical piece of paper that we signed stating we understood all this for at least 75 years.

They want to preclude the possibility that you will EVER think about claiming you didn't know the restrictions.

SirWired

Re:I remember the first time I signed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay for Wikileaks.

Re:I remember the first time I signed...

[Hal_Porter]

Yeah, because nothing shows you're a free thinker better than giving access to military technology to regimes that will use it to repress free thinking.

yeeeeeehaaaaaaaaw!

[poached]

I am sure he has learned his lesson and will keep his mouth and other holes shut at Federal PMITA prison.

Re:Why stop there..

[Beardo the Bearded]

I work on NATO military things.

They're pretty clear what you can talk about and with whom. Moreover to your point, if someone takes a strong interest in your work, you shall document and report it as a potential security breach.

Roth is getting a pretty light slap with four years.

Re:Why stop there..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually TFA doesn't say the material was actually Classified and there's a good chance it wasn't. Data doesn't need to be classified to fall under export restrictions under ITAR/EAR regulations.

Also, just taking he data out of the country is a violation, irrespective of sharing it with anyone.

Life or Death...

[lordsid]

At the very least he should have received a life sentence. In reality he should have received the death penalty. This is straight up treason of the highest order. The guy was warned not to work on it with the students in question, not to mention he was warned not to take the laptop to china with the sensitive information on it. Some may feel like this is an over reaction but in reality its an under reaction.

Re:Life or Death...

[BitZtream]

So then the goverment stops funding their research completely. They can revolt all they want, the goverment funds most univerisities anyway. Someone else will do the job, especially right now.

It may not be as good, but it'll get done.

And what happens to the people who revolted? They go somewhere else? Where they'll actually be killed for doing something like this? You think if one of the guys he talked to in China came to the US and did this, that they would go home and go to jail? heh, if by jail you mine a pine box, buried several feet in the ground, sure.

Most people in academia as a career are stupid, but they aren't THAT stupid.

Academia doesn't provide the smartest people on the planet, it provides the ones with the biggest egos and arrogance. The ones that think they set the rules. Occasionally, one of them proves to be useful to someone in a government or a company. So they do some work for them.

But the brilliant people, that do most of the work, you just don't know they are the brilliant people. They are already working in these positions, making good money and happy with their lives since they don't have this irrational need to show everyone absolutely every thing they've learned as an example of their ePenis (education penis).

Let them 'revolt'. Watch how well that works out for them, maybe a little reality would do them some good.

Re:Life or Death...

[markringen]

your either a dumbass, or you have nothing better to do. treason, from what era are u? there is no such thing, china knows more about technology than the US government (also because everything american is made there...)

"should serve as a warning"? More like a

[Dr_Ken]

"David Kris of the US Department of Justice. 'We know that foreign governments are actively seeking this information for their own military development. Today's sentence should serve as a warning to anyone who knowingly discloses restricted military data in violation of our laws.' " No shit. More like a massive kick in balls. This goof shoulda known better.

Re:"should serve as a warning"? More like a

[TheRaven64]

More likely, it will serve as a warning to any academics thinking of taking a DoD contract. $6K and risk a prison sentence? Not really worth it.

Re:Why stop there..

[mysidia]

Can't send them back if they're already in China. From the summary:

in 2006, Roth took a laptop containing sensitive plans with him on a lecture tour in China and also allowed graduate students Xin Dai of China and Sirous Nourgostar of Iran...

So the students may get some chinese gov't folks knocking on their door, to interview them and ask them lots of questions about the project, but unless their in the US, the US folks won't be doing anything with them....

The article suggests the prof didn't believe the info was sensitive. Maybe it wasn't. That's pretty hard to honestly tell without seeing the info, or know whether it was info he had been provided, or whether it was info discovered by his research (possibly research prior to the military project). But clearly someone thought the info was worth keeping secret.

Still isn't breach of contract a separate issue from export of military technology ?

During his trial, Roth testified that he was unaware that hiring the graduate students was a violation of his contract, otherwise he would not have participated since his plasma research also has non-military applications. "This whole thing has not helped me, it has not helped the university," he told Nature in 2006. "And it has probably not helped this country, either."

John Santarius, a plasma physicist at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, who has known Roth for two decades says that he always found Roth to be patriotic and careful. âoeIt is so out of character for him to do something like this on purpose,â he says, âoeMy inclination is to believe he made an honest mistake.â

OK, One Correction.

[Petersko]

"he didn't plead guilty, that was a different party"

That's true, I'll grant you that. My fault for skim-reading.

