IEEE Lifts Huawei Restrictions on Editorial and Peer Review Activities(ieee.org)
ieee.org
IEEE Lifts Huawei Restrictions on Editorial and Peer Review Activities
https://www.ieee.org/about/news/2019/statement-update-ieee-lifts-restrictions-on-editorial-and-peer-review-activities.html
34 comments
Even though the restrictions are lifted, the damage is already done. Now everyone knows that IEEE has to comply with US gov's demands, which can be made without any court ruling or due process.
>Now everyone knows that IEEE has to comply with US gov's demands, which can be made without any court ruling or due process.
What do you mean "now"? IEEE has a history of this:
>One of the world’s largest scientific societies has barred researchers in certain countries from publishing in its journals and receiving member benefits. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers says it has taken these steps against scientists in Iran and four other so-called rogue nations subject to U.S. trade sanctions to ensure that IEEE staff stay on the right side of U.S. law.
>But other scientific organizations do not discriminate against scientists from these countries, leaving some observers to accuse IEEE of playing the rogue.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9087784_IEEE_Under_...
Also:
In February 2004, during the final year of Khatami's presidency, the U.S. Department of the Treasury ruled against editing or publishing scientific manuscripts from Iran, and stated that U.S. scientists collaborating with Iranians could be prosecuted. In response, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) temporarily stopped editing manuscripts from Iranian researchers and took steps to clarify the OFAC guidelines concerning its publishing and editing activities. In April 2004 IEEE received a response from OFAC which fully resolved that no licenses were needed for publishing works from Iran and that the entire IEEE publication process including peer review and editing was exempt from restrictions. On the other hand, the American Institute of Physics (AIP), the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science, refused to comply, saying that the prohibition on publishing goes against freedom of speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions_agains...
What do you mean "now"? IEEE has a history of this:
>One of the world’s largest scientific societies has barred researchers in certain countries from publishing in its journals and receiving member benefits. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers says it has taken these steps against scientists in Iran and four other so-called rogue nations subject to U.S. trade sanctions to ensure that IEEE staff stay on the right side of U.S. law.
>But other scientific organizations do not discriminate against scientists from these countries, leaving some observers to accuse IEEE of playing the rogue.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9087784_IEEE_Under_...
Also:
In February 2004, during the final year of Khatami's presidency, the U.S. Department of the Treasury ruled against editing or publishing scientific manuscripts from Iran, and stated that U.S. scientists collaborating with Iranians could be prosecuted. In response, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) temporarily stopped editing manuscripts from Iranian researchers and took steps to clarify the OFAC guidelines concerning its publishing and editing activities. In April 2004 IEEE received a response from OFAC which fully resolved that no licenses were needed for publishing works from Iran and that the entire IEEE publication process including peer review and editing was exempt from restrictions. On the other hand, the American Institute of Physics (AIP), the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science, refused to comply, saying that the prohibition on publishing goes against freedom of speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions_agains...
The fallout from this will be, I suspect, that standards bodies will no longer be centered in the US. The historical leadership the US has in setting the trend for technology will suffer great damage. All for political ego.
Did you read article? The government said "no, we didn't mean that when we said this". IEEE overreacted.
Everyone is just asking for the government's approval without any public discourse or legal challenge. This effectively gives the government a free ticket to interfere international scientific and industrial collaboration without any legal process. It is a dangerous precedent. The real damage is not the government said yes or no in the specific case of IEEE and Huawei; it's the fact that a consequential decision could be made on a whim by an unstable president and his hawkish advisers with zero public discussion.
err that applys to any company/organization in any country. You just can’t break a countries laws and hope to get away with it.
If anything IEEE was too quick to move, but I am not their legal team.
If anything IEEE was too quick to move, but I am not their legal team.
My guess is that most of restrictions on Huawei will be rolled back within a relative short period. However the damage this has done to America's reputation will stand for a long time and will impact some major strategic decisions not only in China but also in Europe.
The extension given to Huawei is due in August 19. My bet is that Huawei will be given another 3 month extension, which will line up with November presidential elections. After the election they will reach an agreement.
Disregard my last speculation, elections are in 2020, not 2019.
US law says that an Ericsson 5G researcher from Sweden cannot have his paper reviewed by a Huawei employee, who could be the most knowledgeable expert in the sub-domain.
Justifying this kind of unjust law is like saying Google should comply with Chinese censorship request to suppress dissent opinions in Sweden.
Justifying this kind of unjust law is like saying Google should comply with Chinese censorship request to suppress dissent opinions in Sweden.
> US law says that an Ericsson 5G researcher from Sweden cannot have his paper reviewed by a Huawei employee
I think the news is that it doesn't, but also that some lawyer thought it might.
I think the news is that it doesn't, but also that some lawyer thought it might.
The IEEE is (in this role, at least) a scientific press. They should have, and assume, a strong 1st amendment protection in pursuing that goal. The fact that they didn't assume this -- and then had to subsequently reverse their policy once the lawyers weighed in -- is pretty damning to the leadership of the organization.
Any meddling by any other country would have not had the same effect.
What you are saying is that, because of the pervasiveness of US tech, all organizations having US a companies as members are at risk.
Time for the world to route around this single point of failure.
What you are saying is that, because of the pervasiveness of US tech, all organizations having US a companies as members are at risk.
Time for the world to route around this single point of failure.
>You just can’t break a countries laws and hope to get away with it.
Firstly, which law would they have been breaking if they had not blocked Huawei, given the subsequent guidance they have been given?
And secondly, which universe do you inhabit? Companies and organisations break the law and get away with it in this one with monotonous regularity.
