Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White House Considers Restricting Chinese Researchers Over Espionage Fears (nytimes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: It sounds like something out of a science fiction movie: In April, China is said to have tested an invisibility cloak that would allow ordinary fighter jets to suddenly vanish from radar screens. This advancement, which could prove to be a critical intelligence breakthrough, is one that American officials fear China may have gained in part from a Chinese researcher who roused suspicions while working on a similar technology at a Duke University laboratory in 2008. The researcher, who was investigated by the F.B.I. but never charged with a crime, ultimately returned to China, became a billionaire and opened a thriving research institute that worked on some projects related to those he studied at Duke.

The Trump administration, concerned about China's growing technological prowess, is considering strict measures to block Chinese citizens from performing sensitive research at American universities and research institutes over fears they may be acquiring intellectual secrets, according to people familiar with the deliberations. The White House is discussing whether to limit the access of Chinese citizens to the United States, including restricting certain types of visas available to them and greatly expanding rules pertaining to Chinese researchers who work on projects with military or intelligence value at American companies and universities. The exact types of projects that would be subject to restrictions are unclear, but the measures could clamp down on collaboration in advanced materials, software and other technologies at the heart of Beijing's plan to dominate cutting-edge technologies like advanced microchips, artificial intelligence and electric cars, known as Made in China 2025.

93 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. They really need to to get business out if acadami by edris90 · · Score: 2

    And since information is further restricted, ensuring that none may benefit except those who would abuse it's exclusivity

  2. Intellectual secrets? by drakaan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What does that even mean? Knowledge isn't something that you can keep people from having. That's like saying "mathematical secrets".

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    1. Re:Intellectual secrets? by froggyjojodaddy · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing they meant intellectual property secrets

    2. Re:Intellectual secrets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      when talking about that kind of IP its more accurate to use "imaginary" than "intellectual" because it isn't property. Up until recent times there was no notion of pretending that a thought or idea could be "owned" and others restricted from accessing it.

      Property is not just something you can have, it is something that you can be deprived of -- which is why societies around the world have formulated laws preventing others from doing so unjustly (e.g., payment or other mutually agreed condition). You can't deprive someone of knowledge or information (though you can try, witness Disney's continued extension of copyright terms) and so it can't be property. But the legal fiction was created in any case.

      Which has resulted in increasingly silly situations because it fundamentally does not make sense.

      This "news" is about the evil Chinese researcher increasing his store of knowledge, openly and similarly enriching those he worked with who then took the knowledge and allegedly leveraged it into a commercial product.

      Sorry, but this is a familiar story. Just remove "evil Chinese" and you are describing numerous US startups. Those, however, were incorporated in the US so they didn't "commit espionage" or "steal knowledge" and instead are "successful entrepreneurs". Put another way, its one thing to have knowledge and something else entirely to apply it, engineer it into a product, move into production and market it. Just ask Tesla: they have not only the knowledge, but they also have application, engineering and marketing down -- but even with all of that they seem to be having problems with the "production" component.

      This is just advertising for the building trade war with China. Part of any war is demonizing the other side.

    3. Re:Intellectual secrets? by mi · · Score: 2

      What does that even mean?

      Here are some examples, in no particular order:

      How far are the Americans from fielding a fighter-mountable laser-weapon? The answer will affect, whether China can continue to use its current air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, or whether they can be destroyed by the aircraft's laser guns and ought to be replaced/hardened in a hurry. What encryption algorithms can NSA crack today, and how long a key must one use to afford a one hour — or one week — delay? Much of the battlefield communications does not need to be uncrackable. It just needs to be uncrackable for some time. Knowing, the enemy's capabilities allows one to achieve that goal with far less expense. What is the success-rate of Americans' vaccines against certain biological weapons? That is, which biological weapons (if any) would be practical in stopping — or slowing down — American forces. Can the AI-systems employed by the US military reliably discern ballistic missiles from civilian rockets? Americans will hesitate — for the priceless minutes/seconds — to shoot at object, if they aren't sure, it is military.

      A similar list of questions important to commercial, rather than military, interests in China can also be constructed...

      Knowledge isn't something that you can keep people from having.

      You certainly can! This is why traitors/leakers are so valuable to adversaries...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Intellectual secrets? by whit3 · · Score: 1
      Yes, the 'secret' thing is being abused here. That example, for instance, was of an individual who, a decade after being in country A, has a connection in country B with a military project.

      Basic research is the foundation for a lot of enterprise, and technology offshoots always have a broad foundation. No one can ever prevent knowledge from spreading, it's just impractical to control, even if one technology branch is military.

      The research behind a piece of tech, military or otherwise, derives from lots of people. Is there a good case that they should all be under some kind of control? Whose? Can technology be important, and kept secret? How? Imperial China did it, and was stagnant for centuries: let's NOT do it that way.

