Statement by Professor Xi on the Dismissal of the Federal Indictment(xiaoxingxi.org)
xiaoxingxi.org
Statement by Professor Xi on the Dismissal of the Federal Indictment
http://www.xiaoxingxi.org/
69 comments
> All of this seems like overkill
Did they really burst into his home, armed -- arms drawn? -- and handcuff him in front of his children? Was that necessary?
I don't know enough about the case to speak to the charges themselves -- and I'm confident that, regardless of Xi's individual circumstances, there is plenty of espionage going on [1] -- but I have to wonder at yet another incident that appears to insist upon storm trooper tactics -- followed I presume by a publicity motivated perp walk.
[1] And why don't we pursue further all the production agreements where the Chinese use their economic leverage (politically prescribed and enabled cheaper production costs) to coerce domestic production as a condition of participation in their domestic sector and trade, whereupon they examine and copy the relevant technology, including supposedly restricted high technology components, wholesale.
Who's knocking on the door of e.g. the CEO of Hughes?
Who's publicly displaying those who've grossly mismanaged compromised high value information systems?
Each case like this just further disillusions me with respect to what increasingly appears to be primarily the Federal government's ongoing dog and pony show of law enforcement.
Back to the SWAT teams and perp walks. I no longer see quiet competence on display. Rather, more and more political grandstanding.
Did they really burst into his home, armed -- arms drawn? -- and handcuff him in front of his children? Was that necessary?
I don't know enough about the case to speak to the charges themselves -- and I'm confident that, regardless of Xi's individual circumstances, there is plenty of espionage going on [1] -- but I have to wonder at yet another incident that appears to insist upon storm trooper tactics -- followed I presume by a publicity motivated perp walk.
[1] And why don't we pursue further all the production agreements where the Chinese use their economic leverage (politically prescribed and enabled cheaper production costs) to coerce domestic production as a condition of participation in their domestic sector and trade, whereupon they examine and copy the relevant technology, including supposedly restricted high technology components, wholesale.
Who's knocking on the door of e.g. the CEO of Hughes?
Who's publicly displaying those who've grossly mismanaged compromised high value information systems?
Each case like this just further disillusions me with respect to what increasingly appears to be primarily the Federal government's ongoing dog and pony show of law enforcement.
Back to the SWAT teams and perp walks. I no longer see quiet competence on display. Rather, more and more political grandstanding.
Armed raids help destabilize families, do profound psychological damage including PTSD, cause property damage, can render your home uninhabitable, lead to evictions, and consume resources that could otherwise be spent defending yourself, all before you ever see a judge. Bonus points for being able to directly punish the children and loved ones of the person you don't like, in some cases burning them with stun grenades, breaking limbs, telling them you're "going to fucking kill them", or otherwise causing them hardship in order to affect an emotional response in your primary suspect. If I were a sociopath trying to destroy lives extrajudicially and win/plea-bargain as many cases as I possibly could, all to further my career regardless of the person's true guilt, I'd do the same. We're fucking animals.
Not to mention the clichéd SOP, which might actually be SOP, of shooting the dog on sight.
Why is the government acting on what is a contractual matter between Xi and "US company"?
All governments have technology that they monitor and restrict in the UK this is called List X.
I remember buying some computer kit and it came with about 20 pages of legal docs saying who we where not allowed to re export to and what the legal penalties where
I remember buying some computer kit and it came with about 20 pages of legal docs saying who we where not allowed to re export to and what the legal penalties where
That's not what he was charged with.
You do wonder if there is some internal university politics going on as well certainly being forced out of his job instead of being put on paid leave smells bad
If you read his statement, you will see that he thanks the university for standing behind him and treating him as "innocent until and unless proven guilty", as they should. I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this theory.
"taking away his title as "chairman of the physics department" doesn't strike me as fair.
And he's obviously he playing nice with his employer - to try and stave off any retaliation.
You do know the famous quote "University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small."
And he's obviously he playing nice with his employer - to try and stave off any retaliation.
You do know the famous quote "University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small."
It seems to me that "chairman of the physics department" is a real job with real work and you want someone there who is able to do it. Do you think he was able to do that job properly with this hanging over his head? If not, he should have moved on.
