FBI is Investigating More Than 1,000 Cases of Chinese Theft of US Technology (zdnet.com) 155
Members of the US government held a conference in Washington last week on the topic of Chinese theft of intellectual property from US technology firms and the US academic sector. From a report: Officials said the purpose of the conference -- named the China Initiative Conference -- was to bring the US private sector and the academic and research communities up to speed with the US government's investigations. For the duration of four hours, some of the highest officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) spent their time raising a sign of alarm and putting the private and academic sector on alert about the threats they are currently facing in terms of intellectual property (IP) theft from Chinese entities. "The threat from China is real, it's persistent, it's well-orchestrated, it's well-resourced, and it's not going away anytime soon," John Demers, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, opened the conference.
"This one to me really stands out as the greatest long-term threat to our nation's information and intellectual property, and to our economic vitality," said FBI Director Christopher Wray. The FBI director says cases have been piling up since 2018, ever since the DOJ launched the China Initiative campaign to counter and investigate Beijing's economical espionage. "The FBI has about a thousand investigations involving China's attempted theft of U.S.-based technology in all 56 of our field offices and spanning just about every industry and sector," Wray said.
"This one to me really stands out as the greatest long-term threat to our nation's information and intellectual property, and to our economic vitality," said FBI Director Christopher Wray. The FBI director says cases have been piling up since 2018, ever since the DOJ launched the China Initiative campaign to counter and investigate Beijing's economical espionage. "The FBI has about a thousand investigations involving China's attempted theft of U.S.-based technology in all 56 of our field offices and spanning just about every industry and sector," Wray said.
Thank Richard Nixon (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
for getting our economies so entangled we're not threatening each other with nuclear war.
I grew up 70s/80s with that Sword of Damocles over our heads.
I'd rather still have *that*, than have given up our manufacturing in the 90's - 00s.
Went looking for a barometer for the house, because I left meteorology 20 years ago but metereology never left me... none to be found made in USA new production. So instead i went with an old Airguide, Chicago IL, made somewhere between 1950 - 1980.
No one makes anything that I need in the USA except for guns and knives and ammo. Everything else is fucking China,
Re:Thank Richard Nixon (Score:4, Informative)
I grew up 70s/80s with that Sword of Damocles over our heads.
I'd rather still have *that*, than have given up our manufacturing in the 90's - 00s.
If that sword stayed above your head. There was (is) a non-zero chance that you wouldn't have a preference becuase you'd be incerated by nukes.
Truth is, for the stuff we all use day in day out, nothing's made here. If it is, it's old and off the second-hand market.
That is not the truth. Sure, many if not most commodity items are manufactured abroad, but there are a lot of things still made in America, and many more things with parts made around the world and assembled elsewhere, including in America.
Re: (Score:3)
Why did you give up your manufacturing? I was a choice, other countries didn't. For example Germany still has huge amount of manufacturing despite the Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at 5G adoption in Europe and the way that governments are insisting on buying cheap Chinese stuff instead of locally produced stuff, and you can see that the only difference is that the US got a head start. It isn't that Germany made some sort of choice to protect themselves.
Look at how many European countries are even willing to take infrastructure loans from the Chinese, with "payday loan" type of terms if they miss payments? Often the same politicians who say awful things about IMF loan terms. The o
Re: (Score:3)
China was never a realistic nuclear threat to the US.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This was a sound strategy up until 1989 and the Tianenmen Square massacre. It then became clear who we were dealing with, and we should have cut them off. But, it wasn't to be. The Clintons and the Democrats took millions of dollars in campaign contributions in 1996 from the Chinese in order for them to get into the WTO.
The bipartisan pro-China camp argued that giving Beijing permanent most-favored-nation status would accelerate its democratization and integration into the liberal world system. Skeptics
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, there is still somebody else who remembers the Olden Times! Impressive. Well done. I thought I was the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if we trick them into repairing the sprinklers, we can leave them on all day.
At least we saved a few cents on them.
Chess player Lev Alburt, who defected to the US ~ 1980, talked about growing up with Soviet propaganda; they were always telling them that the Americans were going to parachute in and force democracy on them, so the kids drew maps of their neighborhoods and where the army barracks were, to give to the Americans when they landed. But alas, it was just propaganda, nobody ever came to save t
Flashback (Score:5, Insightful)
Could we get a quick replay of all the people attacking Trump for putting China's feet to the fire?
First president in a generation to have the balls to do so, Republican or Democrat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flashback (Score:4, Insightful)
First president in a generation to put farmers on welfare as well.
No that was in 1985 under Reagan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They have been there ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
To give him credit, 1985 was thirty-five years ago. That's more than a generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From an urban perspective, it is not that city people hate farmers, it is that they are tired of farmers hating them and have actually started to push back, which to a group that has gone through half a century of being told how wonderful and special and experts
Re: (Score:2)
I'll never understand the animus towards farming and farmers that come from urbanites. That's where your food comes from, that keep you alive? You're not growing your food in Manhattan, you're importing it from the people you hate?
It was manufactured by the right wing.
