Exporting Knowledge Via Students 397
brainhum writes "SF Weekly reports that proposed Department of Commerce regulations will require foreign students at US universities to apply for export licenses to use dual purpose technologies in the classroom. From the article: 'Inherent in the new rules is a discriminatory contradiction: Students from India, which has cordial relations with the U.S., will need licenses to study, but students from Saudi Arabia -- home country for most of the participants in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, and much of the financing and ideology behind Islamist terrorism -- will not.' The proposed regulations point out that current export license requirements are based on the person's most recent citizenship, which they believe, could allow a person born in Iran to avoid licensing if they held Canadian citizenship. More information is available in the SF Weekly story "Student of Concern"."
Ummm? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Note, I haven't read TFA, so I really don't have an informed opinion of what's going on, it was just a thought that struck me.)
My Take (Score:3, Interesting)
My opinion is that it's a free country, but does that make it a free world? Should people be able to move all the business out of one country to simply make a buck? Maybe that's not ethical if you're gaining the knowledge from the country in question. But maybe there is a better twist to it...
I'm Canadian and I have tried outsourcing to the US before with my LAMP [wikipedia.org] knowledge (PHP). The pay simply sucks. I can get more money doing local work for charities than working for someone abroad. The pay is that bad. So if Joe American wants to pay that to India to get better positioning for their company's budget -- I'm all for it. Why? Because now I can compete directly against the Indian firm on QUALITY -- something they can't compete on because they just don't have the time with all this new business coming in, IMHO.
I take more time to be sure the job is well done, and that reinforces the expression that you get what you pay for.
Uh huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think what's far scarier is that the country that Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski come from doesn't have this restriction. They're able to go to US universities without licenses.
Saudi Arabia... (Score:3, Interesting)
Another wrong idea [Re:Wrong idea!] (Score:5, Interesting)
Blanket statements such as these always invite the inevitable discussions. ("No your wrong!" "You suck!" "No YOU suck!"). World War II had many causes. Unlike some other wars which can be traced back to a single cause, WWII's causes included:
European theater
- Hilter's desire to return Germany to first class world power status after being humilated by the Treaty of Versailles.
- Hilter's policy of "living space" which demanded the forced exodus of people of slavic origin in order to make space of his "Master Race." And my forced exodus I also mean the systematic genocide of entire races. (The eugenics you speak of).
- Domination of the European continent, politically. Hilter's Germany probably would not have occupied France and other Western European countries if Germany had won the war. Instead they would have set up satellite states similar to the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact.
- Mussolini's desire to elevate Italy to first class world power status.
- His own imperial desires to conquor the Balkens, Greece, and North Africa in order to make modern Italy a second "Roman Empire."
- Britian and France's inability to recognize Facsim as a threat they had to match early on, instead appeasing Hilter and letting him "annex" the Sudatenland, Austria, and Chezkoslovakia. (okay not really a cause but not everything is Hilter's fault)
Pacific TheatreOf course I havn't touched on all the causes and I am sure I got some of my details wrong. In addition I am sure I made a blanket statement somewhere that will invite discussion.
Oh well. :\
Re:Another wrong idea [Re:Wrong idea!] (Score:3, Interesting)
Specifically, their 'exchange' agreements with Germany from which the germans got a loophole for the military limitations Versailles imposed on them, while the russians got the tech.
Oh, and it's "fascism", btw.
Ethics and Countries (Score:3, Interesting)
As an analogy suppose you were visiting a poor diabetic for dinner. On your way in you scan the room trying to memorize everything you see as you have trained yourself to do at great effort because you often find it gives you an advantage. In so doing you spot his insulin hiding out of the way under a pillow. After dinner his blood sugar shoots up and he can't find his insulin. Now you could demand to garnish his already small wages in return for telling him where the insulin is hiding. After all you did make an investment to gain this information and it isn't your fault he lost the insulin. However it would still be morally wrong to do so.
In general when helping someone costs you very little and aids them greatly you have a moral obligation to help. This is just as true when the other person is in another country as when they are in your neighborhood. Furthermore it is hard to think of an example where the benefit is potentially so great relative to the cost. The information itself costs nothing and at worst we improve the standard of living in these other countries and lose our supply of cheap labour (more likely though everyone gains because as these countries become rich they too produce scientific and engineering knowledge). Conversely this information offers the possibility for these countries to pull out of poverty and go from horrible suffering to a comfortable existance.
Finally, why should countries be the relevant units? Why is it that other americans should have the right to this knowledge but not Indians or Iraqis? Is there something special that makes americans more worthy?
Sure you might reply it matters because it is the result of US scientists (which isn't even necesserily true). However, this doesn't answer anything. Why isn't it the children of all scientists who should have the right to this information, or perhaps only the people in the state it was discovered? Or if you want to make the taxpayer funding argument shouldn't only the rich be given access, the poor after all are on net recieving resources from the government and hence can't be said to be funding the research.
The choice of countries as the relevant group of people who should benefit is merely a selfish choice or just an emotional one. We do it out of warm feelings of nationalism or because this lets us extract the most money from other groups. However, it is morally irrelevant and wrong. There is no relevant moral difference between someone born 100feet south of the US-Mexico border and one born 100feet north.
I understand that we all get used to and expect a certain quality of life. We start feeling we deserve this high paying (relative to other countries) job or such a good salary. However, if your salary drops by half you still have hospitals to treat you, indoor plumbing, water, police, fire, a TV, radio, and cellphone (though less minutes). Allowing this sort of information and jobs to migrate to the third world makes the difference for them between abject poverty and a minimal level of comfort and health. If you really believe all men are made equal the fact you were born an american can't mean you deserve these things and they don't, who your parents were shouldn't make a difference. So it is clear the only moral thing to do is not try and block this flow of expertise and jobs.
Of course we should implement a massive government insurance scheme so that one segment of society is not bearing the brunt of this cost alone but this is a topic for another day.