Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded(justice.gov)
justice.gov
Federal Charges Against Stanford University Researcher Expanded
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-charges-against-stanford-university-researcher-expanded
96 comments
The FBI probably had a copy of the drive prior to her ever realizing she was under investigation. They have some pretty advanced physical access methods, even having cans of spray able dust to ensure nothing looks disturbed.
After reading these charges it sounds like less of a spy situation and more of an unfortunate past she was knew would conflict with her current goal of getting the F out of China. I'm pretty skeptical because like most cases involving state security, this one involves a desperate rube and a grandiose story that'll bolster some agents' careers. Maybe she didn't think her service was that relevant to working in neurology, but destroying a hard drive would make it seem like she was really a spy? Like she'd rather everyone forget about it because it never should have been of concern to begin with. I have neglected to check the, "Have you ever been charged with a crime?" box on job applications and if for some reason my mug shots were hanging about my workstation I'd throw them in the trash. Maybe I can or can't relate but I see why someone would go to some effort to keep something like that from coming to light without committing to the foregone conclusion implied by the charges. To be honest this story seems barely newsworthy, I have known a lot of grad students who lie on their Visa documents. But in this day and age people want to read news about Chinese spies being deported, so god help her that's what the news is going to report.
Follow up question, as someone who knows even less about forensics, what kind of traces stay on a hard drive if you just delete a file?
The file is still there. A regular delete just tells the disk that the segments of memory are available to be overwritten. Zeroing out (or /dev/urandom) the memory is an option, but even that is not 100% safe, especially when it comes to forensic labs with the ability to read and analyze platters removed from a complete, sealed disk. Really safe deleters will overwrite the segments of memory multiple times to scramble magnetic signatures
> but even that is not 100% safe, especially when it comes to forensic labs with the ability to read and analyze platters removed from a complete, sealed disk.
No, this is completely impossible and noone has ever done it. (An exception would be HDDs with bad block mapping because they might not actually erase some sector.)
SSDs don't even have platters and you could probably recover things from the flash, but you can avoid this with disk encryption by simply losing the keys.
> Really safe deleters will overwrite the segments of memory multiple times to scramble magnetic signatures
Deletion programs do this because it looks cool. It's not necessary - literally noone has ever recovered anything from a zeroed out HD sector.
No, this is completely impossible and noone has ever done it. (An exception would be HDDs with bad block mapping because they might not actually erase some sector.)
SSDs don't even have platters and you could probably recover things from the flash, but you can avoid this with disk encryption by simply losing the keys.
> Really safe deleters will overwrite the segments of memory multiple times to scramble magnetic signatures
Deletion programs do this because it looks cool. It's not necessary - literally noone has ever recovered anything from a zeroed out HD sector.
>Deletion programs do this because it looks cool. It's not necessary - literally noone has ever recovered anything from a zeroed out HD sector.
anything of value
From what I recall, with an electron microscope you can detect polarity around the edges of bits for certain magnetic storage devices and I recall seeing a paper where this was stepped through a several bits were recovered with fairly good success rates. This is part of the reason behind the old rationale of overwriting multiple passes.
With that said, given current data density for anything useful, reassembling anything remotely useful from such an approach would be nearly impossible and take a huge amount of time.
With NAND based storage, none of this applies or at least has entirely different context to consider.
Edit, was curious, here's a reference you could follow to the actual paper for empirical backup: https://www.sans.org/blog/overwriting-hard-drive-data/
anything of value
From what I recall, with an electron microscope you can detect polarity around the edges of bits for certain magnetic storage devices and I recall seeing a paper where this was stepped through a several bits were recovered with fairly good success rates. This is part of the reason behind the old rationale of overwriting multiple passes.
With that said, given current data density for anything useful, reassembling anything remotely useful from such an approach would be nearly impossible and take a huge amount of time.
With NAND based storage, none of this applies or at least has entirely different context to consider.
Edit, was curious, here's a reference you could follow to the actual paper for empirical backup: https://www.sans.org/blog/overwriting-hard-drive-data/
>No, this is completely impossible and noone has ever done it.
Pedantic devil's advocate - nobody has claimed to do it. When dealing with international espionage and possibly the DoD or DHS examining the drive, I wouldn't bet on that assumption.
Pedantic devil's advocate - nobody has claimed to do it. When dealing with international espionage and possibly the DoD or DHS examining the drive, I wouldn't bet on that assumption.
We do know that stuff too, there were HD firmware implants and such in the Snowden leaks and there wasn't anything about recovering things from a zeroed hard drive.
I believe the government outsources to the same data recovery firms as everyone else; they can get things off drives with dead electronics or platters that haven't actually been erased, but that's it.
I believe the government outsources to the same data recovery firms as everyone else; they can get things off drives with dead electronics or platters that haven't actually been erased, but that's it.
