Slashdot Log In
Space Shuttle Secrets Stolen For China
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Feb 11, 2008 06:53 PM
from the just-because-we're-paranoid dept.
from the just-because-we're-paranoid dept.
Ponca City, We Love You writes "The Department of Justice has announced the indictment of former Boeing engineer Dongfan Chung on charges of economic espionage in the theft of company trade secrets relating to the Space Shuttle, the C-17 military transport aircraft, and the Delta IV rocket. Chung is a native of China and a naturalized US citizen. According to the indictment, Chinese aviation industry representatives began sending Chung 'tasking' letters as early as 1979. Over the years, the letters directed Chung to collect specific technological information, including data related to the Space Shuttle and various military and civilian aircraft. Chung allegedly responded in one letter indicating a desire to contribute to the 'motherland,' the DOJ said. It was not immediately clear how much, if any, damage the alleged espionage did to US national security but DOJ officials said the cases reflect the determination of the Chinese government to penetrate US intelligence and obtain vital national defense secrets. 'Today's prosecution demonstrates that foreign spying remains a serious threat in the post-Cold War world,' said Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for National Security"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
too much (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:too much (Score:5, Informative)
Are you suggesting that the U.S. should produce all of its rockets in-house? That hasn't been the case since, like, the 1950s.
Also, what do you think should have been done differently? He apparently [chicagotribune.com] had "Secret" level security clearance, which according to Wikipedia involves the following:
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And not then, either! America's post-war rocket technology and expertise came from Germany.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:too much (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:too much (Score:4, Informative)
As I mentioned in another comment, Chung had Secret-level security clearance, which (if I understand correctly) requires precisely the sort of background checks you describe.
Parent
Re:too much (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Top Secret != Polygraph Interview (Score:4, Informative)
Security Clearance investigations are expensive. Polygraph test add to the expense.
Parent
Re:too much (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, they should also undergo phrenology and palmistry exams too.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:too much (Score:4, Informative)
* There are many examples of institutional incompetence in the CIA, but two I think exemplify it:
Exhibit A: failure to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall or the Soviet Union. It was a complete surprise to them.
Exhibit B: yellowcake uranium. 'nuff said.
Parent
Not the Space Shuttle! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not the Space Shuttle! (Score:5, Funny)
The first indication that this was a bad idea should have been that the alien had crashed...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why is it always China? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why is it always China? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Because it makes for a good headline? (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing new there. Besides, I'd be amazed if e.g. India, Pakistan, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, and Iran weren't also active (or trying to be active) in this field.
Why then do we hear often about Chinese espionage? Is it just that Chinese espionage makes good headlines?
Well ... perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there are so many (very good) ethnically Chinese engineers and scientists in the US, in all walks of life. Due to do Americans not being interested in an arduous career in Engineering or the Sciences when they can instead aim at Management, Legal services, or brokerage I'm told. Well, admittedly the Chinese government is quite organised about industrial espionage, and it's easier to get a rapport with an ethnic countryman than with some foreigner.
So ... if we assume a fixed promillage of the population open to espionage proposals, we must expect Chinese to be over-represented.
Besides which ... it's not as if the US doesn't commit industrial espionage of itself (primarily in the EU; see e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/31/ianblack [guardian.co.uk]).
Lets just save our righteous indignation for a more worthy cause and simply shore up security on projects and firms that are attractive targets, shall we?
Parent
Well ... let's think that one through first, ok? (Score:5, Insightful)
However ... I do see a few probl... err ... I mean of course "Opportunities" here.
The first one being the opportunity to convince management in the US to pay engineers and scientists more and/or MBA's less.
The second one would be to convince them to stop seeing the engineering and R&D departments as regrettable cost centers to be outsourced and/or off-shored at the first opportunity.
The third opportunity would be to convince industry to offer Ph.D's opportunities (and to some extent academic entry-level positions) that make it less of a financial risk to do a Ph.D.
Prospects for Ph.D's (depending on discipline of course) can be so awful that you have to basically tell students: "Don't do a Ph.D. unless you (a) really derive fulfillment from doing research / teaching even if you're paid half to 1/3 of what you'd get in industry and (b) you are in the top 5% of your class, or you won't be able to get tenured".
Well ... industrial espionage is part of doing business. Between companies as much as between countries. Besides, trade is a two-way street. It's not as if the US are providing China with development aid. The US are benefiting from cheap Chinese products too. Have you ever considered what the impact on the US would be if there were to be say, 30% import tariffs on Chinese goods?