Firstly, which law would they have been breaking if they had not blocked Huawei, given the subsequent guidance they have been given?
And secondly, which universe do you inhabit? Companies and organisations break the law and get away with it in this one with monotonous regularity.
> Firstly, which law would they have been breaking if they had not blocked Huawei, given the subsequent guidance they have been given?
Well, they seem to have reversed the restrictions; but it's not crazy for their lawyers to hold things up a bit while they figure out if what they're doing could land them in trouble. As an IEEE member, I kinda expect them to be a bit careful about breaking the law.
> And secondly, which universe do you inhabit? Companies and organisations break the law and get away with it in this one with monotonous regularity.
So you're saying that... corporations, including non-profits, should knowingly risk violating the law because... sometimes corporations get away with small fines for doing similar? I don't get it. I also don't get why you're being so hostile.
Well, they seem to have reversed the restrictions; but it's not crazy for their lawyers to hold things up a bit while they figure out if what they're doing could land them in trouble. As an IEEE member, I kinda expect them to be a bit careful about breaking the law.
> And secondly, which universe do you inhabit? Companies and organisations break the law and get away with it in this one with monotonous regularity.
So you're saying that... corporations, including non-profits, should knowingly risk violating the law because... sometimes corporations get away with small fines for doing similar? I don't get it. I also don't get why you're being so hostile.
I don't know the specofics.about the US, but other countries have legal means to take government dwxisions to court and - depending on the issue - a least force a delay on the order until the court decision has been reached. I would be surprised if the US had no such mechanism to defend against illegal or unjust executive orders.
The US does have such a mechanism. There are requirements to be eligible to start that court case and requirements a judge is supposed to examine before they delay the executive decision. I'm guessing some of those requirements weren't satisfied here.
This is with reference to illegal orders. As for unjust orders that happen to be allowed by the applicable laws, that's not a situation the courts can remedy.
This is with reference to illegal orders. As for unjust orders that happen to be allowed by the applicable laws, that's not a situation the courts can remedy.
> You just can’t break a countries laws and hope to get away with it.
As an outsider, have they? Have they actually been convicted of anything relevant in US courts?
As an outsider, have they? Have they actually been convicted of anything relevant in US courts?
I think it's reasonable for a company to react as if they are currently breaking a law even if they are unsure. I'm not saying this is what IEEE did, but in general if leadership thinks a certain activity _may_ possibly be breaking a law but they are not certain, suspending that activity is probably the right move.
Should it apply to nominally international bodies, which happen to be headquartered in a specific country, but which do not derive any specific benefits from being so headquartered, it being just an accident of history that the international membership first came together there?
It’d be like saying that the Swiss government has sway over the International Criminal Court. Seems strange.
It’d be like saying that the Swiss government has sway over the International Criminal Court. Seems strange.
>Our initial, more restrictive approach was motivated solely by our desire to protect our volunteers and our members from legal risk
In other words: They overreacted, possibly biased by those in charge.
In other words: They overreacted, possibly biased by those in charge.
I was guessing that IEEE lawyers and/or gov't officials temporarily advised IEEE to do what they did, and, later, gov't officials notified IEEE it was OK.
That this affected the IEEE in this way is a matter of concern, for an international academic/professional organization. I'd say most of us want to do good work, in good faith, for all of humanity, and are happy to collaborate around the world.
Even when there are tensions and conflicts among nations, politicians, and businesses, the rest of us can keep doing our collaborative work. Also, our mutual engagement around the world promotes diplomacy and our better selves.
That this affected the IEEE in this way is a matter of concern, for an international academic/professional organization. I'd say most of us want to do good work, in good faith, for all of humanity, and are happy to collaborate around the world.
Even when there are tensions and conflicts among nations, politicians, and businesses, the rest of us can keep doing our collaborative work. Also, our mutual engagement around the world promotes diplomacy and our better selves.
Unfortunately trade wars are as real as any other kind of war, where 'no holds barred' is the norm.
I'm still amazed how many people fell for the 'concerns of espionage' pretext. I guess most wars in history have started will equally dumb pretexts.
I'm still amazed how many people fell for the 'concerns of espionage' pretext. I guess most wars in history have started will equally dumb pretexts.
"Our initial, more restrictive approach was motivated solely by pulling something out of our goatse ass."
More seriously, I'd like to understand what legal liability they thought they were exposed to, and how they made that decision so fast, and who.
More seriously, I'd like to understand what legal liability they thought they were exposed to, and how they made that decision so fast, and who.
Good. That this at all happened should make them think about relocating to a country like Switzerland. They're supposed to be an international organisation.
Switzerland is neutral in arms only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_neutrality
Switzerland has numerous policy/economic/security/etc agreements with the EU.
Switzerland has numerous policy/economic/security/etc agreements with the EU.
I don't think that's a major issue as the EU isn't very coercive when it comes to these types of institutions. Has Switzerland ever coerced an institution into behaving the way the IEEE just did?
[deleted]
... this is all because IEEE is under US jurisdiction, not Swiss
Could you explain how hard is to move IEEE outside the US?
that really depends. It could be easy or hard depending on how things are structured.
The hard thing could be any trusts or past agreements IEEE has made that depend on US law. Like they could create a swiss organization, but could they legally move certain forms of existing funds to what techically is a seperate organization. Like really only the IEEE knows how hard it would be to do.
The hard thing could be any trusts or past agreements IEEE has made that depend on US law. Like they could create a swiss organization, but could they legally move certain forms of existing funds to what techically is a seperate organization. Like really only the IEEE knows how hard it would be to do.
The damage is done. I think the lost of trust will have considerable impact.