4 ms·

A more recent case involved an attempted prosecution of an MIT professor. Going off journalistic reporting [0], the whole case was baseless—built on an incorrec

A more recent case involved an attempted prosecution of an MIT professor. Going off journalistic reporting [0], the whole case was baseless—built on an incorrect understanding of key facts—and involved prosecutorial misconduct (illegal withholding of possibly exculpatory evidence). [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/gang-chen-charges-drop-china/2022/01/14/51bae1e2-6f59-11ec-b9fc-b394d592a7a6_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/gang-chen-c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Chen_(engineer)#Federal_indictment_and_ensuing_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Chen_(engineer)#Federal_i... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30082313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30082313 ("In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist"; 446 comments)

javiramos 2y ago
He was my thermodynamics professor. Seriously great guy and it pains me to hear what he had to go through.
complaintdept 2y ago
> (illegal withholding of possibly exculpatory evidence) I hear about this sort of thing way too often. I say we make a new law that if prosecutors pull shit like this they get sentenced to triple the jail time/financial penalty the defendant would have had, if convicted, and pay triple the legal expenses to defendant as well. This multiplier is often used in the law as deterrent where a 1x multiplier is not deemed sufficient for the total damage and inconvenience caused. Seriously, how can anyone be expected to trust the legal system when the state pulls shit like that without any consequences? If course, this will likely mean prosecutors will start destroying exculpatory evidence when possible.
- MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
  My uncle used to be a federal prosecutor. Now he defends clients for a private law firm. He was describing a case to me that involved the government suing his client over something. It turns out that the prosecutor's case was based on a misunderstanding of the relevant laws. Millions of dollars and potential jail time were on the line. I asked my uncle "do these prosecutors, their office, or anybody face potential retribution for nearly ruining this guy's life and likely ruining his business?" My uncle replied "no, there is nothing that can be done to them." I asked "so if some asshole in a prosecutor's office doesn't like you or is a dumbass, he can just ruin your life and that's it?" "Yes," he said. I can understand why this is. If law enforcement, generally, were subject to the same liability as regular citizens, that is all anybody would seek to do when the law looks at them. The result would be "playing it safe," and prosecutors would only seek the easy cases, leaving the bulk of crime to happen without repercussions. I don't know what can be done, and there is likely no general solution, but thinking about this makes me realize that "freedom" is not exactly a thing. At least in this case the guy could hire a good lawyer and avoid the worst.
  - godelski 2y ago
    > no, there is nothing that can be done to them. I mean what can be? Either you fire every time a mistake is made or you let it slip. Though we could have a more complicated and efficient route and let it depend on the severity/reasonability of the mistake and frequency of them. But as far as I can tell, this is generally what is actually done. > The result would be "playing it safe," and prosecutors would only seek the easy cases, Though this is still kinda true but for other reasons. Quotas are a common contributor here. Even if there is no official quota in a LEO team there is often an implicit one. Where things like number of arrests, citations, and so on. Because we can't be completely subjective, right? Obviously the reliance on metrics (spectrum of: <are truth> - <are guides> - <lol, who cares>) varies from place to place but it would be naive to assume that these things don't play a role. I guess I'm saying the world is complicated and you're kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't, so take Blackstone's ratio into account and maybe we should let things be a bit fuzzy because defuzzing usually only ends up making them even more fuzzy.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      > I mean what can be? Either you fire every time a mistake is made or you let it slip. OOP listed a possibility in his comment: > if prosecutors pull shit like this they get sentenced to triple the jail time/financial penalty the defendant would have had, if convicted, and pay triple the legal expenses to defendant as well The whole justice system is currently incentivized to be as callous and cruel as possible, because there are no consequences or accountability when they're wrong. Down the individual police officers who can do anything they want because they enjoy qualified immunity. The entire system from the beat cop all the way up to prosecutors and judges are in dire need of accountability for their misconduct.
      - KittenInABox 2y ago
        A huge problem with this is that any sort of justice reform is complained about as being soft on crime, which people apparently hate. The justice system is cruel because people demand cruelty out of the justice system.