The GOP came up with strategies to bleed off Dem support so driving a wedge between city & country, siphoning off Catholic support for Democrats by making abortion into a frontline issue & implementing the Two Santa Clauses strategy all worked wonderfully.
Re:Flashback (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that this is very likely just a trumped up narrative to make Trump look good?
Incidentally, all he did was mildly annoy China before he gave in. Yes, it is not being sold as that, but that is pretty much what happened if you look at the actual facts and not the inane, disconnected tweets he sends.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that this is very likely just a trumped up narrative to make Trump look good?
Incidentally, all he did was mildly annoy China before he gave in. Yes, it is not being sold as that, but that is pretty much what happened if you look at the actual facts and not the inane, disconnected tweets he sends.
Do you realize that none of this matter to his supporters? Trump is a cult leader. Until you realize this, you can't really understand him or the hold he has on people. For the record, so is Bernie Sanders, but he's not president. But he's still a cult leader.
Here's a real conversation I had some time ago with my best friend, who is a big fan of Trump.
Me: Trump lies all the time.
Friend: When has he EVER lied? (Note: Friend was totally serious here)
So I recited a list of lies and he got r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should really post that brutal burn on
https://www.reddit.com/r/thatH... [reddit.com]
Because that was awesome, man. You fucking SCHOOLED that tool.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize that none of this matter to his supporters? Trump is a cult leader. Until you realize this, you can't really understand him or the hold he has on people.
I realize this. And it is utterly pathetic, like a large part of the US has regressed collectively to the dark ages where facts could not be checked and faith (misplaced as it usually was) was all most people had.
Re: (Score:2)
And you post this collection of lies, misdirection and plain bullshit twice why? Are you attempting a "Big Lie"? Here is news for you: You do not have what it takes for that.
Re:Flashback (Score:5, Insightful)
Could we get a quick replay of all the people attacking Trump for putting China's feet to the fire?
This is perhaps the only thing he has done I agree with. However, you can't simply annoy China and profit. He was supposed to be following this up with big infrastructure spending at home to rebuild at least part of what has been lost. Instead he gave a tax break and everyone pocketed the money gleefully.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Flashback (Score:4, Insightful)
If you lower taxes too far then infrastructure suffers and the government loses its ability to correct the flaws in the market, and you end up poorer.
There is a right level of taxation and this isn't it. Also, Trump promised to do this investment and he hasn't. The people who really need it are also the ones who didn't benefit from the tax break.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's reason to go after the Chinese was the trade deficit, a metric that doesn't even mean anything bad. You can bet that if there had been a trade surplus of even $1, there wouldn't be this righteous crusade. He just can't stand his number being smaller than their number. His fucking hats are still made in China, for chrissakes.
Also, he said that trade wars are fast and easy to win, and that Americans wouldn't pay for it. Well, wrong on all counts. American farmers are now the recipients of an absolutel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I mean, you're not wrong about that. But it's always sort of been the case that as long as we have to deal with the system being in place, we need to have the rules followed. Either abolish it all together or play nice, I guess?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The TPP was designed to do just that, but Trump came into office railing against it because his whole outlook on his Presidency is undoing then outdoing Obama.
But, this is America where if you don't stand on a balcony and thump your chest and grab your nuts, you're not "strong."
Re: (Score:2)
TPP was designed to control the Chinese, yes you have people like Bernie Sanders who hated it for some of the compromises it made but there's a reason it was approved by the same "hypocritical lefties" you're crying about. And how you got the notion that "everyone hated TPP" is beyond me. Some people act like they didn't start following politics until Trump ran for President.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Are you going to start paying all that money to the dependents of those in Upper and Lower Canada which were forced into english slave labor camps to make things like wagon wheels, and preparation of pelts for felting? I mean it was a good thing in the end, otherwise shit like the 1800's rebellions against the crown wouldn't have happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bioweapon Technology (Score:2)
Be careful what you wish for.
FBI investigates if water is wet (Score:2)
hmm (Score:2)
how much of that is US companies subcontracting manufacturing to chinese companies ?
Ironic. (Score:2)
The west stole from China for centuries. Now they steal from us. The world turns.
I doubt that (Score:5, Funny)
Not stolen, the tech is still there, I just checked.
And About Bloody Time too! (Score:2)
Doesn't _anyone_ else realize how long (and how much) this has been going on?
Ideas are easily copied (Score:2)
Re:This current USA administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike the last several administrations, this one hasn't started a single war yet. Not in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan like Obama did. Not in Iraq or Afghanistan like Bush did. Not in Iran, China, Russia, Ukraine, EU, UK or whatever other countries the media has warned us about war if Trump stays in power.
Re: (Score:3)
Not for lack of trying though.
Re: This current USA administration (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Did he not rip up the deal with Iran and then assassinate a high ranking member of their military? That was fake news, even though he proudly tweeted about having done it?
It's lucky that the Iranians were restrained in their retaliation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well whatever it was the EU signed up to it as well and will keep it going even without the US.
You can call the guy a terrorist if you like but I'm guessing that if Iran decided Trump was a terrorist and "eliminated" him you wouldn't be too happy.
