3 ms·

>In 2019, the United States Department of Justice indicted Tao for 'failing to disclose conflict of interest with a Chinese university' .. The evidence used by

>In 2019, the United States Department of Justice indicted Tao for 'failing to disclose conflict of interest with a Chinese university' .. The evidence used by the Department of Justice was obtained after Tao was reported to the FBI for alleged espionage by a vengeful co-author, who presented manufactured evidence to the FBI. Based on this evidence, the FBI obtained a search warrant. Tao was subsequently indicted for an email regarding a contract to teach in China, but not for alleged espionage I don't even understand how any of this is illegal? You can be thrown in prison and have your reputation and career ruined by the government for sending an email to someone in China now?

99_00 2y ago
He was taking money from the department of energy for research while collaborating with Chinese universities and did not disclose this and lied to investigators about it.
- hermannj314 2y ago
  Isn't that the charge he was cleared for?
  - dralley 2y ago
    He was cleared of espionage. He was not cleared for lying about the conflict of interest.
    - Leary 2y ago
      That conviction was overturned a week ago[1] [1] https://cen.acs.org/research-integrity/misconduct/Court-overturns-conviction-chemist-Feng/102/web/2024/07 https://cen.acs.org/research-integrity/misconduct/Court-over...
    - psychoslave 2y ago
      LOL. Because those that make these laws pass and participate in the witch hunt turned into a justice show never lied about conflict of interest, what actual agenda they have in mind, and how much they really care abouto serving humanity best interests.
    - no_exit 2y ago
      FTA: > At issue in the new ruling, issued 11 July, is whether Tao’s lack of disclosure about his affiliation with Fuzhou University in China affected federal agency funding decisions. The Denver appeals court agreed 2-1 that it was irrelevant because Tao had no grant proposals pending before those two agencies in question – the US Department of Energy and National Science Foundation – at the time he made his affiliation statement.
- elashri 2y ago
  I know a lot of people who are working in collaboration with Chinese universities and does get funded from the US government budget (through NSF and DOE). DOE funds a lot of open research and not only the nuclear/national security related research. I don't think this is in itself a problem. I'm not sure also what is defined as a lie here. Exchanging emails with people interested in your research does not automatically mean you collaborate together. The case is ambiguous, and you shouldn't jump to generalization like that. There is no ban on collaborating with Chinese universities in the US. There are restrictions for some type of research (that actually extend to the other countries as well).
  - 99_00 2y ago
    The point is that he wasn’t charged for sending an email
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > I'm not sure also what is defined as a lie here. It's the "Martha Stewart" lesson. It may be that you have done nothing wrong. The government may stop by and ask you questions anyways. If you lie during those questions you have committed a felony. Do NOT speak without a lawyer. In particular if you have anything worth losing. Which is more or less everyone.
chiakcken 2y ago
[flagged]
- samlinnfer 2y ago
  The 1st one just normal spy business. The 3rd one is just some guy hosting a piracy website, which has nothing to do with espionage. Your evidence for some grand scheme of technology theft doesn't seem to be well supported or justify racial profiling.
  - chiakcken 2y ago
    regarding the 1st link, not sure what you mean, espionage is espionage. regarding the 3rd link "The theft and piracy perpetuated by Xiang Li, 36, of Chengdu, China, included industrial-grade software and confidential data stolen from the internal server of a cleared defense contractor"
    - samlinnfer 2y ago
      The point is every country has spies everywhere, just go to nearest embassy. Yes he operated a site that hosted cracked software. How does this support your narrative he was a spy or that it was espionage instead of for personal financial gain? Let’s have a read of the first paragraph >The individual operated a website used to distribute more than $100 million worth of pirated software around the world, making it one of the most significant cases of copyright infringement ever uncovered – and dismantled Why don’t you quote this paragraph of your source? >The investigation revealed that Li used the Crack 99 website to distribute pirated or cracked software to customers all over the world, including the United States It’s a hard sell spinning this into espionage.
    - aragonite 2y ago
      > ...included industrial-grade software and confidential data stolen from the internal server of a cleared defense contractor... Not by Xiang Li himself, it's worth noting. So this particular example at least hardly supports the general conclusion you seem to be implying. > [Wronald Best]’s trafficking in cracked software involved not only stolen property but also stolen ideas. ... On the supply side of the equation, he was the one releasing MPD’s software into the “wilds” of the Internet by providing it to Russian Cracker, and assisting Xiang Li by providing detailed installation instructions. On the demand side of the equation, as a consumer, Best used stolen, cracked software to design and manufacture products for the military and law enforcement, without payment to the companies that created the software in the first place. (https://www.google.com/books/edition/CRACK99_The_Takedown_of_a_100_Million_Ch/M-1wBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22cracked+software+involved+not+only+stolen+property+but+also+stolen+ideas%22&pg=PT180&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/CRACK99_The_Takedown_of...)
chiakcken 2y ago
[flagged]
cvoss 2y ago
The federal government has a strong interest in carefully selecting recipients of grant funds (often large sums) and in controlling the purposes and uses of those funds. As a condition of receiving funds, the government may naturally wish to confirm that recipients will not be using the funds in ways that benefit other state actors, in conflict with the government's policies. Officially misrepresenting that state of affairs to the government with so much on the line is what's illegal, not "sending an email to someone in China."
gklitz 2y ago
It isn’t illegal, that’s the point. For political reasons an initiative was created to “hunt Chinese Innovation theft” and that initiative needed to go after “someone” so they looked through what hints they could find and went after people who were doing nothing wrong, but looked like they could at least be pressured into taking some plea deal, so the politically motivated xenophobic which hunt committee could present a result of “this many people were ‘caught’” and get a nice big bonus for creating a Fox News sound bite. This was started under Trump, and canned under Biden. It’s a travesty and complete circus of an injustice and a racially motivated assault on the scientific community.