      No one in the White House knows enough to pick the people and tech that will militarize in a few years, The 'grey area' that is being discussed, is just a lot of hazy thinking; that area is white, well illuminated, and ought to remain so.

    5. Re:Intellectual secrets? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Ballistic missiles? Who's going to launch them? Presumably, any defenses in place would shoot at any rocket aimed at the US, no matter whether they're confirmed ICBMs or not. In any case, launching ICBMs at the US, and having them hit before the US reacts, is suicide. The US spends what it has to to maintain credible devastating second-strike capability.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Intellectual secrets? by mi · · Score: 1

      For better or worse, that readiness to devastate the attacker has never been tested. Worse, the very concept is being chipped away by movies and other art, which mocks it, and glorifies dissenters, leakers, and outright traitors, who either refuse to follow orders, or subtly sabotage them out of concern for collateral damage.

      If/when push comes to shove one day, some officers may decide to not push the button. Something like this for example: "Our firing back now will not protect those already doomed to die in Guam. Why kill millions of innocent on their side?" See? It is so convincing...

      Especially, if the base is not tightly run, and/or he has a cute Chinese wife/girlfriend and is well-versed in the rich and enlightening Chinese culture.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Intellectual secrets? by drakaan · · Score: 1

      Ok, I see what you're getting at.

      If you think it's possible to keep countries from determining other countries' offensive or defensive capabilities, stop encryption from being cracked ever-more-quickly, prevent new biological agents from popping up naturally or being bred, etc, then I would counter that history tends to indicate otherwise. Can espionage speed up progress that a competing nation makes? Sure, but it's not a requirement.

      Intelligence, science, technology, and math aren't some hoardable commodities, they're things that exist apart from our desire to control them and that are there for us to discover in the natural world or among the humans in a given population.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    8. Re:Intellectual secrets? by mi · · Score: 1

      Can espionage speed up progress that a competing nation makes? Sure, but it's not a requirement.

      It is a requirement. If the adversary is evolving faster than you, then your only hope to avoid falling further and further behind is to steal his results every once in a while.

      And we are evolving faster than China. To even match our speed they need to become a free-market Capitalist country — and they are moving in the opposite direction at present.

      Also, you need to know, what the adversary is developing. It takes years to design a new anti-aircraft missile, for example. If your current designs have the top speed of X km/h and the ceiling of N thousand meters, you will be unprotected against the enemy's aircraft flying faster than X or higher than N for years until you can field a modernized weapon. Knowing the X and the N of the enemy's current designs is crucially important — and only spying can get you these numbers. For example, the US does not make much of a secret of the F-35 — and sells them to many allies — but many details of the F-22 are classified.

      Intelligence, science, technology, and math aren't some hoardable commodities

      They are hoardable. Though the theory was already well understood, try as they might have, for example, USSR could not create atomic bombs of their own in practice — until a family of Communist scumbags handed them the blueprints. The resulting nuclear parity emboldened USSR and condemned millions of people in Eastern Europe to decades of suffering under Soviet occupation. North Koreans and Vietnamese suffer even worse to this day for the same reasons. That is, how important anti-spying is...

      There are plenty of other things (including Pepsi-Cola!) USSR just could not replicate — some of these they also ended up stealing, others (like automobile factories) they bought openly, or confiscated as spoils of war. Had the knowledge really been "not hoardable", as you naively assert, they would not have needed to pay Ford and Fiat for it.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:Intellectual secrets? by drakaan · · Score: 1

      So, your counterargument is basically "no, I disagree, here are examples where countries used espionage".

      Again, I understand what you're trying to say, and I'm disagreeing and saying that with or without espionage, China will catch up with us technologically. They have money, lots of people, and plenty of natural resources. Sure, we could deprive them of those, but it would require war, which I doubt we want to attempt.

      Maybe the USSR couldn't replicate Pepsi, but they weren't exactly providing great incentives for people to be successful doing that. They didn't *need* to pay Ford and Fiat for automobile technology, they could have expended massive resources in promoting a capitalist economy that rewards companies for producing better products. That choice in economic models doesn't mean that their lack of success is because humans can only figure out technological things once, does it?

      I'm not minimizing the effect that espionage has in the speed of advancement. I acknowledge that as true and evident. I completely reject the notion that by one country guarding its research, another country with similar resources and desire towards a general goal can be prevented from replicating it independently.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    10. Re:Intellectual secrets? by mi · · Score: 1

      So, your counterargument is basically "no, I disagree, here are examples where countries used espionage".

      Nope. My argument is, here is where the espionage was essential, where the country would not have had a piece of technology without the espionage either at all, or only decades later.

      TL;DR

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Intellectual secrets? by drakaan · · Score: 1

      So...no, but yes? You qualified that "nope" with a statement that given a sufficient expenditure of time the country would possibly have had said piece of technology? That's what I have been saying (along with saying that adding time and resources continues to increase the chance of gaining said knowledge up until it's acquired).