[deleted]
Once, I recovered 600MB of my /dev/null file from my zeroed out HD! It's like it was never deleted.
The world has moved on.
You can’t transplant a platter into another reader, the old days of Guttman method don’t really apply anymore, density is so high that outside of research settings it’s just not practical.
That said I still put a drill through mine before disposing of them, because close to zero isn’t zero.
You can’t transplant a platter into another reader, the old days of Guttman method don’t really apply anymore, density is so high that outside of research settings it’s just not practical.
That said I still put a drill through mine before disposing of them, because close to zero isn’t zero.
The reality though is we have no idea what's possible here: we just know what's not commercially viable to offer as a service.
HDD recovery research is almost certainly a well-funded area of intelligence services, so I imagine their are a few electron microscopes and STMs which can do it.
There's certainly no military data destruction guide which doesn't start with "shred the platter to this grain size".
HDD recovery research is almost certainly a well-funded area of intelligence services, so I imagine their are a few electron microscopes and STMs which can do it.
There's certainly no military data destruction guide which doesn't start with "shred the platter to this grain size".
>You can’t transplant a platter into another reader
Then why do I get tons of results on YouTube of people doing exactly that, when searching for “HDD transplant”?
Then why do I get tons of results on YouTube of people doing exactly that, when searching for “HDD transplant”?
I typed it into YouTube and every result (of the first dozen or so) is years old, including the most recent video citing an example where it's impossible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bml8ovt4nfI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bml8ovt4nfI
From 2020 (it's about drive savers):
https://youtu.be/v0QkafslnrM
https://drivesaversdatarecovery.com/data-recovery-services/d...
https://youtu.be/v0QkafslnrM
https://drivesaversdatarecovery.com/data-recovery-services/d...
I wonder if they can recover the HD the other video says is impossible.
If you actually watched the video that you've linked, you'll see that the platters in the drive has shattered. That's completely different from your initial claim of "You can’t transplant a (unshattered] platter into another reader"
...in that case, can't you just shatter an HD platter to make it unrecoverable? If the goal is to prevent discovery, that seems pretty trivial.
It's really unclear to me whether or not HDs are recoverable from the comments I'm seeing, and honestly I don't care that much so I'm going to stop commenting.
It's really unclear to me whether or not HDs are recoverable from the comments I'm seeing, and honestly I don't care that much so I'm going to stop commenting.
> ...in that case, can't you just shatter an HD platter to make it unrecoverable? If the goal is to prevent discovery, that seems pretty trivial.
...only if the platters are glass. Many (most?) are made of metal.
>It's really unclear to me whether or not HDs are recoverable from the comments I'm seeing, and honestly I don't care that much so I'm going to stop commenting.
The same video also mentions him being able to salvage a hard drive that was in a multi-vehicle accident, because the platters haven't been shattered.
...only if the platters are glass. Many (most?) are made of metal.
>It's really unclear to me whether or not HDs are recoverable from the comments I'm seeing, and honestly I don't care that much so I'm going to stop commenting.
The same video also mentions him being able to salvage a hard drive that was in a multi-vehicle accident, because the platters haven't been shattered.
Well there you go. Buy an HD with a glass platter, shatter it, and now nobody can recover your data. Security secured.
I was thinking of this from the forensics standpoint initially of erasing data from an HD (however many comments up it was about hiding data). I don't really care about the particulars of the method. If there's an easy way to store data and secure it, it sounds like it's impossible for that data to be recovered.
I was thinking of this from the forensics standpoint initially of erasing data from an HD (however many comments up it was about hiding data). I don't really care about the particulars of the method. If there's an easy way to store data and secure it, it sounds like it's impossible for that data to be recovered.
It really hasn't, though. There are tons of data recovery services which will, for a fee, recover data from damaged hard drives. The process for recovering data forensically can be quite similar, depending on what the person did to "delete" it.
https://www.ontrack.com/en-us/data-recovery/hard-drive
https://www.gillware.com/hard-drive-data-recovery/scratched-...
https://www.ontrack.com/en-us/data-recovery/hard-drive
https://www.gillware.com/hard-drive-data-recovery/scratched-...
A drill is pointless because it only damages a tiny part of the platter. That might deter commercial recovery companies, but probably not the feds (depending on how big of a target you have on your back).
Not when it shatters the glass/ceramic platters and shards fall out (which is nearly every drive I've put a drill through for the last while).
Note: I do overwrite the drives (DBAN) then drill them and these are going to recycling anyway - it's quantifying the risk - I drill the drives because they usually have had customer or client data on them at some point so it's just good practice.
Note: I do overwrite the drives (DBAN) then drill them and these are going to recycling anyway - it's quantifying the risk - I drill the drives because they usually have had customer or client data on them at some point so it's just good practice.
I’ve done this a few months ago on a 6TB drive.
You remove the cover, unscrew the platter, use sticky tape on the sides of the platters to remove them and place them in the donor drive...