"In his trial...he said he didn't think it was illegal (see below). (from the article and the summary, which apparently you either didn't read or comprehend)"

I read that. Sorry, I don't buy it. He's claiming ignorance, but there's no way that's true. It specifically states in the article that he took that laptop to China "despite warnings from his University's Export Control Officer". Even if he somehow missed the boat in the "what not to share" session that was undoubtely provided for him, he knew then. He's guilty.

Re:OK, One Correction.

[Vellmont]

He's claiming ignorance, but there's no way that's true. It specifically states in the article that he took that laptop to China "despite warnings from his University's Export Control Officer". ...

Wow. You'd kind of a scary person to have on a trial. You've already decided he's guilty reading a poorly written article? I really have no idea if he's guilty or not. It sounds like he was at least careless, but the article is extraordinarily light on details. Determining anything about guilt or innocence from this crappy article is beyond wrong.

Re:OK, One Correction.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

despite warnings from his University's Export Control Officer

The Export Control Officer could well have been applying the Rhodesia Solution. What was the nature of his warning? An email that Prof. Roth didn't get until he returned? A quick "make sure not to take ITAR stuff with you to China"?

Virtually all higher-level science sounds like it might come unter ITAR control, and the only way that you can really know is when you get back and are told that that information was controlled.

Re:I find this interesting.

[osu-neko]

I know he was stupid to do this, however, I was not aware how much of a cornerstone UAVs are to our current military strategy. ...

Goodness, you must listen to different news outlets than me. From what I've heard, you'd get the impression that our currently ongoing wars are the last wars we're ever going to fight in person. Next war (or these ones if they go on for more than a couple more years), all our soldiers will be in a datacenter in New Mexico or somewhere while the machines they're controlling are on whatever battlefield it is...

Re:Why stop there..

[Krneki]

The best defense it to play dumb. With some luck you can get some charges to be dropped, anyway it's worth at least a try.

This entire conversation is rediculous

[Red Midnight]

Why are we even talking about this? The prof was either a complete idiot (and should put his Ph.D. back in the cereal box he got it from) or intentionally broke the law as some act of defiance. What is unclear? He knows he's working on a "secret" project used by the military. He probably got told 6 ways through Sunday he can't talk about it. And he goes to jail because he did what he was told to not do. To say he should not get jail time, or that he's from an academic world, defies logic and COMMON SENSE. Gee, this is a secret military project, I think I'll not only take the data/laptop to China, but I'll share it with Chinese and Iranian students. Gimme a break. It makes no sense. It's much more likely, IMHO, that he was giving a one-finger salute to the US. Even if he weren't, he's a moron, and ignorance of the law is not a valid defence.

Re:This entire conversation is rediculous

[Dr_Ken]

totally agree.

Re:This entire conversation is rediculous

[ScrewMaster]

I am not saying the guy acted intelligently here, but the government is using him to make a point.

And given the recent reports of security problems at a number of major military research facilities (and given the Chinese' investment in espionage and near-takeover of many of our Universities research departments), if you're right, all I can say is:

GOOD!

interesting problem re ITAR & public domain st

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm giving an open (public, anybody can attend) colloquium in a couple of months reviewing aerospace applications of a particular material. What I'm planning to present is all in the public domain, referenceable, etc. The colloquium organizer said I'd have to be sure I reviewed applicable ITAR restrictions. This ruling makes me concerned that if I say something like, "published results suggest that material X would be very helpful in solving problem Y in hypersonic flight", somebody in a suit and shades will get up from the back of the room and invite me to come with him for a friendly debriefing. Is it possible to be in violation of ITAR simply by mentioning a public result and suggesting its utility in a known aerospace problem?

Re:Why stop there..

[Spykk]

Mr. Caladine,

It seems you have divulged details of our countries classified briefing/debriefing procedures on an internationally viewable website. An unmarked van will be by to pick you up shortly.

See you soon,
The Government

ITAR is a worthless classification

[Anonymous Coward]

ITAR restricted materials are basically equivalent to what you should be able to access at a reasonably well stocked public library. Its a bogus restriction enacted by Congress to make themselves feel better. Any US citizen can access it, and is somehow supposed to know that they can't share with them damn "furriners".

Re:ITAR is a worthless classification

[Anonymous Coward]

Seconded...ITAR regulations make it easier for a Canadian gun buyer to get a Chinese M4 rifle copy than a USA made one (not to mention the 50% off "Made in China" discount). These are not super secret, we have manufacturers that make them here, and importers who will gladly bring in products made to good spec from Chinese gun makers. Heck, a machinist with a CNC machine and a diagram could crank them out fairly easily. We're a small market compared to the domestic one for US manufacturers so we have little voice, but I can still see the irony and question the logic.