      There are numerous examples of technological innovations happening independently across time and geographical location. Sometimes they are nearly simultaneous and sometimes not. None of that supports an assertion that you can keep knowledge in a silo ad infinitum without a concerted effort to sabotage the efforts of others seeking the same knowledge (assuming that knowledge is the result of naturally occurring phenomena or natural laws).

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  3. Good idea, impossible to carry out by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

    If any research like that occurs at universities at all, it's out in the open. The national security value-added of slapping an ITAR restriction on a piece of equipment or on a research topic is questionable if you're generating publications on it or letting people access it with only a warning not to let foreign nationals handle it while securing it with nothing more than a locked cabinet. And the kicker is there's nothing that stops the Chinese from going to school in another western country without such restrictive conditions on the very same equipment or research topics you're locking away here.

    1. Re:Good idea, impossible to carry out by javaman235 · · Score: 1

      Good point. What if there were a material that illuminated a new theory of physics, that doubled as, say, a room temperature super conductor, or worse, invisibility substance, or way worse catalyst for making fissile materials? How to produce the material would follow from the new theory the material inspired.

      Would we ever be allowed to know the theory, maybe the big theory, in these cases?

      The warp drive may be out there already for all we know, kept under wraps for it's power to create non-local atomic blasts or whatever. It all depends on what the smart answers for "nuance" really entail...

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    2. Re: Good idea, impossible to carry out by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Lolwut? Far, far less important stuff than cloaking technology is classified and not printed. I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about.

    3. Re:Good idea, impossible to carry out by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Allowed to know the theory by whom? Such things do not stay secret. Eventually, someone would publish.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Jin Yang! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    JIN YANG! He also stole the new Internet. I expect that to be in production anytime soon too.

    1. Re: Jin Yang! by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      I loved how he took a cut from the guy who got hit by a car on his bike.

  5. Chinese are good researchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I worked on research at the university, often paid for by DoD, the best researchers were often Chinese nationals. This was true for both professors and students. On one had, the DoD benefited from their hard work. On the other hand, I expected that the same research paid for by the US government was being sent right back to China.

    The reality is, China is 1/3 of the world. That means 1/3 of the world's best research and most advanced weapons will be Chinese. If you want to see a model for the future of the world, look at China. The US is becoming more of a police state while China becomes more capitalist. As we move closer together, expect a globalist corporate police state to look after our well being on planet earth.

    1. Re:Chinese are good researchers by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The US is becoming more of a police state while China becomes more capitalist.

      Those are not mutually exclusive. China is both, just like Singapore. As long as you focus on business, they leave you alone. As soon as you touch politics, POOF!

      China is 1/3 of the world. That means 1/3 of the world's best research and most advanced weapons will be Chinese. If you want to see a model for the future of the world, look at China.

      So we need lots of people to compete? Let's take down our walls and make China pay for it!

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Chinese are good researchers by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      China has 10x the population as the US, its area is roughly the same size and has nearly the same access to similar resources. In theory China should be able to be the #1 Economy in the world, but it isn't. While the US isn't perfect, China has a lot of policies and rules that are extremely oppressive, many rights that we take for granted, even if we are in some oppressed minority, is not there in China. These things slow down the economy, and make it difficult for them to truly reach their potential.

      Also the US is more apt to have its problem on its sleeves, the violence, and political bickering, and people disagreeing with our leaders is very public. In China the state run media, covers it up.

      As American Citizens we need to be vigilant to rules and abuses that threaten our rights. Understanding that having these rights will make America less safe, but will allow for continued growth.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Chinese are good researchers by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Low natural resources per capita isn't exactly an advantage. Also whites have a huge lead on China in creating nice societies ... they are getting massively brain drained by US, Canada and Australia.

    4. Re:Chinese are good researchers by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      China has 10x the population as the US

      China has 4x the population of the US.

      In theory China should be able to be the #1 Economy in the world, but it isn't.

      China's economy is the world's biggest by PPP, which is the most sensible measurement of national production.

      If you measure by exchange rates instead, then on current trends, China will surpass the US within ten years.

      China has a lot of policies and rules that are extremely oppressive

      They do indeed. But an American citizen is FOUR TIMES more likely to be arrested and imprisoned by their government.

    5. Re:Chinese are good researchers by TheSync · · Score: 1

      China has 10x the population as the US, its area is roughly the same size and has nearly the same access to similar resources. In theory China should be able to be the #1 Economy in the world, but it isn't.

      China started doing better once Mao died. Starving tens of millions of people to death for communist political reasons and outlawing private business was not good for growth.

      Now given current growth rates, Chinaâ(TM)s economy will be larger than Americaâ(TM)s before 2030.