- addicted 2y ago
  The Alec Baldwin case was just thrown out because the prosecutors decided to not reveal evidence that was brought to them (that the judge decided was strong enough that it could exonerate Baldwin) and instead decided to file it under a different case making it clear it was a deliberate decision to hide the evidence.
- nullc 2y ago
  > this they get sentenced to triple the jail time/financial penalty the defendant would have had, if convicted, I get that this feels super righteous at all... but who would be a prosecutor under such a threat? Perhaps a few idiots and powermongers. Maybe if you also paid 10x ordinary wages you'd get some people who were just merely greedy enough to take stupid risks.
godelski 2y ago
I'm always a bit surprised it is always professors being targeted. Aren't a more likely source of leaks... grad students or undergrads? Or hell, I'd think janitors would be the best vector. The prof's expertise is often no longer in the subject, but rather in leading a team of people in the subject and leading people in how to write about the subject. The two main advantages is that they are a constant contact and they are a key decider in who gets accepted[0]. The grad students do all the work (often including grant writing) and are going to be up to date on information. Mistakes or slip-ups are much more easily overlooked and best of all, you can transition them out in 2, 4, or up to 8 years depending on their success and suspicion level. They also have broad access to materials, are often left in the lab alone for hours, and do not rise suspicion if they go into the lab at 3am. Undergrads have similar advantages but don't have as broad access (typically) and might arise suspicion at going into the lab at 3am, but do have an advantage in being able to pass things off as dumb mistakes because everyone holds them in such low regards. And of course, janitors have all those advantages but also have keys to all the labs and offices where materials are routinely left out in the open "because the door is locked." Of course, the best way to do knowledge transfer is to just send your civilians to the country to get educated and then bring them back. Deng's opening up of China was a major success. The fear being that they couldn't import western education without western idealologies but that was super successful. That said, one time I was working on an ITAR project and it had to deal with two restricted technologies: nuclear and nanomaterials. This was while I was working for an aerospace company[1] and the two other domain teams were at a uni. The nuclear team's lead student was Iranian (had a green card) and the nano-team was all Chinese. It was a really interesting situation because I could talk in full with the 2 professors but anytime I had to talk to students I couldn't tell them things despite the fact that we all knew each other knew what was going on. It wouldn't require anyone saying anything directly to figure this out. We also had the FBI visit (that's not uncommon when you do ITAR work) and they asked me to "keep an eye out" for certain things. So I guess I was a spy? (lol) They were convinced that the policy would ensure that there was no information leakage and that the nuclear team couldn't figure out what the nano team was doing, vise versa, and that neither could figure out the end goal. Then again the agents tried to convince me that they routinely break PGP encryption and that TOR is exclusively used by terrorists and drug dealers. So... I guess all this is to say that I'm not all that surprised that baseless accusations arise. The only thing that is surprising is how people can believe in a complex deep state because the truth is that government works just like your company: a bureaucratic shitshow.[2] [0] Take for example a professor at my university. He is <south-east asian>-ian (i.e. Not Chinese/Korean/Japanese/Indian). He has 4 students and has graduated another ~5. All 4 are from the same country as he is, and 2 of the alumni are also from that country. Those 2 were admitted into the grad program by him, 2 of the other 3 were students who switched professors later on (I don't know the 3rd one), and 2/3 of them are from a neighbor country. I'm not saying these people don't deserve to be here, that they don't have the qualifications, or any of that. They do! I have no doubt about that. They were/are all great people and have done well and had good credentials. But if we're being honest here, this isn't an unbiased process. The truth is that there are a ton of equally qualified candidates to select from and when you have to make those decisions you rely on much more subjective information like your social networks and it's probably unsurprising that those strongly correlate with ethnicity (not to mention factors like "culture fit" and the fact that because the composition the whole group speaks in their native tongue which enables them to communicate better but unfortunately disadvantages anyone who doesn't. And weirdly enough, switching to English would disadvantage the group as a whole because who isn't more proficient in their native language?) [1] This is all I can say but I'm sure plenty of you know EXACTLY what I was working on due to the intersection. In fact, some of the info is public but I'm told I still shouldn't talk. [2] If your company doesn't work like this, well it probably will when it grows.

