The US Government is Ending the China Initiative (technologyreview.com) 32
The Justice Department's effort to prosecute cases of economic espionage had drifted from its stated mission and drawn fierce criticism for appearing to target researchers because of their ethnicity. From a report: The US Justice Department is ending its controversial China Initiative and will pivot to a new strategy to counter threats from nation states, it announced February 24. The program began under the Trump administration as an effort to root out economic espionage, but drew criticism for falling short of that stated goal while increasingly focusing on academics and researchers of Chinese descent. Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen, in an announcement made during a talk at the National Security Institute at George Mason University, said that after a review of the program, he has concluded that the China Initiative is "not the right approach" to countering national security threats. "Instead, the current threat landscape, demands a broader approach."
"Make no mistake -- we will be relentless in defending our country from China," he said. "But our review convinced us that a new approach is needed to tackle the most severe threats." He emphasized his belief that the department's actions were driven by genuine national security concerns, but said that by grouping cases under the China Initiative, the DOJ helped create a perception that it treats people with ties to China differently. Instead, he announced a new strategy focused broadly on threats from hostile countries. Olsen began a review of the initiative in November, during which he said he heard concerns from the civil rights community about racial bias. He also said he heard concerns from the academic community that prosecutions of researchers for grant fraud and other charges has had a chilling effect. His National Security Division will take a "supervisory" approach to academic integrity and research security prosecutions, but that will not affect pending cases against academics scheduled to go to trial. "I am comfortable with them going forward," he said.
"Make no mistake -- we will be relentless in defending our country from China," he said. "But our review convinced us that a new approach is needed to tackle the most severe threats." He emphasized his belief that the department's actions were driven by genuine national security concerns, but said that by grouping cases under the China Initiative, the DOJ helped create a perception that it treats people with ties to China differently. Instead, he announced a new strategy focused broadly on threats from hostile countries. Olsen began a review of the initiative in November, during which he said he heard concerns from the civil rights community about racial bias. He also said he heard concerns from the academic community that prosecutions of researchers for grant fraud and other charges has had a chilling effect. His National Security Division will take a "supervisory" approach to academic integrity and research security prosecutions, but that will not affect pending cases against academics scheduled to go to trial. "I am comfortable with them going forward," he said.
Good call (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't a bad idea in concept to try to ferret out and stop industrial espionage, but they screwed up the implementation of it so badly that there was really no good way to keep it up. Important note, if you have a high-profile initiative to fight crime, you should make sure that the people you arrest have actually a committed a crime BEFORE you arrest them, not after.
Changing the focus to "we will investigate industrial espionage regardless of who is committing it" also helps make the point of it clearer.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, good call to end it.
It wasn't a bad idea in concept to try to ferret out and stop industrial espionage, but they screwed up the implementation of it so badly that there was really no good way to keep it up. Important note, if you have a high-profile initiative to fight crime, you should make sure that the people you arrest have actually a committed a crime BEFORE you arrest them, not after.
Changing the focus to "we will investigate industrial espionage regardless of who is committing it" also helps make the point of it clearer.
Also... aren't there already agencies that investigate and prevent industrial espionage in the US? Surely a collaborative effort between the CIA (identify threats before they enter the country). the FBI (investigate threats inside the US), state/local police (along with the FBI, doing actual, on the ground gruntwork) and Treasury (because the easiest way to get evidence is to follow the money) would be better.
This sounds like a Trump vanity project, as such would be run in a way to stroke Trumps ego rath
Re: (Score:1)
China will own Russia in a few years. That means they will get ahold of Russia's assets which includes Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.newsweek.com/donal... [newsweek.com]
Sorry about linking to Newsweek, but I'm too lazy to find something more reputable.
Does that mean the CCP will shut it down... (Score:2)
if we all post genocide Truths?
Trump the weakling (Score:2)
Trump's MO is to show off toughness by going after the wrong targets. He went after illegal immigrants in farms instead of violent criminals. Now he wants a rematch after, by his own statements .. not mine, having lost to a dementia patient and getting outclassed by China who sent him a virus. Who knows what they have planned if he wants a second round of Dunk the Clown. He allowed the Taliban to grow, and handed Syria over to the Russians while letting ISIS thrive. He didn't do shit against Iran despite bo
Re: (Score:2)
https://trends.google.com/tren... [google.com]
And according to this, the need for the Great Wall of Mexico was felt most urgently in the Dakotas, Idaho, Alaska, and Wyoming. But of course.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm no fan of Dear Leader, but it was the Afghanis that lost Afghanistan. They refused to stand up a proper respectable country. In that case, there was nothing the U.S. could do to keep the charade going. It is worth noting that the Bug-Out deal was "negotiated" by Dear Leader. I presume he was tired of winning. And that deal had the U.S. bugging out in April or May. It was left Biden to implement the damn thing and they barely pulled it off by Sept.
W.r.t. Syria, I don't think the U.S. handed Syria over to
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of Dear Leader, but it was the Afghanis that lost Afghanistan. They refused to stand up a proper respectable country. In that case, there was nothing the U.S. could do
Turns out that the Afghanis didn't want to be a puppet of a distant foreign power.
Turns out also that, once they weren't under the oversight of a distant foreign power, the most thuggish and repressive of the factions took over. Of course.
Sometimes when you can't win, the best move is get out of the game.
The number of violent criminals (Score:1)
Worse, a *lot* of them are men beating up their wives. The #1 suspect in anytime a women is murdered is her boyfriend or husband. They're usually crimes of passion that could be prevented by blocking domestic abusers from owning firearms, but, well NRA wants to sell them guns so that wasn't on the table (for the record no, I don't support gun control beyond taking guns away from people with a history of violent crime,
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any recent statistics to back that up?
"Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2019,..."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fa... [pewresearch.org]
With that said, though, there may have been an uptick in 2020:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/... [bbci.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Will they still like China when the invade Taiwan?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the CCP (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Biden Cartel? Let me guess, you bought all that bullshit Dear Leader promoted during the campaign and you thought you'd unload it here. Did you take your Hydroxychloroquine this morning?
Re: (Score:2)
Whom else should they have targeted? (Score:1)
Considering, that China's recruits based on ethnicity [wired.com], focusing on Chinese nationals makes sense:
Re: (Score:2)
Considering, that China's recruits based on ethnicity, focusing on Chinese nationals makes sense
Being ethnically Chinese does not mean someone is guilty. Neither should it be a shield (by claiming racism) against investigation.
If there is cause for suspicion, there should be an investigation. There should also be random audits of researchers who may be vulnerable, as is common for those with high security jobs.
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing of the kind is claimed.
Being Chinese is a valid contributing factor to any such suspicion. Not because Chinese are somehow inherently untrustworthy — that would've been racist indeed — but because China primarily recruits among ethnic Chinese.
"Random" would be a waste of time, money, and other resources here.
Re: (Score:2)
Which isn't surprising given that china is literally committing genocide right now, as we speak, against anyone who isn't Han. It's kind of like being shocked that the SS tried to recruit tall blond blue eyed people of nordic or germanic descent.
like every other Trump initiative (Score:2)
If you're going to stand up something that's targeted like that, you have to do it damn-near perfectly. You need a 99% conviction rate or better. You do ALL your homework, and make DAMN sure you don't drag down any innocents.
What we got was a program that targeted any prominent science/engineering proc
Is this because of the Gang Chen case? (Score:2)
I wonder if this has anything to do with the case against MIT's Gang Chen [slashdot.org]? They dropped charges against him.