3 ms·

So exactly how many Chinese-Americans (as distinguished from Chinese citizens who are in America) turn out to be passing secrets to China? Looking at the Wikip

So exactly how many Chinese-Americans (as distinguished from Chinese citizens who are in America) turn out to be passing secrets to China? Looking at the Wikipedia page for spy cases involving China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_intelligence_operations_in_the_United_States#Spy_cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_intelligence_operations... There only seems to be one confirmed Chinese-American case in recent years - Chi Mak (and he was a naturalized citizen).

gwern 13y ago
> There only seems to be one confirmed Chinese-American case in recent years 'recent years'? Why did you add this qualifier? That lists 8 different cases, and this is only what has gone public; by the nature of these things, you're only seeing the surface of the iceberg. (Does anyone seriously think that the US is not the top target of Chinese espionage and where it most wants agents?) Now, consider what fraction of the populace is Chinese-American, and what that implies...
- swampthing 13y ago
  You should read the list instead of just counting the entries - many of those cases turned out to be false. And yes, this is only what has gone public. You explicitly said "turn out". Do you have information that the general public does not? I said 'recent years', because does anyone consider espionage from the 80's to be relevant? I sure don't. I don't know if you realize this, but most Chinese-Americans (at least from what I've seen) were either born in the US, from Taiwan, or fled the PRC (as in, they did not want to live in a country run by the PRC). Does anyone seriously think these people are going to be spies for the Chinese government?
  - gwern 13y ago
    > You should read the list instead of just counting the entries - many of those cases turned out to be false. No, they couldn't prove them to judicial satisfaction. That they were not shown to be guilty does not prove they were innocent. > I said 'recent years', because does anyone consider espionage from the 80's to be relevant? I sure don't. When you're considering rare events, yes, the 1980s are still relevant. Why would you exclude them? Did the Singularity happen in 1989 or are we on Mars or something? > Does anyone seriously think these people are going to be spies for the Chinese government? Does anyone seriously think that Chinese-Americans are all 100% loyal and are not a good recruiting ground for Chinese intelligence?
    - swampthing 13y ago
      > No, they couldn't prove them to judicial satisfaction. That they were not shown to be guilty does not prove they were innocent. True, but you still can't count them as people who "turn out" to be passing secrets to the PRC. > When you're considering rare events, yes, the 1980s are still relevant. Why would you exclude them? Did the Singularity happen in 1989 or are we on Mars or something? If, as you contend, so many Chinese-Americans turn out to be passing secrets to the PRC, surely you can come up with more than 1 confirmed case within the past 30 years? > Does anyone seriously think that Chinese-Americans are all 100% loyal and are not a good recruiting ground for Chinese intelligence? Does anyone seriously think all Americans (even excluding Chinese-Americans) are all 100% loyal? I don't know why we would hold Chinese-Americans to a higher standard than the rest of the citizenry. I don't think Chinese-Americans are more likely to be spies in a statistically significant way. And I actually don't think Chinese-Americans are a good recruiting ground for the PRC. As I mentioned, most Chinese-Americans I know (and I know a lot) were either born here, from Taiwan, or who worked hard to flee the PRC. They are generally apathetic or harbor resentment towards the PRC. I think the PRC is far more likely to be trying to send people here than trying to recruit people that are already here.
      - saraid216 13y ago
        > surely you can come up with more than 1 confirmed case within the past 30 years? See, that's an interesting claim. "Surely, if there were clandestine activities, we'd know about them and have solid proof about them."
      - gwern 13y ago
        > True, but you still can't count them as people who "turn out" to be passing secrets to the PRC. Why not? These are people who were found to be extremely suspicious by the people in charge of finding spies. What is that, chopped liver? > If, as you contend, so many Chinese-Americans turn out to be passing secrets to the PRC, surely you can come up with more than 1 confirmed case within the past 30 years? How many Chinese-Americans are there working in these vulnerable positions? Is 1 confirmed case (with who knows how many scores of undetected or unconfirmable real cases) above or below the base rate for spying? Do you know? Shouldn't you know, before you pass judgement? > I don't think Chinese-Americans are more likely to be spies in a statistically significant way. You are, of course, as confident in this as it is possible to be in the absence of all evidence. > I think the PRC is far more likely to be trying to send people here than trying to recruit people that are already here. And your basis for this is...? Given the existence of common classifications like NOFORN, this would be self-defeating behavior.