      China is already the worldâ(TM)s largest trading nation, with trade over $3.8 billion in 2016 (compare with $3.5 billion for the US).

      On a personal basis, China is about where the US was in 1950 based on GDP per capita and percent urbanized population. But it is moving fast.

    6. Re: Chinese are good researchers by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      They do indeed. But an American citizen is FOUR TIMES more likely to be arrested and imprisoned by their government.

      Really? Where are you getting that number from?

      If it's from a simplistic comparison of prisoners per capita, then just give your head a shake and aplogize. The fact that there are more people in prison has no bearing on your likelihood of being imprisoned, unless all other relevant factors (like sentence length and execution rates) are identical.

    7. Re: Chinese are good researchers by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Number of people in prison is the best indicator of the likelihood of being imprisoned.

      I could see why someone with a child-like understanding of reality would believe that. I've already explained why it's wrong though, so repeating yourself is pointless.

    8. Re: Chinese are good researchers by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      China's economy is the world's biggest by PPP, which is the most sensible measurement of national production.

      This is also nowhere near right. The US is 11th on the list, China is 79th.

  6. Long overdue regulations by tomhath · · Score: 1

    No way he could have gotten a security clearance to work on a project that uses something as classified as stealth technology. It makes complete sense to restrict doing research in the US on technologies that are similarly sensitive.

    1. Re:Long overdue regulations by Ayano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then perhaps companies should keep their research internal to employees rather than outsource to open universities. If you want the best research, you ought to hire the brightest rather than getting it 'on the cheap' from PHD students barely making ends meet.

      --
      I don't read AC
    2. Re:Long overdue regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We have enough burdensome regulations in this country!! Get government out of the way

    3. Re:Long overdue regulations by PPH · · Score: 1

      Then perhaps companies should keep their research internal to employees rather than outsource to open universities.

      All the company direct employees want to move into management. As such, they become pretty useless when it's time to get actual work out of them. So, send it out to universities or consultants.

      rather than getting it 'on the cheap'

      Some time ago, one of the regulars on Usenet electronics design board was discussing a consulting job he did for Boeing. It involved the development of a Spice model for a relatively simple electrical component. Good job, well documented. But it was something that an EE intern could have done in-house. I have an idea whet this guy charges. It's not inexpensive, even compared to top tier engineering employees. So 'cheap' isn't the motivation.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Long overdue regulations by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      Then perhaps companies should keep their research internal to employees rather than outsource to open universities. If you want the best research, you ought to hire the brightest rather than getting it 'on the cheap' from PHD students barely making ends meet.

      It's not just universities. From the article, "According to Defense Department statistics, nearly a quarter of all foreign efforts to obtain sensitive or classified information in 2014 were routed through academic institutions." I.e., most of the attempts were not targeted at universities. The big question is how a restriction on Chinese nationals in American industrial research and development would impact progress in those organizations.

    5. Re:Long overdue regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to argue with academic research being inexpensive, but you are out of touch with research if you think they aren't hiring (indirectly) the brightest. What you are experiencing is cognitive dissonance: you are being told (and appear to have accepted as fact) that the Chinese are not bright, only barely able to copy the scraps they can steal from us. That is not, however, the case.

      There are just as many brilliant Chinese as Americans. More, probably, given they outnumber us so badly. And we get the cream of that crop as graduate students. Chinese education may still be lagging, but that doesn't mean that someone educated there cannot be bright (or even brilliant). And they come here to actually get the quality education[1]. Meanwhile the US government outsources a *lot* of research to universities because it is inexpensive. Much of the time they rely on compartmentalizing the work to avoid classification issues -- which is why they get wigged out when the real espionage occurs (much of it sourced from China) and those puzzle pieces are put together.

      The US government has a quandary: get rapid results on the cheap but risk leaking sensitive information, or get slow results at greater expense with less leakage? Even with the leakage they obviously feel better off using cheap and rapid. For a full-on isolationist approach we should not even accept Chinese graduate students, but the truth is that we benefit from their research while they are here.

      1) okay, not all of them. For some it is simply a "license to print money" -- despite the high numbers of Chinese PhD students in this country they are relatively rare in China and having the cachet of a US degree can be enough to land a well-paid job. Their work in that job might be shoddy because they did as little as they could to scrape by, and yet go unquestioned due to their US degree, but that is their future employer's lookout, not ours.

      This is all actually true of other countries as well from around the world: Asia, the Middle East, South America and Africa. But, due to their population, the ones most frequently encountered are Chinese or Indian.

    6. Re:Long overdue regulations by jythie · · Score: 1

      That is the part that confuses me. Often DoD projects have citizenship requirements for even doing non-classified work, sometimes even work that permits publication. So I am not sure what kind of harsher restrictions they are thinking unless they want to go full 'natural born citizen' or even 'no citizen of chinese descent' route.