All those PC's, printers, T-shirts, hand tools, shoes, toys, and what not? First you'd kick off a vicious round of inflation if you did ... plus you'd be seriously hurting the bottom line of such all-American companies that have off-shored their manufactoring operations to China (just think of HP).
Generally speaking, you'd saddle lots of US companies with higher costs which would make them vulnerable in the current economic downturn *and* make them less competitive with e.g. EU-based companies.
Sure ... it would hurt China. They might even have riots. But it would hurt the US too. Very much so I'd say. So let's just be very sure about the cost-benefit ratio of such measures before we seriously propose them, ok? Like it or not, the US is as much networked into the global economy as China, the EU, and OPEC.
It's not to say that the US can't rescind China's "most favoured nation" state. Of course it can! The question is: what are the costs and what are the benefits. And I submit that the costs just might be a bit steep for the satisfaction of making our displeasure about industrial espionage known.
Parent
Re:Why is it always China? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, I'd be surprised if we aren't doing the same thing to China, at least I'd hope we are. It's a bit more difficult in our case, since we don't have tens of thousands of American engineers and students flooding Chinese companies and schools.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why is it always China? (Score:4, Interesting)
They're educating themselves to advance their nation's interests, and their doing at our expense. This is happening all over, so yes, I think "pillage" is a good word. We put limits on legal immigration from different countries, with only so many allowed per year from each. That's not unusual among nations, everyone places controls on immigration. However, I think we should start doing the same thing for foreign students, especially from China since they're abusing the system. At the very least, they should only be allowed to study here if they aren't displacing U.S. citizens. Face it, the Chinese are putting their country first: I have no problem with that. However, we should start doing the same if we want to have a country.
Parent
Re:Why is it always China? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since your evidence is entirely anecdotal, allow me to give an anecdote of my own (ie: one that was not passed onto me by a friend): I finished college 2 years ago and during my 4 years there the Chinese, Japanese and Korean students (1st or 2nd generation) were the ones who were consistently at the top of their classes in fields like math, engineering, science, etc.
Why is that?
In my experience it's the direct result of them spending their free time studying these subjects while the typical American student is taking bong rips or having sex.
Americans value the college experience for its education and social worth (bong rips and sex) while people from Asian cultures value college solely as a learning experience. They aren't there to have fun.
(Yes, these are generalizations and are based on personally experienced anecdotes, but none of what I said here was any more biased than the parent.)
Parent
Re:Why is it always China? (Score:5, Insightful)
They will focus like maniacs on getting every little edge they can to get a few points up (cheating very much included). Once you try to test them to see if they actually *understand* anything, they fall apart pretty rapidly and quite often are well behind other members of the class - when this happens they will often jump straight into the "me no understand the english so well" routine, which is just another game.
I have met some extremely bright Chinese students, but in no higher proportion than from any other group.
Parent
soft china policy (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know. Our policy towards China has been very soft. Part of that may be the China lobby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_lobby [wikipedia.org]
it's sad but true that American politicians aren't always working for the American people. Foreign interests can spread money around pretty easily, although they have to use a few levels of indirection.
Our policy, especially our trade policy, towards China has gotten ridiculous. We offer extremely low tariffs on Chinese imports, while Chinese tariffs are high. We ask them to put some effort in stopping the pirating of US products, and they respond by banning various US movies.
Also, it's distinctly *not* in America's interest to be propping up China's communist regime by keeping China profitable. In the short term we have some economic ties to China that are hard to break. In the long term, it's almost guaranteed that there will be some military conflict with China, a country that possesses a number of thermonuclear weapons mounted on ICBM's, as long as the communist party runs the country since they depend on ultra-nationalist and anti-american rhetoric to maintain political control of the country.
Even though the communist party knows that war with America would be a bad idea, they've relied so heavily on nationalist rhetoric, that position western powers and especially America as China's enemy, that they would have no choice but to go to war with us in a number of situations. For instance, whenever Taiwan gets around to declaring independence the Chinese government will be compelled by popular mandate to enter into war to occupy the island. The Chinese don't perceive Taiwan as an independent country and formal secession would be perceived as some kind of western aggression against Chinese territory.
I think that war with China would be a very bad idea for the US as well. We have them thoroughly outclassed in terms of naval and air forces, but that isn't all that helpful while they still have ICBM's. However, we need to negotiate more strongly and less naively, and put some effort into hamstringing China's long term economic growth, probably by cutting them off from oil supplies and imposing some prohibitive tariffs. China's growth is largely what sustains the communist party, and a strong economic downturn over a few years would probably result in a change of government.