But it should not happen when your on administrative leave.
Can you imagine a physics department where the chair is on administrative leave?
Easily, with an interim acting chair. Upheaval under all contingencies is minimized with this solution.
Yes why is it any different to any other job - the deputy does the job,
Can you imagine a physics class taught by a grad student?
Half the job of the chair is to manage the human side of the department's priorities, including resolving disputes between faculty. You need moral authority, which a grad doesn't have.
The scale is about the same, and as someone else mentioned near here, the deputy chair would take over.
Taking away his title is far removed from firing him and washing their hands of him, as was implied. Based on what he wrote it's fair to assume that he's been talking with the university during the process, the talks have been productive and positive, and it's possible he will be reinstated.
We won't know for sure until he publishes "his side" as he put it, so it's all conjecture at this stage, including on my part.
We won't know for sure until he publishes "his side" as he put it, so it's all conjecture at this stage, including on my part.
Compared to the university going through the hoops to fire a tenured professor, it's reasonably fair. A lot of physics departments do work with outside companies and the government as well; a chair arrested for espionage isn't conducive to those sorts of relationships. I'm surprised that the university was willing to refrain from throwing him under the bus, all things considered.
No one liked being the chairman of the math department when I was studying there. It's a bureaucratic job that gets in the way of what professors usually want to do: research. It's a big, important job, and you want someone doing it who isn't dealing with the fed :)
Exactly. In every science department I have been in, being chair is not seen as a privilege, but as a burden. Attitudes mostly range from "hell no, I'll quit if you try to make me chair" to "okay, I'll do it, but only if you can't find anyone else, and for a single 3-year term, and you better not ask me again for the next 12 years".
In my current department, we were lucky to have someone who liked doing it, so they were given the job repeatedly. When they went on leave and it was time to find a replacement, we had to beg someone to step up to the job.
Faculty who want to be chair eventually shift to administration. The remaining faculty want to do research and/or teach, not be chair.
In my current department, we were lucky to have someone who liked doing it, so they were given the job repeatedly. When they went on leave and it was time to find a replacement, we had to beg someone to step up to the job.
Faculty who want to be chair eventually shift to administration. The remaining faculty want to do research and/or teach, not be chair.
I believe this at least partially driven by internal politics. Dr. Xi was very, very unpopular. The reaction to his indictment on the Temple University subreddit was very indicative of this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Temple/comments/36w3df/cst_dean_mik...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Temple/comments/36w3df/cst_dean_mik...
There is only one reddit user in that thread that said his students hate him. I hope you have other sources that shows he is "very very unpopular".
The comments on that reddit link are so vicious.
Yet also so vague. That was a weird thread.
This entire affair seems to be an exercise in telling half the story and seeing how different people react. We're never told what set the Feds on Xi's trail in the first place, and that might be important.
This entire affair seems to be an exercise in telling half the story and seeing how different people react. We're never told what set the Feds on Xi's trail in the first place, and that might be important.
Before we make allegations about someone personally, I think we should have better evidence than a Reddit thread.
I imagine after the OPM hack the government started looking at lot more closely at communications between Chinese citizens and China, just like they did with the muslims after 9/11. Why would they do that when the attack was likely to have happened remotely anyway and would have nothing to do with Chinese residents? Who knows. Maybe just because "they can", once they have such powers.
For those of you unfamiliar with the story, this New York Times piece describes how this all happened in the first instance. One more datum on federal incompetence: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/us/politics/us-drops-charg...
> carrying a maximum of 80 years in prison
It boggles the mind that it's even possible to manufacture such a charge. In most European countries you would get the highest sentence for the biggest crime, which although wouldn't be "accurate" either, it's a whole lot closer to what the punishment should be than stacking the sentences up.
And please spare me the "but he would never get this sentence anyway!" argument. If you were in his position and the government would tell you you're risking 80 years in prison unless you fully cooperated with it, you'd shit your pants, too, and you'd probably give up any rights you have just to not risk getting anywhere close to that sentence, or you would even settle and plead guilty to avoid that.
It boggles the mind that it's even possible to manufacture such a charge. In most European countries you would get the highest sentence for the biggest crime, which although wouldn't be "accurate" either, it's a whole lot closer to what the punishment should be than stacking the sentences up.