Actually, more interesting than that...

[Dr. Zowie]

Since he seems to have been convicted under the EAR, which is a set of regulations having to do with rendering technical aid to foreigners, and not the ITAR, which is a set of regulations about exporting actual objects (such as munitions or rocket-control thingies), there is very close parsing required of the law to figure out what is Right or not.

After all, the material he distributed wasn't classified, and in principle the 1st Amendment to the U.S. constitution allows you to say whatever you want to whomever you want (provided that you aren't directly inciting a crime, or lying, or distributing classified information). It's especially interesting because most violations of the EAR never get to trial -- they are generally settled by defense contractors who are eager to make good so that the flow of federal dollars doesn't dry up -- so this is likely to be a strong legal precedent. In this case, as in so many, my guess is that he had the standard language in his federal contract -- essentially "I agree to abide by ITAR and EAR" -- so that the regulations can be enforced via contract law even if the ITAR and EAR are eventually found to be unconstitutional if applied to general citizens.

The most scary situation involving EAR/ITRAR is that I know of no legal precedent at all for the EAR in the case of a gifted, privately funded enthusiast just screwing around -- but it applies to many things that even hobbyists do now. If you take an interest in (say) cheap image stabilization systems or inertial guidance of vehicles, and share your work with some of your friends down at the rocket club (who happen to be exchange students from the Pacific Rim), the regulations say that you are liable for millions of dollars in fines and many years of jail time -- even though those technologies are well within the range of gifted college students today (and affordable for an enthusiast to tinker with). I have no idea what the outcome of such a case would be -- only that the legal bills would be immense and the hypothetical hobbyist's life would be put on hold for years, if the Feds decided to take an interest.

Re:Actually, more interesting than that...

[maugle]

Since he seems to have been convicted under the EAR, which is a set of regulations having to do with rendering technical aid to foreigners, and not the ITAR, which is a set of regulations about exporting actual objects (such as munitions or rocket-control thingies),

Are you sure you have that correct? I know nothing about EAR, but I've seen plenty of source code with ITAR restrictions (and no, the code wasn't related to rocket controls or anything). I can't imagine that source code would fall under "actual objects" rather than "technical aid".

Re:Actually, more interesting than that...

[BitZtream]

I really hate when the consitution and first amendment rights come up in a discussion like this.

Its absolutely retarded to imply that his first admendment right was violated in some way after he willingly entered a contract to which he was under no obligation to enter and would not be punished in any way for not entering it.

This isn't slavery, he wasn't going to be tortured, starved and left to die or killed intentionally if he didn't take the contract. He wasn't going to be shamed publically even. No one other than his friends would have ever had any idea that he even had the option if he said no.

But he didn't say no. He said yes. He agreed to work for them, for a good chunk of change I might add, and he agreed to keep his fucking mouth shut about it. He was specifically warned before AND AFTER that telling the students what he did was against the rules.

This is blatant disregard for his contractual obligations and his duty as an American citizen.

He's god damn lucky it was America. Most countries have no problem just shooting you for even the hint of something like this, which since he was warned just prior to committing the act, I would argue is practically treason. It was certainly willful disregard for his obligations.

You are failing as a citizen yourself in trying to bring the first amendment into this argument. Do not dirty the lines here by doing so.

This is CLEARLY someone disregarding the rules for the game they agreed to play by.

That is entirely different than being unable to speak your mind freely in any normal context without fear of retribution, which is what the first amendment is for. Its not a trump card to do whatever the fuck when ever you want regardless of the implications, and any person that is supposed to be 'educated' as much as this person should be well aware of that.

Don't compare this shit to real issues, you'll just make it that much easier to ignore the real issues as well by making this 'precedent'.

Re:Actually, more interesting than that...

[Hal_Porter]

Most countries have no problem just shooting you for even the hint of something like this, which since he was warned just prior to committing the act, I would argue is practically treason. It was certainly willful disregard for his obligations.

China has executed people for discussing publicly available information and "the health of senior leaders" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wo_Weihan

This is the delightful regime that he leaked UAV plans to.

Story missed the point..

[Mad Quacker]

Since I actually bothered to read more than just the first link - Looks like he had already done research on plasma actuation, after which he decided to work on a government project using this technology, which seems to have cancerously made everything on the topic classified, and he honestly didn't feel this the right thing to happen. The contracts were probably worded such that this was the case (what is right versus how to hide as much information as possible, even if previously not used for military applications), so he was tried on this basis.

I'm surprised to see slashdoters' knee jerk reactions to this story. There's obviously a lot of technical details here that are missed.

Re:Story missed the point..