javiramos 2y ago

He was my thermodynamics professor. Seriously great guy and it pains me to hear what he had to go through.

complaintdept 2y ago

> (illegal withholding of possibly exculpatory evidence) I hear about this sort of thing way too often. I say we make a new law that if prosecutors pull shit like this they get sentenced to triple the jail time/financial penalty the defendant would have had, if convicted, and pay triple the legal expenses to defendant as well. This multiplier is often used in the law as deterrent where a 1x multiplier is not deemed sufficient for the total damage and inconvenience caused. Seriously, how can anyone be expected to trust the legal system when the state pulls shit like that without any consequences? If course, this will likely mean prosecutors will start destroying exculpatory evidence when possible.

MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
My uncle used to be a federal prosecutor. Now he defends clients for a private law firm. He was describing a case to me that involved the government suing his client over something. It turns out that the prosecutor's case was based on a misunderstanding of the relevant laws. Millions of dollars and potential jail time were on the line. I asked my uncle "do these prosecutors, their office, or anybody face potential retribution for nearly ruining this guy's life and likely ruining his business?" My uncle replied "no, there is nothing that can be done to them." I asked "so if some asshole in a prosecutor's office doesn't like you or is a dumbass, he can just ruin your life and that's it?" "Yes," he said. I can understand why this is. If law enforcement, generally, were subject to the same liability as regular citizens, that is all anybody would seek to do when the law looks at them. The result would be "playing it safe," and prosecutors would only seek the easy cases, leaving the bulk of crime to happen without repercussions. I don't know what can be done, and there is likely no general solution, but thinking about this makes me realize that "freedom" is not exactly a thing. At least in this case the guy could hire a good lawyer and avoid the worst.
- godelski 2y ago
  > no, there is nothing that can be done to them. I mean what can be? Either you fire every time a mistake is made or you let it slip. Though we could have a more complicated and efficient route and let it depend on the severity/reasonability of the mistake and frequency of them. But as far as I can tell, this is generally what is actually done. > The result would be "playing it safe," and prosecutors would only seek the easy cases, Though this is still kinda true but for other reasons. Quotas are a common contributor here. Even if there is no official quota in a LEO team there is often an implicit one. Where things like number of arrests, citations, and so on. Because we can't be completely subjective, right? Obviously the reliance on metrics (spectrum of: <are truth> - <are guides> - <lol, who cares>) varies from place to place but it would be naive to assume that these things don't play a role. I guess I'm saying the world is complicated and you're kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't, so take Blackstone's ratio into account and maybe we should let things be a bit fuzzy because defuzzing usually only ends up making them even more fuzzy.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    > I mean what can be? Either you fire every time a mistake is made or you let it slip. OOP listed a possibility in his comment: > if prosecutors pull shit like this they get sentenced to triple the jail time/financial penalty the defendant would have had, if convicted, and pay triple the legal expenses to defendant as well The whole justice system is currently incentivized to be as callous and cruel as possible, because there are no consequences or accountability when they're wrong. Down the individual police officers who can do anything they want because they enjoy qualified immunity. The entire system from the beat cop all the way up to prosecutors and judges are in dire need of accountability for their misconduct.
    - KittenInABox 2y ago
      A huge problem with this is that any sort of justice reform is complained about as being soft on crime, which people apparently hate. The justice system is cruel because people demand cruelty out of the justice system.
addicted 2y ago
The Alec Baldwin case was just thrown out because the prosecutors decided to not reveal evidence that was brought to them (that the judge decided was strong enough that it could exonerate Baldwin) and instead decided to file it under a different case making it clear it was a deliberate decision to hide the evidence.
nullc 2y ago
> this they get sentenced to triple the jail time/financial penalty the defendant would have had, if convicted, I get that this feels super righteous at all... but who would be a prosecutor under such a threat? Perhaps a few idiots and powermongers. Maybe if you also paid 10x ordinary wages you'd get some people who were just merely greedy enough to take stupid risks.