With an identical drive you don’t even need to worry about anything else the data will be there as nothing has happened.
The “new” drive just worked it still does...
Unless the plates are completely shattered you can recover the data.
And I can guarantee you that the FBI has a data recovery lab that is much better than what I can do at home.
You remove the cover, unscrew the platter, use sticky tape on the sides of the platters to remove them and place them in the donor drive...
With an identical drive you don’t even need to worry about anything else the data will be there as nothing has happened.
The “new” drive just worked it still does...
Unless the plates are completely shattered you can recover the data.
And I can guarantee you that the FBI has a data recovery lab that is much better than what I can do at home.
They probably copied the drive way before she ever realized she was under surveillance.
On most file systems, just deleting a file simply deletes the link between the filename and the data on disk, the actual data remains fully intact until the blocks are overwritten by new data. It's trivial to recover recently deleted files, and often not much more effort to recover less recently deleted files. It only becomes a challenge if the data has been long deleted or was intentionally overwritten before deletion (or the disk wiped using random data), in some cases becoming effectively impossible to recover.
A lot.
You need to write a drive with zeros(minimum)/random data(preferably) at least once to make forensic recovery difficult. I know all about the "5 times" rule, but I've never heard of anyone recovering a drive after even a single overwrite.
Personally, I just hammer a screwdriver through the platter. It generally converts it into glass shards--the drive sounds like a maraca afterward.
Flash, of course, is different. I suspect that writing zeros/random once is probably enough. However, I tend to just use diagonal cutters and slice through the chips.
If someone wants to reconstruct my drive after I've physically destroyed it, they've probably got enough money to just fabricate the evidence against me anyway.
You need to write a drive with zeros(minimum)/random data(preferably) at least once to make forensic recovery difficult. I know all about the "5 times" rule, but I've never heard of anyone recovering a drive after even a single overwrite.
Personally, I just hammer a screwdriver through the platter. It generally converts it into glass shards--the drive sounds like a maraca afterward.
Flash, of course, is different. I suspect that writing zeros/random once is probably enough. However, I tend to just use diagonal cutters and slice through the chips.
If someone wants to reconstruct my drive after I've physically destroyed it, they've probably got enough money to just fabricate the evidence against me anyway.
I have a few HDs with bullet holes in them, and the platters are still intact. I've messed around with a lot of drives and never shattered a disk like glass. I've heard that there's labs that specialize in reading disks without even needing to spin them, but information seems to be tightly guarded about the processes.
[deleted]
The platters I've seen are aluminum alloy.
> Flash, of course, is different. I suspect that writing zeros/random once is probably enough.
SSDs won't necessarily actually erase a block when you tell them to, due to wear-leveling and weird internal RAID setups they could be doing anything in there.
SSDs won't necessarily actually erase a block when you tell them to, due to wear-leveling and weird internal RAID setups they could be doing anything in there.
Generally when you just delete a file, its contents are marked as "unused", but not actually erased. This is why deleting a large file takes the same time as deleting a small file. Then, whenever a new file is created, it might be put (partially) on top of the old file, overwriting the old contents for good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_remanence
That link has a bit more, but the main issue is what the others wrote. Deleting a file from your disk may not actually delete it. It can leave an entry in the file system that marks it as deleted (for undeletion later) or it may just remove the entry, in which case the data is still on the disk and recoverable.
That link has a bit more, but the main issue is what the others wrote. Deleting a file from your disk may not actually delete it. It can leave an entry in the file system that marks it as deleted (for undeletion later) or it may just remove the entry, in which case the data is still on the disk and recoverable.
the whole file is still there until it gets overwritten by new data
What exactly do they have on the lady, except that she is an officer in the PLA? OK, she's wearing uniform and is employed at a military hospital, but members of the US Medical Corps are officers at military hospitals. It's easy to understand why a physician might wish to work in brain disease. What secrets were exfiltrated?
From the article:
"Members of the Chinese People's Liberation Army cannot lie on their visa applications and come to the United States to study without expecting the FBI and our partners to catch them." said Assistant Director Alan E. Kohler Jr. of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. "Time and again, the Chinese government prioritizes stealing U.S. research and taking advantage of our universities over obeying international norms."
It doesn't matter if she was unsuccessful at exfiltrating secrets. What matters is that, apparently, she's an agent of a foreign government who lied about said affiliation on her application for a visa.
"Members of the Chinese People's Liberation Army cannot lie on their visa applications and come to the United States to study without expecting the FBI and our partners to catch them." said Assistant Director Alan E. Kohler Jr. of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. "Time and again, the Chinese government prioritizes stealing U.S. research and taking advantage of our universities over obeying international norms."
It doesn't matter if she was unsuccessful at exfiltrating secrets. What matters is that, apparently, she's an agent of a foreign government who lied about said affiliation on her application for a visa.
