4 ms·

> 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 cou

> 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.
- swampthing 13y ago
  > 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? Why can't you count people who have not been confirmed as being spies as people who have turned out to be spies? Isn't the answer to that self-evident? Another way of looking at is this: every year, there are plenty of people who are acquitted of crimes they were prosecuted for. Can you say all those people turned out to have committed the crimes they were accused of, simply because the people in charge of finding criminals found them to be extremely suspicious? > 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? For the purposes of this conversation, undetected and unconfirmed cases are irrelevant. I am solely responding to what you wrote: "given how many Chinese-Americans turn out to be passing secrets to China" If you want to claim that by "how many", you meant "1" (and even that is questionable depending on if you count naturalized citizens or not), I think you are just being reluctant to admit you were wrong. But putting that aside, the null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant relationship between being Chinese-American and likelihood of being a spy - the burden is on you, not me.
  - gwern 13y ago
    > Another way of looking at is this: every year, there are plenty of people who are acquitted of crimes they were prosecuted for. Can you say all those people turned out to have committed the crimes they were accused of, simply because the people in charge of finding criminals found them to be extremely suspicious? Given that criminals tend to have long histories of crimes and that only a fraction of crimes are caught, then yes: knowing someone faced charges ought to massively raise your estimate that they have committed past crimes which they were not caught for. Of course there are many innocent people who have been charged, but crank your Bayes theorem here... The reason we have a very high bar like 'innocent until proven guilty' is not because this is any sort of information-theoretic or statistically-optimal criteria which balances some chosen ratios of innocent:guilty convicted, but as a check-and-balance on the power of government and a mechanism against tyranny and abuse of the laws. > But putting that aside, the null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant relationship between being Chinese-American and likelihood of being a spy - the burden is on you, not me. The burden here is on any kibbitzer who wants to engage in hindsight and accuse anyone of racism for suggesting that maybe Chinese scientists are not precisely as trustworthy as natives with regard to national security.

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.

swampthing 13y ago
> 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? Why can't you count people who have not been confirmed as being spies as people who have turned out to be spies? Isn't the answer to that self-evident? Another way of looking at is this: every year, there are plenty of people who are acquitted of crimes they were prosecuted for. Can you say all those people turned out to have committed the crimes they were accused of, simply because the people in charge of finding criminals found them to be extremely suspicious? > 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? For the purposes of this conversation, undetected and unconfirmed cases are irrelevant. I am solely responding to what you wrote: "given how many Chinese-Americans turn out to be passing secrets to China" If you want to claim that by "how many", you meant "1" (and even that is questionable depending on if you count naturalized citizens or not), I think you are just being reluctant to admit you were wrong. But putting that aside, the null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant relationship between being Chinese-American and likelihood of being a spy - the burden is on you, not me.
- gwern 13y ago
  > Another way of looking at is this: every year, there are plenty of people who are acquitted of crimes they were prosecuted for. Can you say all those people turned out to have committed the crimes they were accused of, simply because the people in charge of finding criminals found them to be extremely suspicious? Given that criminals tend to have long histories of crimes and that only a fraction of crimes are caught, then yes: knowing someone faced charges ought to massively raise your estimate that they have committed past crimes which they were not caught for. Of course there are many innocent people who have been charged, but crank your Bayes theorem here... The reason we have a very high bar like 'innocent until proven guilty' is not because this is any sort of information-theoretic or statistically-optimal criteria which balances some chosen ratios of innocent:guilty convicted, but as a check-and-balance on the power of government and a mechanism against tyranny and abuse of the laws. > But putting that aside, the null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant relationship between being Chinese-American and likelihood of being a spy - the burden is on you, not me. The burden here is on any kibbitzer who wants to engage in hindsight and accuse anyone of racism for suggesting that maybe Chinese scientists are not precisely as trustworthy as natives with regard to national security.