4 ms·

If you don't want to protect US interests and US intellectual property while you are benefitting from it maybe you should not have students. Whatever Americans

If you don't want to protect US interests and US intellectual property while you are benefitting from it maybe you should not have students. Whatever Americans want or not, they have the face the fact that most countries don't play "fair" and if they have the chance they will wipe the US as soon as possible.

hurrdurr2 7y ago
I feel like you need to read the article again, that is, if you read it in the first place. The author made many good points about why spying on foreign born students is a bad idea. One of which is that the vast majority of scientific research is published for all to see, including our "enemies".
- gingabriska 7y ago
  Then how come we hear about foreign born professors stealing secrets from universities? Are those fake news? I am genuinely curious.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    Well, it is very often not theft. If they leave to a different juristiction, then local law applies. This twitter thread from law professor Sarah Burnstien is related - https://twitter.com/design_law/status/1166326853952557059 https://twitter.com/design_law/status/1166326853952557059 Claiming continued ownership over something that is in somebody else's head after they have left your legal sphere is somewhat problematic. Also, it is rather cheeky, as the US research community has relied massively on brain drain from poor or wartorn countries for quite a while now.
    - rolph 7y ago
      depending on the field of research there are considerations, that most universities dont have to worry about for the time being. i think we could be nudging up against a born secret mentality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret I would be concerned about this concept being widened beyond nuclear energy research. as an example computer ubiquity and internet connectivity allow 4th/5th gen warfar to exist. If encryption or miniturization, or transmission media were considered subject to born secret doctrine that could make things very difficult and somewhat partisan.
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
        Legally, until someone properly tests that in court, then it is not even really law yet. Also, as a legal conceit, it doesn't continue to apply to people after they emigrate from the US. I feel also, that you can't really go around telling people that they are banned from emigrating due to what they know, unless you also have a labyrinth containing a minotaur, fed with captured foreign citizens. Although, I have to say, it would not greatly surprise me by this point to learn that this was in fact the case.
  - pelario 7y ago
    Are you really curious? If yes you could give some sources about what "you heard", otherwise it is not even fake news...
    - unscrupulous_sw 7y ago
      Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_spy_cases_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_spy_cases_in_t... there's at least two cases that are by professors (Xiaoxing Xi and Yi-Chi Shih). But honestly the vast majority of the knowledge transfer is happening through more legitimate means. Even the famous Stanford machine learning professor Andrew Ng got poached by Baidu.
  - DoctorOetker 7y ago
    pretty much when a western scientist goes to work in China, the nutters are angry because of "loss" if an easter scientist comes to work in US, the nutters are angry because of "loss" it's just in-group out-group identity politics bullshit... just like how in times of slavery interracial marriages were a big no-no because it blurs the agreed-upon line of class separation ("which class does the mixed child belong in?" the biological expression of a mixed child [that we are fundamentally the same] contradicts the ideological expression [that we are fundamentally different]) so today any form of mingling is viewed as a threat to warmongers (who want to maintain a simple thus virally contagious worldview)...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- superflit 7y ago
  There are no "good points" whoever is playing this game has to abide for the law and Interest of US. There is SO MUCH more of what is not published: techniques, materials, who is who, suppliers, etc. Well, some countries spacial programs were made with IP stolen from the US. Can you image loss of revenue and power that comes with that? Maybe you are in a such detach position that you Can't see how much wealth is created by American IP. And how much it goes in the US economy. You may hate Disney, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. But they bring jobs, revenues, and wealth with their IP. Let's invert the situation. American students will work on Iran nuclear research. And we will "forbid" any spy from Iran govt how does it play? Will Iran govt play "nice" care about good points? It surprises me when the US has to be 100% correct and 200% caring about emotions when everyone else doesn't give a crap and steal from the US. Now lets rain downvotes.