This is what foreign nationals are prosecuted for when it comes to espionage - failure to declare yourself as a foreign agent.
Most espionage laws are only directly applicable to citizens of the state in question.
Most espionage laws are only directly applicable to citizens of the state in question.
I’m not sure what else, but this alone would prove she lied on her Visa application and lied to authorities in an interview. From the article:
If convicted, she faces a maximum statutory penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for the visa fraud count; up to 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each of the obstruction and alteration charges; and up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for the false statements charge.
If convicted, she faces a maximum statutory penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for the visa fraud count; up to 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each of the obstruction and alteration charges; and up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for the false statements charge.
The point is: why bother prosecuting that crap when patently no state secrets are involved? Why not simply revoke the visa, deport the person and ban her from re-entry? Do they want to create uncertainty for people who have served in the PLA or generally discourage Chinese researchers from working in the US? The purpose of the exercise is wholly unclear! What is the Department of State up to?
They want to discourage people from doing the things with which she is charged; lying on visa applications, obstructing justice, and making false statements. Those all seem like good goals to me?
It seems like a misdirection of resources to me, like the cops catching speeders on open roads. Instead of investigating and preventing crime they stop someone who is above the speed limit, talk to them really condescendingly and issue a fine. That stuff does wonders for the perception of law enforcement but lines the city's coffers.
> What is the Department of State up to?
Is not enforcing existing law one of their functions?
Is not enforcing existing law one of their functions?
It doesn't matter whether the questions are important to you, they are important to the Federal agencies that hold in their hand life changing stuff: whether you are allowed to live in the US, whether your grant gets funded, whether you get employment at a US funded research department. These are high stakes disclosures to obtain much sought after benefits. Omit something that would instantly disqualify you from said benefits and expect to have a house fall on you that is the same order of magnitude as the benefits obtained.
Now what is the value of a given career, US residency, Stanford employment, or Federal grant? At least hundreds of thousands of dollars - easily in the millions.
That is the scale of fraud being committed here, as none of these would have been an option for her if the PLA ties were disclosed. She would not be at Stanford, nor even in the US, nor in her current employment if her status were known.
Now you may disagree with the policy of not giving Federal dollars to PLA members or not hiring them in US research departments, but just because you disagree with the policy doesn't make the stakes any lower.
Now what is the value of a given career, US residency, Stanford employment, or Federal grant? At least hundreds of thousands of dollars - easily in the millions.
That is the scale of fraud being committed here, as none of these would have been an option for her if the PLA ties were disclosed. She would not be at Stanford, nor even in the US, nor in her current employment if her status were known.
Now you may disagree with the policy of not giving Federal dollars to PLA members or not hiring them in US research departments, but just because you disagree with the policy doesn't make the stakes any lower.
Use a throwaway account. I graduated from a top university in China and then came to US to get my PhD and now work in bay area.
-Why people like Song would lie / conceal their identity to come to US?
Lot of Chinese people, esp among these with colleague education, and not brain-washed by government, actually think very high of US and their education system. It's not surprise a few of them would lie to get Visa. There are many online forum providing tips on how to "pass" Visa interviews.
BTW, inside China mainland, not speaking truth to government officials is not a big deal in the eye of many Chinese. In fact, being 100% truth with government officials is rare. Unfortunately, US visa officials sometimes are treated the same way as to Chinese government officials.
-Does Song have any concealed goal in US?
I do not think so. It's laughable to think Song trying to "steal" US research. Basic science research is all open. You can read Science / Nature / Cell / ... journals to know the latest research. And you can ask the authors on how to perform the experiments to reproduce their published results.
The goal of Song is almost surely personal: to get something good on her resume so she can have better career.
-Why people like Song would lie / conceal their identity to come to US?
Lot of Chinese people, esp among these with colleague education, and not brain-washed by government, actually think very high of US and their education system. It's not surprise a few of them would lie to get Visa. There are many online forum providing tips on how to "pass" Visa interviews.
BTW, inside China mainland, not speaking truth to government officials is not a big deal in the eye of many Chinese. In fact, being 100% truth with government officials is rare. Unfortunately, US visa officials sometimes are treated the same way as to Chinese government officials.
-Does Song have any concealed goal in US?
I do not think so. It's laughable to think Song trying to "steal" US research. Basic science research is all open. You can read Science / Nature / Cell / ... journals to know the latest research. And you can ask the authors on how to perform the experiments to reproduce their published results.
The goal of Song is almost surely personal: to get something good on her resume so she can have better career.
> "This prosecution will help to protect elite institutions like Stanford from illicit foreign influences."
...how?
I assume everyone was aware that if she said something, it was being said by her. Where does the illicit foreign influence come in?
Suppose her cover story had been completely accurate -- instead of being a member of the PLA, she was someone who had "only" served in the PLA for 11 years. That person had no problem getting a visa. Is there a difference in her expected influence on Stanford?