And please spare me the "but he would never get this sentence anyway!" argument. If you were in his position and the government would tell you you're risking 80 years in prison unless you fully cooperated with it, you'd shit your pants, too, and you'd probably give up any rights you have just to not risk getting anywhere close to that sentence, or you would even settle and plead guilty to avoid that.
This.
The fact is that "pleading not guilty" is statistically the "biggest" crime you can commit in much of the US (meaning the one you are likely to be punished for most severely). Which of course makes a mockery of most of the protections of the law.
See also:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn...
Or
"In some jurisdictions, this gap has widened so much it has become coercive and is used to punish defendants for exercising their right to trial, some legal experts say."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-pr...
The fact is that "pleading not guilty" is statistically the "biggest" crime you can commit in much of the US (meaning the one you are likely to be punished for most severely). Which of course makes a mockery of most of the protections of the law.
See also:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn...
Or
"In some jurisdictions, this gap has widened so much it has become coercive and is used to punish defendants for exercising their right to trial, some legal experts say."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-pr...
We are going down that road here in the UK - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/crippling-court-c...
Mafia-like legal system. Do what we say or else.
> It boggles the mind that it's even possible to manufacture such a charge.
Well, y'see, you were accused of a crime. If you don't admit you are guilty and save us the trouble of due process, well, you'll be punished more severely than if you bent over nice and quick for good ol' Uncle Sam.
Its basically a way for prosecutors to pressure people into plea bargains. It helps them maintain their 90%+ conviction rates.
Well, y'see, you were accused of a crime. If you don't admit you are guilty and save us the trouble of due process, well, you'll be punished more severely than if you bent over nice and quick for good ol' Uncle Sam.
Its basically a way for prosecutors to pressure people into plea bargains. It helps them maintain their 90%+ conviction rates.
The other side of that coin is convicted rapists serving 2-3 years in prison ala Sweden.
No, that's not the other side of the coin at all.
1. The issues are orthogonal. You can simply raise the minimum sentence attached to rape, whether you stack sentences or not.
2. The punishment is almost entirely irrelevant. What matters is the recidivism rate. This may just be a difference in morals. I believe the justice system exists to protect society and reintegrate criminals into it, or keep them out if they are not salvageable. I do not believe revenge has a place in the justice system. An eye for an eye makes everyone go blind.
1. The issues are orthogonal. You can simply raise the minimum sentence attached to rape, whether you stack sentences or not.
2. The punishment is almost entirely irrelevant. What matters is the recidivism rate. This may just be a difference in morals. I believe the justice system exists to protect society and reintegrate criminals into it, or keep them out if they are not salvageable. I do not believe revenge has a place in the justice system. An eye for an eye makes everyone go blind.
Sweden is just one example. In Germany you get a criminal sentence and potentially preventive detention, which means you get to stay in prison until you no longer pose any danger to society. Given that nobody wants to be responsible for releasing such a prisoner only to have him commit a crime later on, people tend to stay quite a while in preventive detention.
Makes much more sense than labelling people as sex offenders in my opinion.
Makes much more sense than labelling people as sex offenders in my opinion.
Sweden defines rape differently than we do. See: Julian Assange.
No we are talking about actual rape reap, including child molestation, as well as early release for all sentences (1/3rd) unless you have behaved very very badly.
What's their recidivism rate like? Nothing else matters, IMO.
Don't have Sweden, Norway's is apparently 20%. US is >50% to 70%, depending on sources.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-s...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-s...
Sweden's is closer to the US. for 3 years it's 40%
https://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statist...
I need to find the decade stat's those were in the 60's for men (especially of certain groups).
Norway has a slightly better sentencing system, the sentences are also quite short but not as comically short as in Sweden where they are too short for any effective programs.
Here's a famous case of a man convicted of molesting 100's of children in both Sweden and Norway who got 9 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Andersen_(child_molester) He was convicted on over 60 counts, and it's hardly a unicorn case.
Norway has a slightly better sentencing system, the sentences are also quite short but not as comically short as in Sweden where they are too short for any effective programs.