Parent
Re:Why is it always China? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just give it time. We'll get there.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, I'm blaming us for letting it happen, but I would also hope that people would realize that China is not a friendly nation. They are out for themselves, and fundamentally don't grasp the concept of a trading partner:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These things are never obvious to the masses. The majority of the population is moved by their perception of well being, and is concerned only by immediate occurrences (both in time and regarding their social network).
From
Re:Why is it always China? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
because... (Score:4, Informative)
You're right to imply there is heightened sensitivity toward Chinese offenses in the media; of course, that's for good reason. Some of the answer is human nature, and some of it is cultural.
If it's "always China" now, it is instructive to remember that it always used to be Japan. Honest Japanese Americans and all Asian Americans mistaken as vaguely Japanese struggled for decades against FUD per what their forefathers had done in World War II. In the 80s it was more about competitive concerns, but the under toe of fear was still strong. Only with the rise of China, a common rival if not opponent for Japan and the U.S., and as well with Japan's economic setbacks, did heightened reporting of Japanese espionage recede, whether governmental or IP theft. It's instructive to remember because: some of it is just about the human need for an opponent.
Much of the answer is also, really just about China or rather Chinese culture, if not Asian versus European sensitivities. When I say it's for "good reason" that the U.S. media is especially sensitive to Chinese espionage, I observe not only from ample public evidence of organized governmental and corporate infiltration, but also from personal experience. I've had too many acquaintances from Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong as well as China who I knew were tasked to steal IP. It was a regular part of their experience where I studied (Cornell, Harvard) and later worked -- should they steal? Was it wrong? Often, family back in Asia were recruited to send tasking letters, putting all the more pressure on. It was almost never governmental at all in my experience, just corporate espionage such as theft of code, designs, chemical formulae and processes, kitchen sinks ...
I've heard less of it but similarly in Korean, Japanese, Filipino, and other East Asian circles. I'm born and raised American, and married to a citizen of India and working in software --> I have a lot of exposure to Indian culture --> IP theft is much less prevalent in South Asia than in the farther East. Anecdotally and from some academic reading when I majored in political science, it seems to be broadly East Asian but especially Chinese. I'm not saying the Chinese are less ethical, except from an especially American perspective; rather, it is the sense among Chinese that corporate espionage and spying in general is a fair competitive practice.
In the United States especially but all throughout the West, we have a fundamental cultural difference with the Chinese on this note. Oh sure, we do a lot of spying and stealing, but we generally think it's a moral wrong to do so. This doesn't mean we don't spy, but it means that when we do it, is always against a static coefficient of cultural friction; we are starting from a position that spying and IP theft are wrong.
In China and broadly Asia, IP is almost a misnomer -- ideas are not so much property at all, as part of the more general philosophical difference in which individual ownership and property are fundamentally weaker concepts over there. The degree to which Chinese spy is altogether different because the general assumption is that nearly everyone is doing it and to the greatest extent they can. They hide their spying of course, but not so much because they feel it is wrong, more simply because it is more effective when hidden. Because the Chinese execute against a kinetic coefficient of cultural friction, they enjoy a basic competitive advantage against Western entities.
In the U.S. therefore, we are not only afraid that the Chinese are spying. We are even more afraid that they don't think it's wrong, that they're effectively doing it every chance they get, that we have been largely ignorant of this basic cultural difference for decades, and frankly, that they are better at it than we are.
Expect it to be "always China" for a long time to come, and expect culturally American, ethnically Chinese, and good honest engineers and professionals in the U.S. to suffer the prejudicial consequences. BG
Parent
This is really bad! (Score:4, Funny)
These secrets will put them decades ahead in this area.
Uhm (Score:3, Interesting)
If anything, China would serve itself better by looking to the North, and copying Soyuz. Hell... I'm sure the Russians would be willing to sell the designs/equipment for most of their spacecraft for a very reasonable price, given their perpetual funding woes.
Even ignoring all that, it's still 1970s technology.
Re:Uhm (Score:5, Insightful)
Never let the enemy have anything for free.
Parent
this is abusing a rule of thumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeesh, this canard again. Look, when we really think about it, don't you think it's only an occasionally useful rule of thumb that the age of a technology has some correlation to its quality and cleverness? Why should it? Is it really reasonable to assume that every technological problem has an infinite number of solutions, which will always be discovered in ascending order of cleverness?