[BradleyUffner]

"after which he decided to work on a government project using this technology"

Keyword there is "Decided". He knew that if he took the work it would be protected information, yet he decided to do it any way.

Re:Story missed the point..

[troll8901]

From: Mad Quacker (3327):

I'm surprised to see slashdoters' knee jerk reactions to this story. There's obviously a lot of technical details here that are missed.

You must be new here.

Re:Story missed the point..

[BitZtream]

The kneejerk reaction you are seeing is because intelligent people know instantly that 'secret goverment project' regardless of who knew what before hand, means, as a general rule, you're going to have to keep your fucking mouth shut.

The reaction you are seeing is because appearently EVERYONE else in the world knows not to do this shit, except this guy, who claims he didn't know, which again, every who has worked with the government on these sorts of things knows is bullshit because they drill it into your head so many times it makes you sick.

The reaction is because EVERYONE IN THE WORLD realizes how sticky these situations are and how careful you have to be to cover your own ass, and when they see someone go to another country that has no problem stilling data from the US and makes no attempt to hide it, WITH DATA HE WAS TOLD NOT TO TALK ABOUT, and then he goes out of his way to show it to people, its not like he lost his laptop ....

Sorry, rambling on ... we react this way because the whole thing is so obviously an area where you'd be careful as fuck even if you were Forrest Gump, that we just don't accept an excuse and it does, in fact, appear to be blatant treason to anyone with 3 or more brain cells.

Re:Story missed the point..

[idlemachine]

I'm surprised to see slashdoters' knee jerk reactions to this story.

Once you realise that most /.er's implicitly prefix their response to every story with "I'm a genius and everyone else is a fucking moron, and here's why...", then it makes perfect sense.

This is why Stanford got rid of secret projects.

[EWAdams]

If you're an academic you share information so that it may be publicly debated and tested. This helps to find good work and expose bad work. It's how science and technology move forward.

If you're a spook, you take tons of government money, keep everything secret, and milk even bad ideas for as long as you can because there's no public debate over what you do. You may or may not move science and technology forward, but it doesn't matter because it's all in the name of National Security [cue heavenly choir].

You can't be both. He shouldn't have tried to be both. An academic doing secret work is a fraud.

Re:Why stop there..

[Lars T.]

Errhmm. Let's look at that again, mkay?
In 2006, he took a laptop containing sensitive plans with him on a lecture tour in China.





He also allowed graduate students Xin Dai of China and Sirous Nourgostar of Iran to work on the project.

Where did you get the idea those students were in China at the time or now? Chances are, they are in Gitmo now.

Damages ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This story doesn't even state that there IS any 'classified' or secret information to disseminate. It doesn't say he gave foreign nationals 'Restricted' information, just that he possessed it when he went overseas. Does this mean that if he merely remembered his research, he should not be allowed to leave the country ? Realise that ITAR restricted information is pretty broad. Things like how a GPS or compass works, electronics, control systems, Steel formulas, almost any industrial process can be used for building arms. This all smells like fertilizer. ANFO.

Re:There is a city in Georiga where guns are requi

[Dravik]

There is no gun registration in Georgia. You are required to maintain a firearm in your home, but there is no registration or inspection regimen.

Re:Why stop there..

[iamhassi]

"the violation of the ITAR was the professors alone and I am glad he was found guilty"

I think this is the first time the /. community is pretty much unanimous: guy got what he deserved

Re:Why stop there..

[JackieBrown]

Did that work or are you just trying to look big?

The rules have changed.

[skoda]

The rules have changed. It is now illegal to "export" ITAR data, that is "sensitive" defense technology to foreign persons. However, this data is not classified. You can tell it to any and every US Person: your friends, family, neighbors, convenience store clerk. SO long as they are a US Person and also know not to tell it to Foreign National, they can know it.

However, telling it to a Canadian can get you sent to prison.

The rules have changed. And it's damaging to critical industries and research institutions.

Re:The rules have changed.

[c_forq]

Wouldn't this be DFARS? I work for a company that supplies government and defense contractors, and all the government requires ITAR while all the defense requires DFARs.

Re:The rules have changed.

[Archtech]

The rules have changed. It is now illegal to "export" ITAR data, that is "sensitive" defense technology to foreign persons. However, this data is not classified. You can tell it to any and every US Person: your friends, family, neighbors, convenience store clerk. SO long as they are a US Person and also know not to tell it to Foreign National, they can know it.

However, telling it to a Canadian can get you sent to prison.

The rules have changed. And it's damaging to critical industries and research institutions.

How about telling it to a person with dual US and foreign nationalities?

Re:The rules have changed.