> "Time and again, the Chinese government prioritizes stealing U.S. research and taking advantage of our universities over obeying international norms."
Ok, but that would clearly be happening with civilian researchers too. Also, we publish our research on purpose. You can't steal public information. Was she admitted to a classified research program as a presumably-reformed 11-year veteran of the PLA?
Why isn't there an indictment for espionage, or theft of private information, or anything similar to these complaints? What exactly is Stanford being protected from?
...how?
I assume everyone was aware that if she said something, it was being said by her. Where does the illicit foreign influence come in?
Suppose her cover story had been completely accurate -- instead of being a member of the PLA, she was someone who had "only" served in the PLA for 11 years. That person had no problem getting a visa. Is there a difference in her expected influence on Stanford?
> "Time and again, the Chinese government prioritizes stealing U.S. research and taking advantage of our universities over obeying international norms."
Ok, but that would clearly be happening with civilian researchers too. Also, we publish our research on purpose. You can't steal public information. Was she admitted to a classified research program as a presumably-reformed 11-year veteran of the PLA?
Why isn't there an indictment for espionage, or theft of private information, or anything similar to these complaints? What exactly is Stanford being protected from?
If there was nothing nefarious going on, why did she attempt to conceal her identity?
What nefarious goal could there be for this medical research?
Are we at the point of zero-sum where a successful treatment in China is a loss for us?
Sure, deport her if she lied, but I'd stop way short of 'nefarious' myself.
Are we at the point of zero-sum where a successful treatment in China is a loss for us?
Sure, deport her if she lied, but I'd stop way short of 'nefarious' myself.
That doesn’t answer the question of why she attempted to conceal her identity.
There’s also the question of why the PLA would bother to assign an active duty soldier, with instructions to break US law, if there wasn’t some purpose which the US government would consider nefarious. If this is just harmless scientific collaboration, then why is the military involved?
There’s also the question of why the PLA would bother to assign an active duty soldier, with instructions to break US law, if there wasn’t some purpose which the US government would consider nefarious. If this is just harmless scientific collaboration, then why is the military involved?
> There’s also the question of why the PLA would bother to assign an active duty soldier
This is a real reach; her non-fictitious employer was the Air Force General Hospital. Being employed by the military doesn't make you a soldier.
This is a real reach; her non-fictitious employer was the Air Force General Hospital. Being employed by the military doesn't make you a soldier.
That's splitting hairs a little, unless she's legitimately a civilian. A military doctor could be referred to as a 'soldier', it's inaccurate but not wrong.
My beef with the outrage on this is that she was studying 'treating brain disease' according to the justice department. This isn't a national security secret, and the occam's razor answer is she fudged the forms because she wanted to do the study sabbatical.
My beef with the outrage on this is that she was studying 'treating brain disease' according to the justice department. This isn't a national security secret, and the occam's razor answer is she fudged the forms because she wanted to do the study sabbatical.
If you think the category 'soldier' includes military doctors, the question "why would the military bother to assign an active duty soldier to a medical research project" makes absolutely no sense.
Yeah, I think we agree on the shape of what happened here.
It's the new cold war, everything must be propagandized.
It's the new cold war, everything must be propagandized.
Thank you for answering my question instead of grandstanding. I had missed that crucial piece of information.
I wasn't trying to grandstand, sorry if it sounded like it, and cheers. Really respect this post.
Honestly I do it too. We get conditioned to assume every disagreement or question is in bad faith, because most of the time it is... Then we pounce and it becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy. In this case I didn’t read the original material carefully enough and made a fool of myself, so can’t blame anyone for assuming I was asking in bad faith.
By the way I agree with you that this topic is over-propagandized, by both sides. It makes it extra difficult to have good faith debates over it.
By the way I agree with you that this topic is over-propagandized, by both sides. It makes it extra difficult to have good faith debates over it.
For every one of these cases, there are likely tons more that have gone undetected. Our open institutions don't work in a world filled with rich nation states with bad intentions and a populace and politicians totally misinformed about the current threat and/or unwilling to do anything about it. China has bested the US and we should at least be honest about it.
> Our open institutions don't work in a world filled with rich nation states with bad intentions
How does that sentiment apply here? Suppose the maximum possible malice on the part of the CCP, the PLA, and Song Chen. What could they have accomplished by getting a neurologist into a research project?
How does that sentiment apply here? Suppose the maximum possible malice on the part of the CCP, the PLA, and Song Chen. What could they have accomplished by getting a neurologist into a research project?
Stealing IP that rightfully belonged to Stanford, starting their own institute in China based on it and then owning the entire field?
The concept of "stealing IP that rightfully belonged to Stanford" does not obviously apply to a research university. There is no way for Stanford to claim ownership of research IP without publishing that IP. If the CCP wants to steal it, they can read Stanford's papers.