Here's a famous case of a man convicted of molesting 100's of children in both Sweden and Norway who got 9 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Andersen_(child_molester) He was convicted on over 60 counts, and it's hardly a unicorn case.
2/3rds, and obviously not including life sentences (although they can of course be commuted to time limited ones, in which case the general rule applies).
There is no life sentence in Sweden like in many other countries.
Well, that's just plain wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Sweden
Have you actually read the entire article?
IIRC the federal government really doesn't offer plea bargains, right? And federal sentencing is pretty rigid, so he probably would have served ~80 years.
> IIRC the federal government really doesn't offer plea bargains, right?
Quite the contrary - in 2013, 97% of federal cases that weren't dismissed ended in a plea bargain: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn...
> And federal sentencing is pretty rigid, so he probably would have served ~80 years.
No - in fact there's no way the Sentencing Guidelines would have given a sentence anywhere near 80 years: http://popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-ele...
Quite the contrary - in 2013, 97% of federal cases that weren't dismissed ended in a plea bargain: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn...
> And federal sentencing is pretty rigid, so he probably would have served ~80 years.
No - in fact there's no way the Sentencing Guidelines would have given a sentence anywhere near 80 years: http://popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-ele...
That's correct the USSG pretty much makes plea agreements non-viable because it doesn't allow the prosecutor to offer any substantial leniency on sentencing, mandatory minimums on pretty much every federal crime also make plea agreements pointless.
On the local level plea agreements are used to make prosecuting people cheaper, if you don't agree to it they'll pretty much fuck you up intentionally just to prove a point which is probably even worse than not having the ability to offer them in the first place.
On the local level plea agreements are used to make prosecuting people cheaper, if you don't agree to it they'll pretty much fuck you up intentionally just to prove a point which is probably even worse than not having the ability to offer them in the first place.
> That's correct the USSG pretty much makes plea agreements non-viable because it doesn't allow the prosecutor to offer any substantial leniency on sentencing, mandatory minimums on pretty much every federal crime also make plea agreements pointless.
You are very wrong.
First of all, the majority of federal crimes do not have mandatory minimums. http://famm.org/Repository/Files/Chart%20All%20Fed%20MMs%202... is an exhaustive list of federal crimes with mandatory minimums. It's only a fraction of the total number of federal crimes.
More importantly, the effect of the Sentencing Guidelines was that it removed sentencing discretion from judges and gave it to prosecutors. That's because the sentencing range given by the guidelines is influenced by what charges the prosecutor brings, and the details of those charges such as quantity of drugs or amount of property damage. This gives the prosecutor enormous influence over the sentence.[1] (Edited to add: In the same way the prosecutor can influence whether a statutory minimum is triggered.)
Consequentially, the plea bargain rate in federal cases is about 97% whereas in states it is somewhat less.
See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn... for a federal judge's take on the situation.
[1] Technically, since U.S. v. Booker in 2005, the sentencing guidelines are only "advisory" so the judge can ignore them, but judges still mostly sentence according to the guidelines.
You are very wrong.
First of all, the majority of federal crimes do not have mandatory minimums. http://famm.org/Repository/Files/Chart%20All%20Fed%20MMs%202... is an exhaustive list of federal crimes with mandatory minimums. It's only a fraction of the total number of federal crimes.
More importantly, the effect of the Sentencing Guidelines was that it removed sentencing discretion from judges and gave it to prosecutors. That's because the sentencing range given by the guidelines is influenced by what charges the prosecutor brings, and the details of those charges such as quantity of drugs or amount of property damage. This gives the prosecutor enormous influence over the sentence.[1] (Edited to add: In the same way the prosecutor can influence whether a statutory minimum is triggered.)
Consequentially, the plea bargain rate in federal cases is about 97% whereas in states it is somewhat less.
See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn... for a federal judge's take on the situation.
[1] Technically, since U.S. v. Booker in 2005, the sentencing guidelines are only "advisory" so the judge can ignore them, but judges still mostly sentence according to the guidelines.
There's some real interesting ones in that mandatory minimum doc. For example, "Refusal to operate railroad or telegraph lines " which was created in 1888. You know there's an interesting story behind that one.