[skoda]

It has been enforced with vigor not seen for about 30 years; the aerospace community hadn't really heard about nor cared about ITAR until about six years ago. And they didn't care about it until ITT was walloped with a $100M fine in 2007.

Re:Why stop there..

[skoda]

If this is ITAR and not classified data, then there may not be the signing of voluminous forms. ITAR just is. If your company is on top of it, then the staff will get powerpoint briefings about it. But there aren't signatures and forms and etc.

And everyone is liable regardless of whether they've heard of ITAR, had the powerpoint briefings or don't even work in defense industries. If you, say, bought a bulletproof vest from eBay and then traveled to Mexico you'd be guilty of an ITAR violation. (real example)

This is how ITAR hurts us.

[skoda]

And this is how ITAR is damaging to our national security. As the DOE and DOD are major funding agencies at universities and national labs, we are now creating a research system that prevents foreign nationals from participating. And since they are a large percentage of our grad students, that's a major problem. It subsequently makes the US a less enticing place for the skilled students we'd like to immigrate here.

Re:This is how ITAR hurts us.

[ahabswhale]

ROFL...you are a fucking moron. Letting foreign nationals participate in these programs is like giving the information away. There's no fucking way to keep it secret if you do that. We might as well just email China will all our secret shit. If the rules were changed such that the DoD had to allow foreign nationals to work on these projects, they would simply stop funding the university research entirely. I guaranfuckingteeit.

Re:This is how ITAR hurts us.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

And since they are a large percentage of our grad students, that's a major problem. It subsequently makes the US a less enticing place for the skilled students we'd like to immigrate here.

Actually, I work with a lot of foreign nationals and ITAR has been an issue, but not a terribly big one.

The most interesting work I'm involved in is multinational and attracts a lot of interest. The ITAR restricted work is really mundane in comparison and usually the people who get stuck with those projects are not that happy about being on the project to begin with...

Re:This is how ITAR hurts us.

[cryptor3]

So I assume you have a solution to this problem that is more sophisticated than abolishing ITAR and any foreign national to work on anything?

Are you saying ITAR serves no useful purpose? I'm guessing not. But are you at least saying that ITAR does more harm than good? Because if so, I'd love to hear your reasoning on that.

Seems to me that you're proposing something that provides short term gains (more labor) for long term losses (loss in strategic technological advantage).

Re:This is how ITAR hurts us.

[elnyka]

And this is how ITAR is damaging to our national security. As the DOE and DOD are major funding agencies at universities and national labs, we are now creating a research system that prevents foreign nationals from participating. And since they are a large percentage of our grad students, that's a major problem. It subsequently makes the US a less enticing place for the skilled students we'd like to immigrate here.

This is stupid. You might have an argument if the majority of science research in the US were subject to these regulations. Newsflash: they are not.

Only a very small amount of research in academia is subject to these type of regulations. Ergo, these regulations do not prevent foreign students from conducting research in the many, many, but really, many more areas of studies that are not tied to classified material.

If we were to follow your line of logic, we could then argue that hiring restrictions in DOE projects hurt IT/science in the US since they prevent non-US citizens from getting hired. Obviously, that has not been the case.

Re:Why stop there..

[Anonymous Coward]

I literally had 8 hours of reading/signing documents and had to sign at least 3 that told me explicitly who I could and could not talk to about what I was doing. Each was read to me after I read it myself, and they went line by line to make sure I understood it.

You know, this country would be in a hell of a lot better shape today if this were required of all bankers, insurance companies,housing contractors and a lot of others. This crap about getting a loan and being expected to sign your name thirty times in twenty minutes is shit. It's just bunch of handwaving like, "This is just a formality in case a small meteorite hits you and pierces your heart" or "It's just a requirement of the federal government and we can't close until you sign it". Then they point out about ten numbers on the summary page and you hope everything is fine.

I had a friend who once had a bunch of tools stolen out of his truck. When he took his claim to his auto insurance, he was told, "Oh, you're a carpenter. Since these were the tools of your trade, they're not covered. They would have been had you been an accountant."

My friend went out and got another insurance guy. He started off by telling the guy, "I want every thing I own covered. Never mind the price -- cover everything. Just know that you are never, EVER to tell me something isn't covered. If you do, I will come after you personally and beat the living holy shit out of you and I'm big enough to do it thoroughly and well."

Re:Why stop there..