    7. Re:Long overdue regulations by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Your opposition to using universities for classified research and development is unrelated to controlling access to sensitive information

      It would be foolish to ban professors and grad students at universities from doing research work directly or indirectly on classified projects for the government.

    8. Re:Long overdue regulations by tomhath · · Score: 1
      Maybe RTFA:

      The exact types of projects that would be subject to restrictions are unclear, but the measures could clamp down on collaboration in advanced materials, software and other technologies at the heart of Beijing’s plan to dominate cutting-edge technologies like advanced microchips, artificial intelligence and electric cars, known as Made in China 2025.

    9. Re:Long overdue regulations by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Should have been done in the 1970's.
      The USA was flooded with "students" totally loyal to the Communist party who took back generations of US creativity.
      The need for a security clearance should have protected decades of US research and science.
      Instead academics and political leaders invited ever more students in to spy on the USA.

      What was the CIA and FBI expecting? That it could create spies out of the students in the USA and have them return to China as CIA spies?
      China only let its best and most loyal students study in the USA. They did not fall for the CIA charms while in the USA. The USA just lost more tech every decade and did not get to place generations of CIA spies back into China.
      The USA got to look all international for a few decades and for that lost all its science to Communist networks of generational spies.
      The security services did nothing over decades to protect sensitive US tech domestically from spies.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  7. Made in China by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    at the heart of Beijing's plan to dominate cutting-edge technologies...known as Made in China 2025.

    China having an initiative to have more things "Made in China" is silly in that 90% of everything we flip over already says "Made in China" on the bottom.

    It would be like a Microsoft initiative to "Have Microsoft on Every Business PC!"

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Made in China by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Flip over your iPhone. It says "made in china, designed in cupernico". Their goal is to get rid of the second half. And to have "made in china" on the bottom of most websites (not literally, cause that would turn people off.)

      This is not an "own manufacturing facilities" push. This is an "own the IP" push.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Made in China by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Then call it the "Designed in China" initiative, or "Invented in China".

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Made in China by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I wonder if something got lost in translation. Or if it's trying to build off the success of "Made in China". But the three areas TFS covered were microchips, AI and electronic cars.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Made in China by Gary · · Score: 1

      Then call it the "Designed in China" initiative...

      So you're advocating for the DICk initiative?

    5. Re:Made in China by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Made in China, backdoors designed and owned by the USA.

      They want to own both the component manufacturing and own the backdoors.

    6. Re:Made in China by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I wonder if something got lost in translation.

      Nope. The Chinese slogan is "Zhongguo zhizao 2025", which literally means "Manufacture in China 2025".

      They are trying to move up the value chain. Currently they manufacture junk sold at Walmart, and import CPUs and commercial aircraft. Their plan is to make their own high end semiconductors and airliners.

      By 2025, their biggest import from America is likely to be food, especially soybeans and pork.

    7. Re:Made in China by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      It would be like a Microsoft initiative to "Have Microsoft on Every Business PC!"

      Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft has never had a goal like this. (guffaw)

    8. Re:Made in China by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Designed in WHO?
      Hopefully not Copernicus.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    9. Re:Made in China by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Flip over your iPhone. It says "made in china, designed in cupernico". Their goal is to get rid of the second half. And to have "made in china" on the bottom of most websites (not literally, cause that would turn people off.)

      This is not an "own manufacturing facilities" push. This is an "own the IP" push.

      It should read: "Designed in Cupertino. Parts manufactured in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. Assembled in China."

    10. Re: Made in China by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. A Chinese company made some wireless chips years after the big guys did theirs (and walked away) and had plenty to learn from. It took me about a day to show their testing and QA results were garbage and not even close to good enough to meet specs. The Chinese government had at least 30 million into the project. I couldn't tell if they were intentionally testing them incorrectly to show passing results, or if they really were so blind to the issues and just didn't know any better. China has their "A Teams" (when you pay enough) and they have a lot more "B", "C", and "D" teams. They can throw more people at a problem, the West generally doesn't.

    11. Re:Made in China by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      "Made in China; flipped in Cupertino."

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  8. Re:The Romulans called... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    My reaction to this article is "Duh!!!"

    The chinese have been conducting industrial and governmental espionage against the US for decades.

    This should have been clamped down upon a LONG time ago, if anyone cares about this type thing.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  9. Big mistake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That will be a big strategic mistake of part of the White House you should be encouraging a brain drain in China (which is one of China biggest weakness) not a brain gain in China, this will backfire spectacularly as China see their most brightest people come home to start companies and research, not to mention Canada, Europe, SK, Japan and other nations will catch them too, at the end of the day things are more than national security you also have to think about economic security and technological security too, the Soviet Union was a giant bureaucracy in steroid and the didn't end well, bureaucracy stifle business and research, U.S. open academic and research environment is one of their biggest asset that even if other nations win a little by taking advantage of the environment, the U.S. win much more.