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    > American students will work on Iran nuclear research. And we will "forbid" any spy from Iran govt how does it play? Will Iran govt play "nice" care about good points? Just to be clear, is the argument here, "we should be more like Iran?" We're not playing 'nice', we're talking about what strategies are actually in the US's best interests. The author makes the point that very little of this research is actually private, and that society as a whole benefits from open sharing anyway. A lot of our research happens via cooperation with other countries -- and if you throw that away because you're worried about some bad actors, eventually you're just going to be cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Private research moves slower than collaborative research. The author goes on to make the point that a much more effective way of keeping talent in the US is to keep talent in the US. Make it easier for entrepreneurs and researchers who immigrate to the US to stay here permanently and join our economy. If you really want to be competitive with China, think of it this way: every talented scientist or engineer that immigrates to the US from China, is one less talented researcher at the disposal of China's economy. Whoever heard of a competitive business that decided not to hire the best workers indiscriminately, and not to make it attractive and easy for them to stay in the company for long periods of time? Yet the current US immigration strategy is to bring in effectively "interns", build a hostile work environment where they are distrusted, and then offer them no alternative except to go back to their original countries with the knowledge they've gained. Any business owner can tell you that's a recipe for disaster. > You may hate Disney, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. But they bring jobs, revenues, and wealth with their IP. Disney, Microsoft, and Cisco are all independent companies. If they wanted to give their secrets to the Chinese government, the US government would have no way to stop them. They don't have any special, contractual allegiance to the US beyond written law -- and there is no written law that would compel them to spy on foreign-born employees. I expect the majority of these companies already conduct some research in other countries with the cooperation of other governments.
rosser 7y ago
That is one hell of a false dilemma.
AndyMcConachie 7y ago
I regret I have but one downvote to give.
EliRivers 7y ago
Refusing to spy on your students IS a protection of US interests.
dkersten 7y ago
> Whatever Americans want or not, they have the face the fact that most countries don't play "fair" and if they have the chance they will wipe the US as soon as possible. Whatever <US enemies> want or not, they have the face the fact that the US don't play "fair" and if they have the chance they will wipe the <US enemies> as soon as possible.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  If Iran had the military advantage that the US currently presents, how much restraint could you expect? And yet the US chose not to retaliate against Iran this June because any retaliation would likely kill people - that killing people over the loss of a machine wasn't appropriate.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    I think it's a factor of the relative way of how things play out. For instance, even America could not nuke Somalia. It's less of a factor of the individuals at play and more about the way the power structures are holding right now. I would imagine a more militarily-powerful Iran would be differently shaped as well.
  - dkersten 7y ago
    Many of the US's enemies hate the US, in my opinion, as a consequence of previous US meddling. The CIA have been known to topple democratically-elected governments in the middle east in order to install a pro-US-interests dictator, until they're no longer convenient, then war. I'm not saying that the US are the only ones that do this, of course, but I feel like Iran might be more friendly if the US hadn't meddled in middle-eastern affairs for so much of the previous century.
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      This is such a simple viewpoint and not supported by much evidence beyond seeing the meme loosely thrown around message boards. For example the Islamists supported the "coup" of Mosaddeq(quotes because he was constitutionally dismissed but refused, making him the one who overthrew the extant government, not the shah or the US) because he was not actively working towards an Islamic government. Maybe a more correct thing to say would be that America's enemies hate what America stands for and don't want their country to become more like America. But that work is usually done by independent natives who simply see the benefit of the American way of life, not necessarily from the US directly sticking their fingers in the affairs of other states. Look at the white revolution in Iran, which was instituted solely by the Shah without any "persuasion" from the Americans. This helped foment the Islamic revolution far more than any American/Anglo actions from the 1950s, and was what Khomeni hated so much. What did it do? : > It consisted of several elements, including land reform, sale of some state-owned factories to finance this land reform, construction of an expanded road, rail, and air network, a number of dam and irrigation projects, the eradication of diseases such as malaria, the encouragement and support of industrial growth, enfranchisement of women, nationalization of forests and pastures, formation of literacy and health corps for rural isolated areas, and institution of profit sharing schemes for workers in industry. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Shah sought to develop a more independent foreign policy and established working relationships with the Soviet Union and eastern European nations. In subsequent decades, per capita income for Iranians skyrocketed, and oil revenue-fueled an enormous increase in state funding for industrial development projects

hurrdurr2 7y ago

I feel like you need to read the article again, that is, if you read it in the first place. The author made many good points about why spying on foreign born students is a bad idea. One of which is that the vast majority of scientific research is published for all to see, including our "enemies".