Then, on a more fundamental level, the more people who know how to do neurology research, the better. There's no way for the world to be made worse through too much neurology research. The more they do in China, the less everyone else needs to do everywhere else.
But the even more important problem with your scenario is that it is completely unaffected by whether, at the time she's studying at Stanford, Song Chen is also on the PLA payroll. Learning Stanford's research methods and then moving on with their lives is the entire point of anyone joining a research project at Stanford. If she hadn't been formally employed by the PLA, she would have been not just entitled, but expected to do everything you just described. And it was fine in that hypothetical case. She got a permit specifically allowing her to do it. So why isn't it fine here?
Then, on a more fundamental level, the more people who know how to do neurology research, the better. There's no way for the world to be made worse through too much neurology research. The more they do in China, the less everyone else needs to do everywhere else.
But the even more important problem with your scenario is that it is completely unaffected by whether, at the time she's studying at Stanford, Song Chen is also on the PLA payroll. Learning Stanford's research methods and then moving on with their lives is the entire point of anyone joining a research project at Stanford. If she hadn't been formally employed by the PLA, she would have been not just entitled, but expected to do everything you just described. And it was fine in that hypothetical case. She got a permit specifically allowing her to do it. So why isn't it fine here?
There is no way for Stanford to claim ownership of research IP without publishing that IP.
Have you heard of research getting scooped? Take research that isn’t complete, publish/patent first and now it’s yours. Now China can claim IP ownership so Stanford can’t use it.
So no, there is no benefit to research being freely disseminated especially to authoritarian countries that are politically opposed to the West.
And no, the point of the program is not to help transfer Stanford tech to China. It’s to train scientists who can hopefully independently develop their own science.
Have you heard of research getting scooped? Take research that isn’t complete, publish/patent first and now it’s yours. Now China can claim IP ownership so Stanford can’t use it.
So no, there is no benefit to research being freely disseminated especially to authoritarian countries that are politically opposed to the West.
And no, the point of the program is not to help transfer Stanford tech to China. It’s to train scientists who can hopefully independently develop their own science.
> Now China can claim IP ownership so Stanford can’t use it.
Hmm? How would that work? Please provide an example of what you have in mind.
Research getting scooped is about fighting over who gets official credit for the discovery.
Hmm? How would that work? Please provide an example of what you have in mind.
Research getting scooped is about fighting over who gets official credit for the discovery.
The US, and most countries have moved to a first to file patent system. Whoever files first owns the IP. The Chinese could further develop the research than patent it in the US.
If they don’t patent it, they could publish it ahead of Stanford and get credit for the discovery. It happens all the time even ignoring China’s growing presence.
Scooping research can be either publishing or patenting.
If they don’t patent it, they could publish it ahead of Stanford and get credit for the discovery. It happens all the time even ignoring China’s growing presence.
Scooping research can be either publishing or patenting.
Haha, their spies are undone by their bureaucrats. Amazing.
I have to admit, I wonder why she needs to submit documentation to the consulate specifying that Beijing Xi Diaoyutai Hospital is a front for PLA-employed doctors. Shouldn't they know?
Considering I've definitely been part of businesses which self information about some company back to them, I wouldn't be surprised if they just didn't.
Well, there are several scenarios:
- The consulate has no need for the information about an expat's employer, and never reads it.
- The consulate checks up on the employer information for some reason best known to them. Maybe they call the employer and ask "does this person work for you?" Or maybe they look up the employer in some kind of database. Or maybe they already know the employer and automatically recognize the name.
But there's no case where the expat needs to submit secondary documentation saying how her official employment is a false front. No matter what happens, that information should be delivered to the consulate, if they need it, by some other means. They could answer the phone at Beijing Xi Diaoyutai and say "yes, she works here". Or they could have a special diplomatic database entry. Or the consulate staff might deal with them all the time and recognize the Beijing Xi Diaoyutai name. What purpose is served by sending the information through the expat?
- The consulate has no need for the information about an expat's employer, and never reads it.
- The consulate checks up on the employer information for some reason best known to them. Maybe they call the employer and ask "does this person work for you?" Or maybe they look up the employer in some kind of database. Or maybe they already know the employer and automatically recognize the name.
But there's no case where the expat needs to submit secondary documentation saying how her official employment is a false front. No matter what happens, that information should be delivered to the consulate, if they need it, by some other means. They could answer the phone at Beijing Xi Diaoyutai and say "yes, she works here". Or they could have a special diplomatic database entry. Or the consulate staff might deal with them all the time and recognize the Beijing Xi Diaoyutai name. What purpose is served by sending the information through the expat?
Maybe there's no channel. Incompetent bureaucracies are usually like that. There is simply no way for someone in arm A to talk to arm B.