    1. Re:Big mistake. by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      Great. Let them go elsewhere. Bye! Cya! *waves* They can steal from them instead of us. Sounds excellent. It doesn't matter if they are "brains" if they are using that brain to rip off the country that's nice enough to host them.

    2. Re:Big mistake. by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      Will Chinese researchers will produce research results that can't be replicated by others? Funny thing is, we seem to have done just fine staying ahead of the Chinese for quite some time now. Just about everything of technical value got invented elsewhere first before China, and a significant portion of modern discoveries and technical advancements of the last 200 years have happened in the USA. Like many conformist countries, they are good a copying, but not so good at inventing. Tough to argue against recent history unless you want to go back a couple thousand years when China was at the leading edge of technical innovation. So, yeah, let them go. They aren't irreplaceable.

  10. Re:The Romulans called... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    How do you know they are Romulans if they are cloaked?

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  11. Long Overdue by Ensign_Expendable · · Score: 3, Informative

    I recommend "Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI, and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit America's Universities" by Daniel Golden, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. Our friends from China have been taking cutting edge technologies from our colleges back to their country for a very long time. The CIA is in there too, but that's a horse of a different color for U.S. readers, isn't it.

    1. Re:Long Overdue by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The CIA is in there too, but that's a horse of a different color for U.S. readers, isn't it.

      Yes. Also, it should be for most people. The US is, for all it's faults, open and free. China is a totalitarian regime. It's a false equivalence to claim they approach being equal to each other.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Long Overdue by AnthonywC · · Score: 1, Interesting

      US is a much more hypocritical country and a greater threat to the rest of the world in terms of starting war, given its terrible records of warmongering. And idiots who keep shouting China is a totalitarian regime is either a troll and/or no idea how China actually operate. Its government is a meritocracy that has election from its party member. It is not really that much different than in US, instead in US you have the illusion that you vote matters, when all you are doing is just choosing one of the two chosen people (unless someone like Trump comes along, in which case all hell breaks loose and the MSM go apeshit.

    3. Re:Long Overdue by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Its government is a meritocracy that has election from its party member

      Please elaborate on how this alleged meritocracy is scored and verified.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Long Overdue by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Open and Free? Hmmmm.
      Now, we are NOT a totalitarian nation, however, you are sadly mistaken if you think that we are truly open and free.
      We are simply more so than MOST nations.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Long Overdue by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Now, we are NOT a totalitarian nation, however, you are sadly mistaken if you think that we are truly open and free. We are simply more so than MOST nations.

      Which makes us open and free. I mean, "No True Scotsman" if you like, but we both claim to be open and free and are doing a pretty good job.

      There are other societies that are also open and free.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re:Long Overdue by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Its funny that you accuse us of being the war monger.
      Lets see.
      Cold war? More Communist USSR started with their constant invasions of Europe, and Communist China of Asia. Vietnam? That was France and China, who pulled in America.
      Lebanese Civil War? UN pulled us in as peace keepers.
      Invasion of Grenada? Yeah, that would be America. Not really a war
      Invasion of Panama? Yeah, our invasion to get Noriega was ours. OTOH, not much of a war.
      Gulf war? That would be Iraq invading Kuwait and then UN going in to remove Iraq.
      Somalia Civil war? UN intervention.
      Bosnian War? UN Intervention
      Kosovo War? UN Intervention.
      Afghanistan? They attacked America. We attacked them
      Iraq War 2? Ok, this was America's fault and probably one of the most screwed up that we have done.
      Parts of Pakistan? They are harboring terrorists who keep attacking the west.
      War in Somalia? Invited by gov to go after ISIS, AQ, and Talibahn.
      Ocean Shield? Pirates were attacking boats. UN went in.
      Libya? America lead the war, but it was pushed by France and Italy. O did not want it but due to NATO, we had to do it.
      GOing after ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Yemeni, etc? UN and most gov. except for Syria. Again, UN and NATO roles
      Going after Syria's gov? They used Chemical weapons. UN and NATO intervention.

      So, what this shows is that America has actually started very FEW wars (i.e. NOT WAR MONGERING),
      but we have kept our words on being part of UN peace keeper roles along with NATO.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re: Long Overdue by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It's easy. All of those who don't agree that the proposed candidate has merit end up committing suicide with two bullets to the back of the head. The rest are more than happy to verify the merit of the candidate.

    8. Re: Long Overdue by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      The corrupt Chinese pilfering money from their own people is contributing to the shitty housing in Vancouver. There's many scams for laundering money through us that we're slowly learning about (a lot of fucking real estate people are scum, too). Canada and China have recently agreed to more cooperation to catch these fuckers. China doesn't want their money to leave, we don't want corrupt fuckers with money running our shit and fucking with our economy.