gingabriska 7y ago
Then how come we hear about foreign born professors stealing secrets from universities? Are those fake news? I am genuinely curious.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  Well, it is very often not theft. If they leave to a different juristiction, then local law applies. This twitter thread from law professor Sarah Burnstien is related - https://twitter.com/design_law/status/1166326853952557059 https://twitter.com/design_law/status/1166326853952557059 Claiming continued ownership over something that is in somebody else's head after they have left your legal sphere is somewhat problematic. Also, it is rather cheeky, as the US research community has relied massively on brain drain from poor or wartorn countries for quite a while now.
  - rolph 7y ago
    depending on the field of research there are considerations, that most universities dont have to worry about for the time being. i think we could be nudging up against a born secret mentality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret I would be concerned about this concept being widened beyond nuclear energy research. as an example computer ubiquity and internet connectivity allow 4th/5th gen warfar to exist. If encryption or miniturization, or transmission media were considered subject to born secret doctrine that could make things very difficult and somewhat partisan.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      Legally, until someone properly tests that in court, then it is not even really law yet. Also, as a legal conceit, it doesn't continue to apply to people after they emigrate from the US. I feel also, that you can't really go around telling people that they are banned from emigrating due to what they know, unless you also have a labyrinth containing a minotaur, fed with captured foreign citizens. Although, I have to say, it would not greatly surprise me by this point to learn that this was in fact the case.
- pelario 7y ago
  Are you really curious? If yes you could give some sources about what "you heard", otherwise it is not even fake news...
  - unscrupulous_sw 7y ago
    Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_spy_cases_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_spy_cases_in_t... there's at least two cases that are by professors (Xiaoxing Xi and Yi-Chi Shih). But honestly the vast majority of the knowledge transfer is happening through more legitimate means. Even the famous Stanford machine learning professor Andrew Ng got poached by Baidu.
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  pretty much when a western scientist goes to work in China, the nutters are angry because of "loss" if an easter scientist comes to work in US, the nutters are angry because of "loss" it's just in-group out-group identity politics bullshit... just like how in times of slavery interracial marriages were a big no-no because it blurs the agreed-upon line of class separation ("which class does the mixed child belong in?" the biological expression of a mixed child [that we are fundamentally the same] contradicts the ideological expression [that we are fundamentally different]) so today any form of mingling is viewed as a threat to warmongers (who want to maintain a simple thus virally contagious worldview)...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
superflit 7y ago
There are no "good points" whoever is playing this game has to abide for the law and Interest of US. There is SO MUCH more of what is not published: techniques, materials, who is who, suppliers, etc. Well, some countries spacial programs were made with IP stolen from the US. Can you image loss of revenue and power that comes with that? Maybe you are in a such detach position that you Can't see how much wealth is created by American IP. And how much it goes in the US economy. You may hate Disney, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. But they bring jobs, revenues, and wealth with their IP. Let's invert the situation. American students will work on Iran nuclear research. And we will "forbid" any spy from Iran govt how does it play? Will Iran govt play "nice" care about good points? It surprises me when the US has to be 100% correct and 200% caring about emotions when everyone else doesn't give a crap and steal from the US. Now lets rain downvotes.
- danShumway 7y ago
  > American students will work on Iran nuclear research. And we will "forbid" any spy from Iran govt how does it play? Will Iran govt play "nice" care about good points? Just to be clear, is the argument here, "we should be more like Iran?" We're not playing 'nice', we're talking about what strategies are actually in the US's best interests. The author makes the point that very little of this research is actually private, and that society as a whole benefits from open sharing anyway. A lot of our research happens via cooperation with other countries -- and if you throw that away because you're worried about some bad actors, eventually you're just going to be cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Private research moves slower than collaborative research. The author goes on to make the point that a much more effective way of keeping talent in the US is to keep talent in the US. Make it easier for entrepreneurs and researchers who immigrate to the US to stay here permanently and join our economy. If you really want to be competitive with China, think of it this way: every talented scientist or engineer that immigrates to the US from China, is one less talented researcher at the disposal of China's economy. Whoever heard of a competitive business that decided not to hire the best workers indiscriminately, and not to make it attractive and easy for them to stay in the company for long periods of time? Yet the current US immigration strategy is to bring in effectively "interns", build a hostile work environment where they are distrusted, and then offer them no alternative except to go back to their original countries with the knowledge they've gained. Any business owner can tell you that's a recipe for disaster. > You may hate Disney, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. But they bring jobs, revenues, and wealth with their IP. Disney, Microsoft, and Cisco are all independent companies. If they wanted to give their secrets to the Chinese government, the US government would have no way to stop them. They don't have any special, contractual allegiance to the US beyond written law -- and there is no written law that would compel them to spy on foreign-born employees. I expect the majority of these companies already conduct some research in other countries with the cooperation of other governments.

