Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

22 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. Some of my professors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  2. Re:Why stop there.. by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Guilty. by Petersko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Guilty. by H0p313ss · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    2. Re:Guilty. by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Insightful


      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.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Guilty. by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    4. Re:Guilty. by hawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    5. Re:Guilty. by SanguineV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      PhDs aren't granted for common sense.

  4. Lamest court defense ever by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  5. Not long enough by m509272 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Not long enough by SheeEttin · · Score: 5, Funny

      shear stupidity

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

  6. Lying or stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Lying or stupid? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    2. Re:Lying or stupid? by Green+Salad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Lying or stupid? by abigsmurf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.)

  7. What the...?! by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 5, Funny

    and Sirous Nourgostar of Iran to work

    Did George Lucas get offspring in Iran or something?

    --
    If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
  8. Antithetical to "education". by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  9. Been there, done that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:Why stop there.. by caladine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  11. I Wasn't Bothered By The Guy's Sentence... by thepainguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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.

  12. Re:Why stop there.. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  13. The rules have changed. by skoda · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.