    9. Re: Long Overdue by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The same is true of most major American cities. Especially true of luxury real estate. Apparently, there are whole condo buildings/subdivisions with no one living in them, just to act as an external to China asset if some billionaire needs to flee/be audited in China.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:Long Overdue by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      So your leader is like ours: "I have the most Merit, believe me. I invented the test even, because I have so much. Beautiful test, wins awards daily. Millions come to see my merit, it's yuuuuge! #MMGA!"

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  12. Jian-Yang by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

    Are we sure that the stable genius in the Whitehouse didn't just watch an episode of Silicon Valley and think it was a documentary/news? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    1. Re: Jian-Yang by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Are we sure that the stable genius in the Whitehouse didn't just watch an episode of Silicon Valley and think it was a documentary/news? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      <voice type="laconic Asian">yes</voice>

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  13. Helping Americas enemies by mi · · Score: 1

    Democrats have a thing for giving away technology. Clinton gave away ICBM tech [...]

    Long before Clinton, there was a much "better" example illustrating your point.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re: Helping Americas enemies by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It's always hilarious to see anonymous cowards complaining about trolls.

    2. Re: Helping Americas enemies by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      "Had nothing to do..." and you speak of ignorance? That's fucking ironic.

  14. Re:The Romulans called... by sycodon · · Score: 1

    The smell?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  15. Re:The Romulans called... by jythie · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but they are cheaper to hire and you don't have to invest in public education, so there has been a massive reluctance to curtail it. That being said, DoD projects often have 'US citizen only' requirements, so I am not sure what additional restrictions they are picturing. The research lab I am in has constant problems with this, having to search out students that meet the citizenship requirement and that is not even for classified work.

  16. Re:Failed reprocity. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Not really. We just run it thru the translate apps. It's how we're scraping all the Chinese tech journals.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  17. Fear mongering by hackingbear · · Score: 2

    So if the said project is a national secret, why would anyone without clearance joint?

    If it is just regular research, then such an exchange is no different from any scientific exchanges. If it is not bounded by NDA and patents, any researcher can learn and use the knowledge however they want.

    Maybe we should ask why the US failed to materialize that invisible cloak but the Chinese can.

  18. Re:The Romulans called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You aren't seeing the whole picture. Often a DoD project is compartmentalized so as to have unclassified components which are then farmed out to universities. There is some really cool research going on (some I'm itching to talk about but...) that is approved as unclassified and ... trust me, where I work there is lots of government backed research being done by foreign (often Chinese) graduate students.

    I'm not saying you don't see the problem of having to find students with citizenship, but there is plenty of research that has been compartmentalized to avoid that issue. Not that there hasn't been a gradual tightening of the screws when it comes to compliance requirements. But it is primarily of the "fill out this voluminous paperwork" kind.

  19. Re:The Romulans called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So have the Israelis. Where do you think they got their secret nuclear program from?

  20. US had an historical leg up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In fact if you look at china it is neither has backward as you would think economically : the ruling elite there long understood that some part of capitalism made sense. The sole reason China is not #1, is because they started late at the game, at a moment most IP and technological advance was in the west and the US. Just look after 2nd world war. But in the last decade, they rose up sharply. If they continue that way they will be #1 sooner or later. And by that point, they will have far more phd and research done than the US will do, because as soon as those 1 billion people have the same education the US has, since the Chinese have the same intelligence curve than the American or European, then by numbers alone they will have as many researcher , PHD, and generate as much IP as both together. The thing is that they are on the catch up, and don't mistake that catching up with some supposed negative point of their politics. It isn't.

  21. Re:The Romulans called... by alexborges · · Score: 2

    Um. Every state – NOT country, but STATE– worth its salt is conducting industrial and governmental espionage. It is what states do. Its like, its their thing, man.

    --
    NO SIG
  22. Against that. by Jodka · · Score: 1

    Here are some reasons why I am against that:

    1. While it seems that banning Chinese citizens from participating in U.S. based high-tech research should work to restrict Chinese espionage, it would also curtail domestic research by barring brilliant Chinese scientists and engineers from working to their full potential in the U.S. It is trade-off, with no reason a priori to believe that it works to the U.S. advantage.

    2. You do not have to be Chinese to spy on the U.S.

    3. It is an expression of the same misguided impulse which resulted in Japanese internment camps during WWII; broad discrimination alleged on the basis of race and motivated by nationalism .

    4. Importing the best and the brightest from China (and the rest of the world) is a great way for the U.S. to keep ahead.

    5. Chinese Communism sucks ass. Any sensible Chinese citizen who spends time in the U.S. will realize that, as chaotic and nonsensical (see: Donald, Hillary) as is our system of Democracy, it is so much better than the Chinese dictatorial kleptocracy and their emperor-for-life. You are not going to get a lot of loyalty to China among Chinese in the U.S. because most of them hate the government of China.