rosser 7y ago

That is one hell of a false dilemma.

AndyMcConachie 7y ago

I regret I have but one downvote to give.

EliRivers 7y ago

Refusing to spy on your students IS a protection of US interests.

dkersten 7y ago

> Whatever Americans want or not, they have the face the fact that most countries don't play "fair" and if they have the chance they will wipe the US as soon as possible. Whatever <US enemies> want or not, they have the face the fact that the US don't play "fair" and if they have the chance they will wipe the <US enemies> as soon as possible.

merpnderp 7y ago
If Iran had the military advantage that the US currently presents, how much restraint could you expect? And yet the US chose not to retaliate against Iran this June because any retaliation would likely kill people - that killing people over the loss of a machine wasn't appropriate.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  I think it's a factor of the relative way of how things play out. For instance, even America could not nuke Somalia. It's less of a factor of the individuals at play and more about the way the power structures are holding right now. I would imagine a more militarily-powerful Iran would be differently shaped as well.
- dkersten 7y ago
  Many of the US's enemies hate the US, in my opinion, as a consequence of previous US meddling. The CIA have been known to topple democratically-elected governments in the middle east in order to install a pro-US-interests dictator, until they're no longer convenient, then war. I'm not saying that the US are the only ones that do this, of course, but I feel like Iran might be more friendly if the US hadn't meddled in middle-eastern affairs for so much of the previous century.
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    This is such a simple viewpoint and not supported by much evidence beyond seeing the meme loosely thrown around message boards. For example the Islamists supported the "coup" of Mosaddeq(quotes because he was constitutionally dismissed but refused, making him the one who overthrew the extant government, not the shah or the US) because he was not actively working towards an Islamic government. Maybe a more correct thing to say would be that America's enemies hate what America stands for and don't want their country to become more like America. But that work is usually done by independent natives who simply see the benefit of the American way of life, not necessarily from the US directly sticking their fingers in the affairs of other states. Look at the white revolution in Iran, which was instituted solely by the Shah without any "persuasion" from the Americans. This helped foment the Islamic revolution far more than any American/Anglo actions from the 1950s, and was what Khomeni hated so much. What did it do? : > It consisted of several elements, including land reform, sale of some state-owned factories to finance this land reform, construction of an expanded road, rail, and air network, a number of dam and irrigation projects, the eradication of diseases such as malaria, the encouragement and support of industrial growth, enfranchisement of women, nationalization of forests and pastures, formation of literacy and health corps for rural isolated areas, and institution of profit sharing schemes for workers in industry. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Shah sought to develop a more independent foreign policy and established working relationships with the Soviet Union and eastern European nations. In subsequent decades, per capita income for Iranians skyrocketed, and oil revenue-fueled an enormous increase in state funding for industrial development projects