I still don't understand how the DoJ screwed up so much in this case.
Did they see schematics in an email and then made the wild assumption that it was nefarious? That seems absurd.
Did they see schematics in an email and then made the wild assumption that it was nefarious? That seems absurd.
Quite a number of people in the world, including those in positions of authority, are shockingly incompetent at a very basic level.
And there are many "career-opportunists" hoping to score brownie points to fast-track their way to a few promotions.
Is anyone else disturbed by the use of FISA of 1978?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
They basically accused him of being a Chinese Spy but instead charged him with Fraud. :|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
They basically accused him of being a Chinese Spy but instead charged him with Fraud. :|
FISA's probably being cited there because the e-mail evidence was, in all likelihood, captured by the NSA. It turns out you don't need a dystopian future for unaccountable pervasive domestic spying to ruin lives, you just need an incompetent one.
Yeah, but in theory, the NSA/CIA are foreign surveillance and not to be used to gather evidence on domestic citizens.
In the most theoretical of theories.
This always happens when there is a public hysteria over a new threat. Innocent lives are very quickly ruined, charges get dropped and evidence fails to hold up in the courtroom on a frequent basis, and despite all of this the actual criminals continue to operate successfully afterwards (just as chinese espionage continues to be successful at the present).
The same type of failed wrongful convictions - typically involving people who are easy targets - as a result of rabid law enforcement and media fear mongering can be found in terrorism in 2000s, drugs in the 1980s-90s, biker gangs in the 60s-70s.
Instead of taking a logical and well-reasoned approach to the enforcement of legitimate societal problems history just keeps repeating itself.
The same type of failed wrongful convictions - typically involving people who are easy targets - as a result of rabid law enforcement and media fear mongering can be found in terrorism in 2000s, drugs in the 1980s-90s, biker gangs in the 60s-70s.
Instead of taking a logical and well-reasoned approach to the enforcement of legitimate societal problems history just keeps repeating itself.
Violating an NDA is civil, not legal FFS. The US government has no business enforcing NDAs. (It can and should enforce court orders resulting from lawsuits over NDAs.)
There are several state and federal laws that can be used to criminally prosecute NDA violations, mainly the National Stolen Property Act and the Economic Espionage Act.
Then it's those laws that can be enforced. NDAs themselves are not laws, they're contracts. You can sue, but you can't arrest.
Violating a contract can result in criminal charges not just civil suit, NDA's aren't special.
I am not a lawyer, but this seems wrong to me. Could you elaborate?
(My whole point is that NDAs are contracts and not special. Breach of contract is not a crime; it's a "civil wrong" according to Wikipedia, as distinct from a "criminal offense".)
(My whole point is that NDAs are contracts and not special. Breach of contract is not a crime; it's a "civil wrong" according to Wikipedia, as distinct from a "criminal offense".)
"Breach of Contract" on it's own might not be a crime, however some contracts may be enforced or protected by criminal laws here is a simple example your divorce settlement especially alimony (which may or may not include child support).
When you divorce some one you sign the divorce papers which are a contract certain parts of that contract can be enforced by filing criminal charges, as in the US at least if you don't pay what you affirmed to pay you can be charged with non-support which in many states is a felony.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/criminal-nonsupp...
When you divorce some one you sign the divorce papers which are a contract certain parts of that contract can be enforced by filing criminal charges, as in the US at least if you don't pay what you affirmed to pay you can be charged with non-support which in many states is a felony.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/criminal-nonsupp...
You're confusing a breach of contract and the settlement of a suit. You sue for divorce and eventually reach a settlement. A settlement is enforced by the courts. (Having decided a breach exists and decided damages, the court can force a party to abide by the terms of the settlement.)
It seems that the website is blocked (by GFW). It makes no sense.
why cant he sue the DOJ for liabilities ?
It would be nice to know the amount he is trying to recoup.
However, the indictment gives a couple hints on this topic. There are multiple mentions of FISA and CIPA, US laws dealing with national security and spying. Perhaps the US was spying on the people Xi was communicating with?
You can read the indictment here: https://cryptome.org/2015/09/xiaoxing-xi-files.pdf
All of this seems like overkill for what was supposedly a violation of an NDA.