[DustyShadow]

My experience with US security clearance was exactly as you describe. I literally had 8 hours of reading/signing documents and had to sign at least 3 that told me explicitly who I could and could not talk to about what I was doing. Each was read to me after I read it myself, and they went line by line to make sure I understood it. Roth is completely full of crap if he claims he didn't know. The process left me with the distinct impression that if I even had a hint that I shouldn't be talking about it or wasn't sure, I should keep my big mouth shut. The funny part is, I'm not sure I actually saw anything classified during my stint. Not that I'm going to be talking about any of it, because I'm just not sure, but still. Doubly funny was debriefing, that also took 8 hours where they went over everything again that I had gone through when I received clearance in the first place.

I used to have a top secret clearance and my experience was nothing close to yours. I simply had to take an oath and sign a one page document. My debriefing was even shorter. In fact, now that I think about it, my oath was taken when my secret clearance was granted. I did nothing further when my T/S went through.

My point is simply that this guy may have had an experience similar to mine and from the summary, (unless I skimmed too fast) it doesn't sound like he even had a clearance. This is an ITAR issue. Which by the way, seemed to be taken way more seriously at my company because people actually get thrown in prison for violating it when those violations are simply negligent. Negligent classified information violations were normally punished with a nasty gram email and a "don't do that again!" letter.

Re:Why stop there..

[B00KER]

I used to have a top secret clearance and my experience was nothing close to yours. I simply had to take a flash light in font of me and... mmm, don't remenber the rest.

everyone already

[markringen]

everyone already knows everything government contractors do, no idea is original. it's just a sign of governmental stupidity.

Re:everyone already

[markringen]

i guess some people don't like the words government and stupidity combined?

Don't like the terms?

[PPH]

The don't sign the contract. Or offer the DoD your own wording. Something to the effect that "I do R&D for non-military civilian applications. I consult with and market my technology world-wide. If you (the DoD) happen to identify a military application to which my research is applicable, that's your problem."

Nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Big defense contractors have done this stuff and nothing happens to them, maybe a little fine. Presidents "authorizing" missile guidance tech transfers to china..zip, no impeachment or charges (example:clinton/loral) Supposedly allied nations (Israel) caught shopping mil gear we gave them, some missile, to china..nothing happens to them. Chinese and other foreign students all over every research establishment/university in the US..every single possible "crown jewel" tech and sensitive "IP" that exists...nothing, totally legal. A subsidiary of cheney's/halliburton, doing business in iran well past the so called embargo..nothing happens to them.

The professors big crime? He isn't a connected fatcat, that's all.

Re:Nuts

[Joe Jay Bee]

clinton/loral

I read that as "clitoral".

Seems apt.

Stupidity should be rewarded with jail.

[upuv]

First thing. I'm not war monger. I think every gun on the planet should be destroyed. Even the ones used for "sport", "hunting", blah blah blah.

Now Professor == Smart Guy/Gal you would think. I'm sorry but the parrots that beg for food from me on my balcony are now all saying "Well Duh!". They are clearly smarter than this "Smart Guy". Lets show as many people as we can significant portions of plans for a flying robot that has enough lift capacity and range to be a weapons platform. How dumb can you be.

Many years ago I came up with a method for eliminating driving related accidents. With the exception of accidents caused by factors outside of the control of the driver. It's amazingly cheap and easy to implement. All it requires is ink. That's it.

When I driver commits his/her first obvious idiot move behind the wheel. I mean something really stupid. Like drink driving. Double the speed limit etc. Something that basically could very easily mean someones death. You take their id and then stamp "TO STUPID TO DRIVE" across the front of it. This tag "TO STUPID TO DRIVE" will also be printed on all other forms of identification once they are renewed. This is forever, the shame will follow you to your grave.

Offence #2, Clearly this individual is even dumber than ever imagined. Again ink to the rescue. This time in the form of a tattoo. Square on the forehead. "To Stupid to Drive" and "evirD ot diputS oT" below it.

Now my problem is how do I modify this ink plan of mine to handle this "Smart Guys" moron move?

Re:Why stop there..

[c_forq]

Being that this is military drones, I don't think ITAR doesn't cut it. I work at a company that supplies a lot of people doing government work, and always now what on our floor is ITART compliant. We have provided material for a few companies doing military contracts, and ITAR means nothing to them. Needs to be DFARS. DFARS is a lot more involved - I've had to spend half a day making sure material was DFARS compliant.

Now You Know: There Is No "Right" To Export

[cmholm]

For starters, the good professor is an idiot. He has worked on DoD contracts, and either knew or should have known that from the moment he started developing on the DoD's dime, any technology he dealt in not already a standard part of a BSEE/CS/Chem/Physics degree program in the US was going to be suspect under ITAR.

In addition, the import and export of any commercial item is subject to review under the Export Administration Regulations of the DoC. And, as Dr. Roth is being reminded the hard way, "export" can occur the moment a foreign national or domestic agent of a foreign nation groks your IP.