Maybe you haven't worked in a place like this, but I lived in one for a while. It would be completely normal for someone at the government office to claim that the bank-supplied identification you brought with you isn't real, both of them owned wholly by the state with the bank ID being intended for the purpose you're using it for.
Will they do the simple thing of calling the bank? No. They will just say you're SOL. "But I am a Very Important Person with Very Important Things". Yeah yeah, everyone is, we hear that all the time. Bring back a real bank ID next time, you faker. Next in line!
So then you go back to the highest authority you know, get a letter from them, and you walk it up there to the guy, who instantly panics and delivers on what he was supposed to do.
If you don't know what these bureaucracies are like, you are blessed.
Maybe you haven't worked in a place like this, but I lived in one for a while. It would be completely normal for someone at the government office to claim that the bank-supplied identification you brought with you isn't real, both of them owned wholly by the state with the bank ID being intended for the purpose you're using it for.
Will they do the simple thing of calling the bank? No. They will just say you're SOL. "But I am a Very Important Person with Very Important Things". Yeah yeah, everyone is, we hear that all the time. Bring back a real bank ID next time, you faker. Next in line!
So then you go back to the highest authority you know, get a letter from them, and you walk it up there to the guy, who instantly panics and delivers on what he was supposed to do.
If you don't know what these bureaucracies are like, you are blessed.
Bureaucracy. Recently I had to submit some document to the Korean court, and they demanded an official document certifying that I'm residing in the US (and hence cannot present myself in person), so I had to go to the consulate's office, fill out a form asking the government to verify that I'm in the US, wait a few days until the form is mailed to my house, and then go to USPS to send it back to the Korean court.
And this is just regular run-of-the-mill yes-I'm-really-here documentation with nothing like secret front hospitals.
And this is just regular run-of-the-mill yes-I'm-really-here documentation with nothing like secret front hospitals.
> And this is just regular run-of-the-mill yes-I'm-really-here documentation with nothing like secret front hospitals.
This would tend to suggest that it's less important for them to have the ability to handle it, not more.
This would tend to suggest that it's less important for them to have the ability to handle it, not more.
Grand Jury Adds Obstruction, Alteration of Records, and False Statements to Visa Fraud Charges Against Visiting Researcher Alleged to Be Member of China’s People’s Liberation Army
How widespread are cases like this? I'm not an expert on this topic but from reading this it feels like such an investigation is expensive and time consuming. I imagine for every person identified there must be many more whose secret affiliations with the foreign powers won't be uncovered.
On the other hand, I also wonder how easy it is to connect her, ways of doing things, contacting other people, to other secret entities. And they can even watch anyone who was spooked after the news and anyone who went silent. Because detection works both ways.
I recently read somewhere that secret angencies likely watch suspects and see when they turn off their phones or when they turn them back on for example when they have a meeting. This is a good way to narrow in on other people connected to the suspect by watching their patterns.
I recently read somewhere that secret angencies likely watch suspects and see when they turn off their phones or when they turn them back on for example when they have a meeting. This is a good way to narrow in on other people connected to the suspect by watching their patterns.
Are there likely to be many more researchers in the US who's purpose was similar?
I wonder if other industrial-revolution monopolies in history also led to corporate-disobedience - akin to civil disobedience - where employees intentionally break rules considered unethical.
How much of the work done by researchers like her is actually secret? I am under the impression that most everything gets published in open papers. Or is it common to withhold key information from what is published?
Seems a bit racist. Israel/Finland/Germany all have universal conscription so they don't get harassed like the Chinese.
As I understand it, the issue is the false claims in the visa application more than the military service. If they'd known she was an (apparently) active member of the Chinese military, she wouldn't have gotten the visa in the first place. In her visa application she admitted to prior military service and still received the visa so military service itself is not a fundamental blocker for Chinese visa applicants.
This is one reason why US visa application forms include a question which basically asks "Are you a spy?". Which might seem silly because obviously a real spy would never answer yes. But the real point of the question is that if the government finds later that someone lied on the form it becomes easier to charge them with a crime or deport them.
Edit: some of you take comments way too literally so for your benefit here is the exact question on form DS-160.
"Do you seek to engage in espionage, sabotage, export control violations, or any other illegal activity while in the United States?"
Edit: some of you take comments way too literally so for your benefit here is the exact question on form DS-160.
"Do you seek to engage in espionage, sabotage, export control violations, or any other illegal activity while in the United States?"
[deleted]
The system described sounds like a terrible idea. In order to prove someone lied on the form when they said "No" to "Are you a spy?", you have to prove they're a spy. At that point, you're free to deport them; the form is irrelevant.
No, it's not that simple. The question isn't literally "are you a spy", I'm sure it's a more relaxed version, e.g. "have you ever been employed by a foreign government" or some such. The point is to lower the barrier of proof. The government doesn't have to prove someone is an actual "spy", with the gray area that can entail, only that they lied on the form.