I mean, do we argue that astronauts shouldn't use ball-point pens in orbit because that's 1960s technology, and surely there must be something better now? That they shouldn't use handkerchiefs to blow their nose because that's 16th century technology? NASA shouldn't use wheels on the design of a moon rover because wheels were invented 5000 years ago? They should use something other than calculus to calculate orbits because it was invented in the 1620s and hasn't changed a bit since? Sometimes the best solution to a problem is an old and well-known one. Newer isn't automatically better.
It seems to me that the Space Shuttle was designed at the end of the golden age of rocketry: in the 50s and 60s clever youngsters went into aerospace the way they went into computers and the Internet in the 80s and 90s. It was exciting, it was way out on the frontier, and it paid decently. NASA and their contractors collected most of the best, and they did pretty impressive engineering work. Yes, they didn't have some of the fancy electronics parts their descendants have now, but avionics is only part of the spacecraft -- and when you're talking about a spacecraft that has to survive two very high-energy events (launch and re-entry) -- the quality and coolness of the avionics is probably not the key criterion for design success. Something like airframe design, system robustness, and a canny use of materials is probably way more important.
Since the 1980s, however, aerospace engineering talent in the US has aged and shrunk, and far fewer of the best and brightest go into the field. Furthermore, the excitement and potential glory of a real frontier-type mission is missing. Designing reliable electric bus connectors for solar-power panels on the ISS isn't quite the same as trying to squeeze an extra 5 ounces out of the weight of the first manned Mars lander. It doesn't attract the very best young talent.
So it may very well be that the "1970s technology" design of the SS is as good or better than what could be done today, avionics aside. Certainly the difficulty which private aerospace has had recently in trying to duplicate, essentially, the circa 1965 Saturn 1B medium-lift launch vehicle should make one pause thoughtfully before concluding that it's just a piece of cake to design a combination heavy-lift vehicle and re-usable manned spaceplane seating 10 that leaves the SS in the dust. I mean, if it were easy to do better -- wouldn't someone have done so, already? It's not like there isn't a fortune to be made by the first organization that can get 50 tons of cargo and a crew of 10 to LEO for 10% of the price of a SS launch.
Parent
Re:Uhm (Score:4, Insightful)
And hopefully the Chinese will now go off and waste 30 years on it like we did.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And at what point do we close the doors on them. (Score:5, Funny)
Continuing to do business with China is like having a Gremlin as a pet. Or having a stuffed clown in your bedroom. Anyone growing up in the 80s will tell you those are two VERY big no-nos.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now we are getting loads of cheap and almost okay quality products.
It's a tradeoff. I don't like it mind you. Shipping slavery to another continent is not something I approve of.
Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them (Score:5, Interesting)
India, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, Columbia, etc. There are plenty of democracies or semi-democracies that would love to have our business.
And/or, we could put our own rust-belt back to work so maybe their crime and poverty will go down. The "evils" of protectionism are exaggerated by business lobbyists.
Parent
It's a bad sign (Score:5, Funny)
Well, at least now... (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, on a serious note, this is 1976(?) tech here. I can understand wanting it real bad in 1979, but, err, 32 year-old-stuff is kinda dated when you consider that we routinely give China techonology that's a whole Hell of a lot newer [theregister.co.uk].
Besides, weren't they going to retire the Shuttle anyway? If China wants one so bad, why not sell 'em a used one for a decent markup?
As someone who has worked in and around certain aircraft projects a very long time ago, I can say for certain that this guy would've never even hoped to get near, say, an F-117 or B-2 project... there's too much compartmentalization (especially between NASA and the USAF/USN, for Hell's sakes...)
Given all of that - unless the guy started hacking mainframes and whatnot @ Boeing, I guess I just don't see where there would be a really huge dent in US national security at this point. He wouldn't have had the clearance, for starters.
Vaguely OT: Sibel Edmonds (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/article1.html [amconmag.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/sibel-edmonds-must-be-hea_b_84781.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Um, just for the record... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If American-backed spies stole Chinese plans, the Chinese would be up in arms, milking it for all it's worth. That's what everyone does.
Oh man (Score:5, Funny)
Open source all of this stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Ride.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks Bill and
Loral Corp.
Hope you both burn in hell.
SueSue
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, our government may need enemies in order to justify increasing levels of control over the U.S. population, but to make a sweeping statement that "American
Re:duh! (Score:5, Informative)
Excerpt:
Parent