You may not agree with the law as it stands, but the Federal Government is on very strong Constitutional ground with respect to whatever border controls it chooses to enact. So, your options are: 1) follow the laws, 2) not follow the laws, and/or 3) bug your representatives to change the law. You can select (2), and many do, but it's kind of like not paying your income taxes for a few years: it sucks big time when you get caught.

Big Deal

[bussdriver]

it is not a big deal. they act like it was a major leak or something. clearly it wasn't bigger than a 4 year punishment.

He Did It For The Money

[littlewink]

Follow the money! The Chinese have so many dollars they're practically burning them. This guy was undoubtedly paid a couple million under the table by the Chinese for his "contribution". It's obvious he made a bundle because he is willing to go to jail for it. All the crap about sharing with graduate students and not reading the regulations is ridiculous. When all is said and done the professor is set for life and we've lost our lead in another technological area. We should change the laws so that we shoot agents of industrial espionage rather than imprison them for a few years.

The forrunners are winning

[kanweg]

By sending two students abroad at minimal cost, without having to need any spy training (expensive), two countries unknowingly have managed to not only take out a professor by preventing him from doing further research, but also by steering away part of the federal budget for defence towards the justice system and to prisons. In effect this is a double whammy, slowing down development of evil stuff.

Bert
Who presumes that it is possible by finding Bin laden by listening for laughter from caves every time the TSA budget is published.

Re:There is a city in Georiga where guns are requi

[greyhueofdoubt]

They are used *by* the U.S. in *other* countries. No other country uses UAVs as much as we do. And the countries we use them is have, shall we say, rather high crime rates.

Not sure what you're getting at. Your posts are usually much more clear.

-b

Re:interesting problem re ITAR & public domain

[greyhueofdoubt]

If you have signed an agreement telling you not to disclose such things, yes. If you are not associated with the DoD in any way, then typically no. ITAR covers basic physical goods, as in, sending your buddy in China the newest U.S. body armor.

If you are not associated with the DoD, then their stance is basically, 'no one can prove that what he said has anything to do with what we're working on'.

As an uninformed (just technically, no offense) civilian, you are not a threat to national security.

-b

Re:Why stop there..

[Runaway1956]

Heh. That is a lot like my own experience. They did three different background checks on me at different times during my service, to upgrade my security clearance. Although "I cannot confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard the USS blah blah blah" and I never actually SAW a nuclear weapon (I wasn't a missile tech or GMM to start with) I had to have the clearance because I had access to areas that may or may not contain such a weapon.

For all that I ever did, a confidential or just maybe a secret clearance was enough, but they insisted that I get Top Secret, then bumped me up again after that.

Crazy.

I suppose if everyone who really NEEDED a super duper ultra top secret clearance were killed, I might have been drafted into work that required such a clearance.

Just crazy. But, that's the Navy!!

Re:Why stop there..

[BitZtream]

Yea, I had top secret clearence at one point too, its a joke.

'Top Secret' clearance is given to just about anyone anywhere for anything, its not really that top secret.

To the goverment, 'Top Secret' is roughly the same as businesses who have rules against telling someone how much you make. No they don't want you to do it, but mostly because its a damn hassle to them afterwords, not because you'll actually know anything that matters or can't be found on the Internet already anyway.

Sorry to disappoint, but 'Top Secret' isn't anything like you see in the movies guys.

Re:Why stop there..

[Logic and Reason]

I think this is the first time the /. community is pretty much unanimous: guy got what he deserved

Bullshit. ITAR is a terrible law that accomplishes nothing at the expense of making it much harder/riskier for people in some fields to share information with each other (rocketry, for example). The idea that we can keep unclassified information from leaking out of the country this way in the era of the Internet is patently absurd.

But the contract...

[Chris Snook]

...didn't contain information directly relevant to his research! How can he be expected to waste his valuable time reading it? That's what he has Chinese and Iranian grad students for.

Forcing researchers to actually read documents they sign will severely hamper their research output. This is a slippery slope to enforcing acceptable use policies, delaying ethically sensitive experiments for IRB reviews, and punishing careless plagiarism. Does tenure mean nothing?

I'm terribly afraid a certain former adviser of mine could be swept up in this dragnet of red tape. I'd email him a link to this story, but I'm sure he wouldn't have time to read it.

Guilty of remarkable stupidity.

[AliasMarlowe]

PhDs aren't granted for common sense.

But there should be a way to take them back if the holder demonstrates remarkable stupidity.

Re:Why stop there..