99_00 2y ago

He was taking money from the department of energy for research while collaborating with Chinese universities and did not disclose this and lied to investigators about it.

hermannj314 2y ago
Isn't that the charge he was cleared for?
- dralley 2y ago
  He was cleared of espionage. He was not cleared for lying about the conflict of interest.
  - Leary 2y ago
    That conviction was overturned a week ago[1] [1] https://cen.acs.org/research-integrity/misconduct/Court-overturns-conviction-chemist-Feng/102/web/2024/07 https://cen.acs.org/research-integrity/misconduct/Court-over...
  - psychoslave 2y ago
    LOL. Because those that make these laws pass and participate in the witch hunt turned into a justice show never lied about conflict of interest, what actual agenda they have in mind, and how much they really care abouto serving humanity best interests.
  - no_exit 2y ago
    FTA: > At issue in the new ruling, issued 11 July, is whether Tao’s lack of disclosure about his affiliation with Fuzhou University in China affected federal agency funding decisions. The Denver appeals court agreed 2-1 that it was irrelevant because Tao had no grant proposals pending before those two agencies in question – the US Department of Energy and National Science Foundation – at the time he made his affiliation statement.
elashri 2y ago
I know a lot of people who are working in collaboration with Chinese universities and does get funded from the US government budget (through NSF and DOE). DOE funds a lot of open research and not only the nuclear/national security related research. I don't think this is in itself a problem. I'm not sure also what is defined as a lie here. Exchanging emails with people interested in your research does not automatically mean you collaborate together. The case is ambiguous, and you shouldn't jump to generalization like that. There is no ban on collaborating with Chinese universities in the US. There are restrictions for some type of research (that actually extend to the other countries as well).
- 99_00 2y ago
  The point is that he wasn’t charged for sending an email
- akira2501 2y ago
  > I'm not sure also what is defined as a lie here. It's the "Martha Stewart" lesson. It may be that you have done nothing wrong. The government may stop by and ask you questions anyways. If you lie during those questions you have committed a felony. Do NOT speak without a lawyer. In particular if you have anything worth losing. Which is more or less everyone.

chiakcken 2y ago

[flagged]

samlinnfer 2y ago
The 1st one just normal spy business. The 3rd one is just some guy hosting a piracy website, which has nothing to do with espionage. Your evidence for some grand scheme of technology theft doesn't seem to be well supported or justify racial profiling.
- chiakcken 2y ago
  regarding the 1st link, not sure what you mean, espionage is espionage. regarding the 3rd link "The theft and piracy perpetuated by Xiang Li, 36, of Chengdu, China, included industrial-grade software and confidential data stolen from the internal server of a cleared defense contractor"
  - samlinnfer 2y ago
    The point is every country has spies everywhere, just go to nearest embassy. Yes he operated a site that hosted cracked software. How does this support your narrative he was a spy or that it was espionage instead of for personal financial gain? Let’s have a read of the first paragraph >The individual operated a website used to distribute more than $100 million worth of pirated software around the world, making it one of the most significant cases of copyright infringement ever uncovered – and dismantled Why don’t you quote this paragraph of your source? >The investigation revealed that Li used the Crack 99 website to distribute pirated or cracked software to customers all over the world, including the United States It’s a hard sell spinning this into espionage.
  - aragonite 2y ago
    > ...included industrial-grade software and confidential data stolen from the internal server of a cleared defense contractor... Not by Xiang Li himself, it's worth noting. So this particular example at least hardly supports the general conclusion you seem to be implying. > [Wronald Best]’s trafficking in cracked software involved not only stolen property but also stolen ideas. ... On the supply side of the equation, he was the one releasing MPD’s software into the “wilds” of the Internet by providing it to Russian Cracker, and assisting Xiang Li by providing detailed installation instructions. On the demand side of the equation, as a consumer, Best used stolen, cracked software to design and manufacture products for the military and law enforcement, without payment to the companies that created the software in the first place. (https://www.google.com/books/edition/CRACK99_The_Takedown_of_a_100_Million_Ch/M-1wBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22cracked+software+involved+not+only+stolen+property+but+also+stolen+ideas%22&pg=PT180&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/CRACK99_The_Takedown_of...)

chiakcken 2y ago

[flagged]

cvoss 2y ago

The federal government has a strong interest in carefully selecting recipients of grant funds (often large sums) and in controlling the purposes and uses of those funds. As a condition of receiving funds, the government may naturally wish to confirm that recipients will not be using the funds in ways that benefit other state actors, in conflict with the government's policies. Officially misrepresenting that state of affairs to the government with so much on the line is what's illegal, not "sending an email to someone in China."

gklitz 2y ago

It isn’t illegal, that’s the point. For political reasons an initiative was created to “hunt Chinese Innovation theft” and that initiative needed to go after “someone” so they looked through what hints they could find and went after people who were doing nothing wrong, but looked like they could at least be pressured into taking some plea deal, so the politically motivated xenophobic which hunt committee could present a result of “this many people were ‘caught’” and get a nice big bonus for creating a Fox News sound bite. This was started under Trump, and canned under Biden. It’s a travesty and complete circus of an injustice and a racially motivated assault on the scientific community.