    6. I would be fine with secret, heightened scrutiny and monitoring of some foreign nationals (Chinese, Russian) who work in the U.S. and who have access to secret information. But only if there is indeed a greater risk of espionage among that group than among white American-born employees who will sell out their own nation for a bribe.

       

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:Against that. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Some 5-10% of Chinese that are living in America, are spies. Now, they are not active spies, but in essence, they are looking for technology to take back to the chinese gov and sell to them for millions. Not much difference than some of the Spies/Traitors, like Hansen , and quite probably Trump that sold to the Russians.
      And yes, I HAVE dealt with 2 Chinese spies already.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re: Against that. by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      #5. You're not even trying to think. The top spies are going to be super loyal Kool-aid drinkers who grew up with communist propaganda. They'll come to America already despising it. They likely have to act like they love America.

    3. Re:Against that. by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      The same source Windy gets all his numbers from, his arse.

  23. about damn time by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, there are far far too many spies here, with most being Chinese, not Russian.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  24. Re:The Romulans called... by MattskEE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When we allow foreign students to attend our universities we also get a lot of the cream of the crop from these countries who end up staying here and getting highly productive jobs or start companies. Lots of PhD students in US universities are internationals, and a lot of them stay. Staying after their PhD is also not guaranteed - they need to demonstrate a certain level of productivity as a researcher and get sufficient letters of recommendation.

    Sure, some of them will go back to their home countries having learned something. But before that happened we skimmed a lot of top talent from those other countries. Even if they go back to their home country that's not necessarily bad for the US. It's part of the US's "soft power", which Trump seems determined to make us weak in.

  25. Re:The Romulans called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes but they contribute back. There are a number of US companies who have bought Israeli companies for their advances. Do you think China will share their cloak with us? LOL

    Yes this was a long time coming but America, publicly, refused to acknowledge what our true relationship is with China, Russia, Pakistan, etc.

    As long as profits rolling in from today's deals, the government can be bought to make whatever policy business needs. We don't have a long term view here (citation: EPA recently) but China does. If we don't get our act together our grandchildren will be speaking Chinese.

  26. Export Control by Artagel · · Score: 1

    Look, we have had restrictions for a long time. Export controls on technology are not widely known about or enforced. Most importantly, a foreign national within the U.S. learning the information is a regulated export: this is the "deemed export" rule. Making it about China is just noise. It isn't like North Korea or Iran are loved either.

  27. Re: Failed reprocity. by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    Because it hurts my ears. It's noise. I can probably block Italian (so long as not shouting) fairly easy, but when there's a lot of Chinese spoken around me, I just want to tell them to fuck off. Also, languages that sound like you're hawking a loogey are annoying as fuck, too.

  28. Holy crap by GLowder · · Score: 1

    Imagine not starting the semester by hearing âoeWerrcome to correredge arrgerbraâ.

    --
    I used to have a good sig...
  29. Re:why innovate when you can just steal by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    Not just them, Steve Jobs was quoted as saying he stole other companies' ideas.

  30. Re:The Romulans called... by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 1

    This happened in 2008, so that would actually have been under Bush Jr. But don't let that ruin your partisan rant.

  31. Re:Failed reprocity. by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

    I hope you're not using google to translate numbers from Chinese. You will be in for a big surprise.

  32. Re:The Romulans called... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

    According to the current handbook of proper procedure, it is racist to stop Chinese spies from stealing technology, information, and military secrets from the US. You can't have some white guys telling anyone of color what to do, especially if they are from a country that is an enemy of the US. That would prove the racism which means that avenue of legitimate self protection is now completely off limits and anyone who supports it, or even dog whistles something that sounds remotely like it while hiding in their bathroom cupboard, is a fascist, racist, xenophobe.

    Just like it is racist to have a border system that takes note of all people and goods crossing into and out of the country. We should have a new amendment: The right and ability of non-whites from other countries to enter the US without observation or restriction and to live within its borders indefinitely without supervision shall not be infringed, otherwise you will be called a racist. Illegal goods, including but not limited to: illicit drugs, child sex slaves, explosives (conventional or not), and weapons sold at a discount to drug cartels, should also pass without interruption, attempts at detection, or interdiction.

    Just like it is also racist to temporarily stop immigration from countries without functioning central governments and where the identities of the immigrants cannot be verified. Vetting of any kind for someone without reliable, or even any, credentials, is just more racist bullshit.

    Just like it is racist to deport children and their parents from other countries who com here specifically to gain citizenship by birthing babies within our borders.

    Let's face it, according to the current handbook, the continued existence of the US as a sovereign state is an international declaration of racism. The state must be forced to act against the well being, safety, best interests, and self determination not only of the people, but of the state itself. Otherwise it will suffer the most atrocious, debased, and despicable punishment any nation has ever endured: being called racist by hypocrites.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.