[Sheen]

I had top secret aswell ( worked/served at NATO base), i just signed, didnt swear, didnt do anything, i discovered that allot of the sensitive data was available on google tho ( googled specs and bases when i was bored, from time to time). I am not american tho, but i had top secret in the US military system ( among most other NATO military systems). I remember the difference between nice to know and need to know got explained a few times tho, but that was the germans.

Re:Why stop there..

[jonaskoelker]

Roth is getting a pretty light slap with four years.

Yeah, just think of what could have happened if he had copied intellectual property!

Or even worse, hosted a site which told visitors who had copies of the intellectual property they wanted to purch^Wacquire!

What's ITAR?

[jonaskoelker]

I presume that ITAR means "International Traffic in Arms Regulations", as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

But to me as a non-american, it sounds more like Apple's archive format, iTar. You can then iGzip it and create secret_plans.itar.igz

Re:Why stop there..

[Archtech]

My friend went out and got another insurance guy. He started off by telling the guy, "I want every thing I own covered. Never mind the price -- cover everything. Just know that you are never, EVER to tell me something isn't covered. If you do, I will come after you personally and beat the living holy shit out of you and I'm big enough to do it thoroughly and well."

So what was his premium? $10 million a month??

Insurance doesn't work the way your friend (or any of us other mug punters) would like it to. Like banking and government, it aims to make a reliable, consistent net profit regardless of what happens. Its attitude to risk is to transfer the biggest risks from the individual mug punter to the aggregate mass of mug punters, while it stays high and dry on a risk-free island in midstream.

And of course assaulting an insurance company employee because you were foolish enough to sign an agreement that didn't suit your needs would just get you locked up for a year and a day (or maybe even longer).

Welcome to the Land of the Free to Make Unlimited Profits.

Re:Why stop there..

[Hal_Porter]

I don't understand this point of view. He signed a bunch of documents that no doubt explained the dire consequences of leaking information in order to work on the project. Then he flew to China - which is very obviously not a free country to anyone who has spent more than a few days there or even read a few webpages - with that information on a laptop. And he explained the technology to Chinese and Iranian students. If he didn't agree with the concept of confidential information he shouldn't have signed up.

He's lucky he only got 4 years - they could easily have charged him with espionage or treason.

Who said it's "classified"?

[skoda]

Where is said the information is "classified"? This may be ITAR controlled data, which is not classified.

There is a broad range of information which is not classified, which is not trade-secret, which can be discussed openly...but never with any foreign persons.

It has a good deal of security theater. Data can and will be granted export exceptions if that exception is needed to get the work done for, say, NASA. So it's export prohibited until it must be exported to get the job done, and then it's not export prohibited.

Too Stupid to use "too" instead of "to"

[whatthef*ck]

That should be tattooed on your forehead.

I find this quite depressing

[Kupfernigk]

American presidents go on and on about freedom and democracy, and then a case like this comes up and loads of kneejerk Slashdot posters start coming over like...brainwashed Iranians or Chinese. They gibber on and on with complete speculation about what he "must have known", quote the wrong Act, completely misrepresent the case and in passing show that they totally lack the slightest clue about what is or is not in the public domain in research. I think the best comment above is probably the one about, in effect, the crime being to let somebody know what information in the public domain might actually be workable, as if the Chinese and the Iranians wouldn't be able to find that out for themselves.

Discarding the possibility that the US security services have dedicated staff who immediately defend all their actions on every possible website, I can only conclude that mindless nationalism is a characteristic of the lowest lifeforms of all societies, and that the fact that I find this depressing when I find this on Slashdot shows I must be new here.

I will make one observation for their enlightenment. Creative scientists and engineers frequently have trouble with the idiot regulations of security forces. That's because the people in those security forces are frequently literal minded anal retentives (the intelleigent ones would never end up in a dead end job trying to sheepherd scientists.) Let's just mention Richard Feynmann, Robert Oppenheimer and Alan Turing for starters. The US security services destroyed Oppenheimer and the UK security services destroyed Turing. Way to go, dickheads. Fortunately for Feynmann, his tendencies were more towards having fun with naked women than thinking about how society could be made better, and he was left alone.

Re:Why stop there..

[rve]

This policy has global impact, with sometimes tragic consequences for completely innocent people.

There was a minor incident some time ago, when the nuclear physics faculty at a technical university was forced to exclude a student from one of their courses. The faculty is forced to do this, to avoid their staff being denied visas or even arrested when traveling to the USA.

The student's crime was being the child of an Iranian refugee.

Re:Enough already

[hesaigo999ca]

how about a friend of yours that you trusted that was of chinese nationality going to the same universe, and wanting to help on this cool new contract with the gov. ...? Sometimes, we think in our "regular" patterns, which may not be the same proper patterns to have in a different milieux.