gwern 13y ago

> There only seems to be one confirmed Chinese-American case in recent years 'recent years'? Why did you add this qualifier? That lists 8 different cases, and this is only what has gone public; by the nature of these things, you're only seeing the surface of the iceberg. (Does anyone seriously think that the US is not the top target of Chinese espionage and where it most wants agents?) Now, consider what fraction of the populace is Chinese-American, and what that implies...

swampthing 13y ago
You should read the list instead of just counting the entries - many of those cases turned out to be false. And yes, this is only what has gone public. You explicitly said "turn out". Do you have information that the general public does not? I said 'recent years', because does anyone consider espionage from the 80's to be relevant? I sure don't. I don't know if you realize this, but most Chinese-Americans (at least from what I've seen) were either born in the US, from Taiwan, or fled the PRC (as in, they did not want to live in a country run by the PRC). Does anyone seriously think these people are going to be spies for the Chinese government?
- gwern 13y ago
  > You should read the list instead of just counting the entries - many of those cases turned out to be false. No, they couldn't prove them to judicial satisfaction. That they were not shown to be guilty does not prove they were innocent. > I said 'recent years', because does anyone consider espionage from the 80's to be relevant? I sure don't. When you're considering rare events, yes, the 1980s are still relevant. Why would you exclude them? Did the Singularity happen in 1989 or are we on Mars or something? > Does anyone seriously think these people are going to be spies for the Chinese government? Does anyone seriously think that Chinese-Americans are all 100% loyal and are not a good recruiting ground for Chinese intelligence?
  - swampthing 13y ago
    > No, they couldn't prove them to judicial satisfaction. That they were not shown to be guilty does not prove they were innocent. True, but you still can't count them as people who "turn out" to be passing secrets to the PRC. > When you're considering rare events, yes, the 1980s are still relevant. Why would you exclude them? Did the Singularity happen in 1989 or are we on Mars or something? If, as you contend, so many Chinese-Americans turn out to be passing secrets to the PRC, surely you can come up with more than 1 confirmed case within the past 30 years? > Does anyone seriously think that Chinese-Americans are all 100% loyal and are not a good recruiting ground for Chinese intelligence? Does anyone seriously think all Americans (even excluding Chinese-Americans) are all 100% loyal? I don't know why we would hold Chinese-Americans to a higher standard than the rest of the citizenry. I don't think Chinese-Americans are more likely to be spies in a statistically significant way. And I actually don't think Chinese-Americans are a good recruiting ground for the PRC. As I mentioned, most Chinese-Americans I know (and I know a lot) were either born here, from Taiwan, or who worked hard to flee the PRC. They are generally apathetic or harbor resentment towards the PRC. I think the PRC is far more likely to be trying to send people here than trying to recruit people that are already here.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      > surely you can come up with more than 1 confirmed case within the past 30 years? See, that's an interesting claim. "Surely, if there were clandestine activities, we'd know about them and have solid proof about them."
    - gwern 13y ago
      > True, but you still can't count them as people who "turn out" to be passing secrets to the PRC. Why not? These are people who were found to be extremely suspicious by the people in charge of finding spies. What is that, chopped liver? > If, as you contend, so many Chinese-Americans turn out to be passing secrets to the PRC, surely you can come up with more than 1 confirmed case within the past 30 years? How many Chinese-Americans are there working in these vulnerable positions? Is 1 confirmed case (with who knows how many scores of undetected or unconfirmable real cases) above or below the base rate for spying? Do you know? Shouldn't you know, before you pass judgement? > I don't think Chinese-Americans are more likely to be spies in a statistically significant way. You are, of course, as confident in this as it is possible to be in the absence of all evidence. > I think the PRC is far more likely to be trying to send people here than trying to recruit people that are already here. And your basis for this is...? Given the existence of common classifications like NOFORN, this would be self-defeating behavior.