godelski 2y ago

I'm always a bit surprised it is always professors being targeted. Aren't a more likely source of leaks... grad students or undergrads? Or hell, I'd think janitors would be the best vector. The prof's expertise is often no longer in the subject, but rather in leading a team of people in the subject and leading people in how to write about the subject. The two main advantages is that they are a constant contact and they are a key decider in who gets accepted[0]. The grad students do all the work (often including grant writing) and are going to be up to date on information. Mistakes or slip-ups are much more easily overlooked and best of all, you can transition them out in 2, 4, or up to 8 years depending on their success and suspicion level. They also have broad access to materials, are often left in the lab alone for hours, and do not rise suspicion if they go into the lab at 3am. Undergrads have similar advantages but don't have as broad access (typically) and might arise suspicion at going into the lab at 3am, but do have an advantage in being able to pass things off as dumb mistakes because everyone holds them in such low regards. And of course, janitors have all those advantages but also have keys to all the labs and offices where materials are routinely left out in the open "because the door is locked." Of course, the best way to do knowledge transfer is to just send your civilians to the country to get educated and then bring them back. Deng's opening up of China was a major success. The fear being that they couldn't import western education without western idealologies but that was super successful. That said, one time I was working on an ITAR project and it had to deal with two restricted technologies: nuclear and nanomaterials. This was while I was working for an aerospace company[1] and the two other domain teams were at a uni. The nuclear team's lead student was Iranian (had a green card) and the nano-team was all Chinese. It was a really interesting situation because I could talk in full with the 2 professors but anytime I had to talk to students I couldn't tell them things despite the fact that we all knew each other knew what was going on. It wouldn't require anyone saying anything directly to figure this out. We also had the FBI visit (that's not uncommon when you do ITAR work) and they asked me to "keep an eye out" for certain things. So I guess I was a spy? (lol) They were convinced that the policy would ensure that there was no information leakage and that the nuclear team couldn't figure out what the nano team was doing, vise versa, and that neither could figure out the end goal. Then again the agents tried to convince me that they routinely break PGP encryption and that TOR is exclusively used by terrorists and drug dealers. So... I guess all this is to say that I'm not all that surprised that baseless accusations arise. The only thing that is surprising is how people can believe in a complex deep state because the truth is that government works just like your company: a bureaucratic shitshow.[2] [0] Take for example a professor at my university. He is <south-east asian>-ian (i.e. Not Chinese/Korean/Japanese/Indian). He has 4 students and has graduated another ~5. All 4 are from the same country as he is, and 2 of the alumni are also from that country. Those 2 were admitted into the grad program by him, 2 of the other 3 were students who switched professors later on (I don't know the 3rd one), and 2/3 of them are from a neighbor country. I'm not saying these people don't deserve to be here, that they don't have the qualifications, or any of that. They do! I have no doubt about that. They were/are all great people and have done well and had good credentials. But if we're being honest here, this isn't an unbiased process. The truth is that there are a ton of equally qualified candidates to select from and when you have to make those decisions you rely on much more subjective information like your social networks and it's probably unsurprising that those strongly correlate with ethnicity (not to mention factors like "culture fit" and the fact that because the composition the whole group speaks in their native tongue which enables them to communicate better but unfortunately disadvantages anyone who doesn't. And weirdly enough, switching to English would disadvantage the group as a whole because who isn't more proficient in their native language?) [1] This is all I can say but I'm sure plenty of you know EXACTLY what I was working on due to the intersection. In fact, some of the info is public but I'm told I still shouldn't talk. [2] If your company doesn't work like this, well it probably will when it grows.