It's a similar idea behind the recent "Have you traded in any cryptocurrency" IRS question on tax returns. The idea is that it prevents anyone from claiming ignorance as to their responsibilities to disclose.
It's a similar idea behind the recent "Have you traded in any cryptocurrency" IRS question on tax returns. The idea is that it prevents anyone from claiming ignorance as to their responsibilities to disclose.
I'd wager there is no outright "Are you a spy?" question, but questions written that are highly likely make or break questions (Who's your current employer? Listing a foreign government as your employer on a student visa application may often be a deal breaker depending on the relationship between the countries). By giving a false answer, you've committed fraud. It doesn't even require you to be a proper spy of any sort to have motive to give a false answer.
The upfront declaration is "I have not worked for a foreign intelligence service" or something as blunt. "spy" wouldn't be used because it's too specific - a good lawyer could drive a wedge in the distinction between "spy" and "employee, not a spy".
This isn't 4D chess, it's creating a reason you can detain someone once you know what they're upto without having to blow what you know about their real activities (which might lead to too many shutting down before you want them too).
This isn't 4D chess, it's creating a reason you can detain someone once you know what they're upto without having to blow what you know about their real activities (which might lead to too many shutting down before you want them too).
> This isn't 4D chess, it's creating a reason you can detain someone once you know what they're up to without having to blow what you know about their real activities (which might lead to too many shutting down before you want them too).
This seems like a stretch. Any spy who gets detained for vague, amorphous reasons is going to assume they were detained for being a spy. Once you detain them, you have to hold on to them, and you've already revealed the fact that you suspect them. There's nobody out there going "oh look, they arrested our spy. Let's just leave everything out in the open and hope it was a coincidence."
This seems like a stretch. Any spy who gets detained for vague, amorphous reasons is going to assume they were detained for being a spy. Once you detain them, you have to hold on to them, and you've already revealed the fact that you suspect them. There's nobody out there going "oh look, they arrested our spy. Let's just leave everything out in the open and hope it was a coincidence."
Spies are still generally legal residents of the countries they spy on. You can't just pick them up via civilian authorities without due process.
Lying on official documents is an easy win which doesn't disclose technology and tactics. Its not apriori illegal to have worked for a foreign government's intelligence services - but it is to lie about it on official documents.
Lying on official documents is an easy win which doesn't disclose technology and tactics. Its not apriori illegal to have worked for a foreign government's intelligence services - but it is to lie about it on official documents.
So you're saying when the government finds out a person is a spy that in itself is no big deal and that the government then still needs to find a horrendously more sinister thing they did like... lying?! in order to charge them with something?
[deleted]
1. Fabricating of immigration documents is illegal everywhere in the world. Try doing that in Canada, that has stricter immigration laws than US.
2. There is this national security risk with China. Just the other day, there was the top article on HN about a US firm having been hacked by China over a time period of years! This is not an isolated incident either.
3. Koreans like myself won't be denied entering even though we are same Asian race. We also have the mandatory military service, and have to mention it every time to enter US.
4. Nobody in the US California and New York calls it racism when you makes it harder for us to accepted to Harvard and Stanford because same test scores as Caucasians, we get dinged on the personality. This is a clear example of an actual racism.
5. China and Korea are both countries. Not races. NOT ALL Asians are Chinese. If I may suggest thinking a bit more before claiming to be on our side :(
2. There is this national security risk with China. Just the other day, there was the top article on HN about a US firm having been hacked by China over a time period of years! This is not an isolated incident either.
3. Koreans like myself won't be denied entering even though we are same Asian race. We also have the mandatory military service, and have to mention it every time to enter US.
4. Nobody in the US California and New York calls it racism when you makes it harder for us to accepted to Harvard and Stanford because same test scores as Caucasians, we get dinged on the personality. This is a clear example of an actual racism.
5. China and Korea are both countries. Not races. NOT ALL Asians are Chinese. If I may suggest thinking a bit more before claiming to be on our side :(
The relationship between the United States and Israeli, Finnish, and German militaries is slightly different to the one with the Chinese.
Germany actually halted military service a couple of years ago. There are talks of reintroducing a more universal service but so far that has not happened.
[deleted]
- A digital version of a letter from Song, written in Chinese and addressed to the People’s Republic of China consulate in New York, in which Song explained that her stated employer, “Beijing Xi Diaoyutai Hospital” was a false front, and that because relevant approval documents were classified, she had attempted to mail them;
- An image of Song’s PLA credentials, with a photograph of her in military dress uniform, covering the time period from July 2016 to July 2020; and
- A digital version of a resume for Song, written in Chinese, again with a photograph of her in military dress uniform and listing her employer as the Air Force General Hospital.
Yikes, that sounds pretty damning. I’m not an expert in digital forensics but I wonder why she wouldn’t destroy the hard drive after. Or is that not enough?