And yes, bin Laden was an assassination. That's the lay person's term for an extra-judicial killing.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that any comment which doesn't fully support Trump gets accused for supporting his and America's enemies?
The EU is continuing with the Iran deal. Trump thinks it is bad but many people do not, and that doesn't make them defenders of Iran or haters of America. Imperfect as the deal is it keeps the peace and moves Iran in the right direction.
As you say, there are some rather extreme people in Iran's government so we should count ourselves as fortunate that they didn't start a war over the assassinat
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that any comment which doesn't fully support Trump gets accused for supporting his and America's enemies?
There was no objection to your comment that was critical of the President.
The only thing that the response objected to was this line:
It's lucky that the Iranians were restrained in their retaliation.
To which they pointed out that Iran has no realistic options for taking overt actions against the United states.
Unless you think the mention of the hypocrisy of those that one moment try to defend those in power in Iran as victims, while with their next breath claim to support those that are systematically executed by the Iranian authorities is some-how defending Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
And then they went on to point out that there are plenty of people in Iran who would start that war anyway... So as I said, lucky they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very anti-Trump and I also question why some people go out of their way to be on Iran's side.
Trump betrayed the Kurds and is a traitor for it, in my opinion. That doesn't make it an "assassination" to kill a military leader who is planning attacks. Killing agenerals with bombs in a conflict zone is not "assassination," and lying like that is just an attempt to give comfort to an enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, and so does everybody else. Even you.
You're as dumb as a board, but you're not so dumb you didn't know what ISIS was.
You're as dumb as a board, but you're not so dumb you didn't know who the Kurds are.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is reconsidering the Iran deal because Iran didn't keep any of its promises. Iran literally said after Soleimani that they have a nuclear weapon almost ready. And Soleimani wasn't killed in Iran, he was killed as an anti-terrorist operation on Iraqi soil.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called deterrence. Something Obama completely dismantled leaving the way open for ISIS to build up, Iran to take over large swathes of land and build up nuclear weapons while funding Hamas and bombing Israeli targets, it's the reason he had to wage war in Libya and Yemen.
Deterrence works, sanctions work, Iran is worse off after Trump, Iran has stopped its theocratic expansion. Korea hasn't launched a missile in how long now?
Re: (Score:2)
You sound disappointed that Iran backed down.
Re: (Score:2)
Its determined to start a war with someone... they don't even seem to care whom.
Old strategy: Create an external enemy and suddenly you can do the most insanely stupid things domestically and nobody cares. Perfected, incidentally, by the 3rd Reich and used to great profit by authoritarians everywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like Obama and Clinton did, right? Because Trump hasn't started a single war and already pulled us out of Syria (much to the consternation of the Obama/Clinton war machine). Seriously you guys have been so brainwashed you believe that TRUMP is the problem. Trump is an idiot, but he isn't an evil warmonger.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is obvious by the way, that Trump intends to stay in office in perpetuity. It will not matter to him even he were to lose the next election by a landslide (and that's assuming that he doesn't try to invoke his "executive privilege" to postpone the next election indefinitely... the fact that he doesn't actually have the authority to do this means nothing because the senate is not willing to reign him in).
Your tinfoil is too tight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This president already has well established record of using executive privilege to do many things that the office of presiident is not supposed to be able to do without congressional approval.
Like? Giving hundreds of millions of dollars to a foreign nation? Drone striking US citizens? Conducting illegal wiretaps on political enemies?
Re: (Score:2)
Like usurping funds for his border wall from sources that congress has not approved of.
Like charging tarriffs on steel coming from allies like Canada without congressional approval.
Like showing an obviously altered weather map that projected a hurricane would "almost certainly" affect parts of a state that was previously announced to remain unaffected.
Like actually inviting an investigation by a foreign agent into a political opponent. Such an investigation may be entirely warranted, but reque
Re: (Score:2)
Like usurping funds for his border wall from sources that congress has not approved of.
No usurping at all [npr.org], it is completely legal per the Courts.
Like charging tarriffs on steel coming from allies like Canada without congressional approval.
The Trade Act of 1974 [wikipedia.org] grants the President such authority - without the need for Congressional approval.
Like showing an obviously altered weather map that projected a hurricane would "almost certainly" affect parts of a state that was previously announced to remain unaffected.
You mean the map and warning that NOAA [npr.org] said was correct?
Like actually inviting an investigation by a foreign agent into a political opponent. Such an investigation may be entirely warranted, but requests for it should be conducted domestically, not with the interference of another country.
Which was just decided as not happening. The House was unable to prove that such a thing happened. Of course, we do have 2016 memos and communications of Latvian and Ukrainian [johnsolomonreports.com] financial regulators concerned over money laundering related to Burisma, and named Hunter Biden directly. Pre-Tru
Re: (Score:2)
While the supreme court allowed him to take the funds, that was ultimately only quite some time after the fact that he had claimed he would use executive privilege to get it anyways when Congress told him he would not get everything he wanted. But perhaps that wasn't the best example because in the end, the court said it was okay.
However, the trade act of 1974 does *NOT* grant the president the authority to implement tarriffs without congressional approval unless it involves a threat to national securit
Re: (Score:2)
However, the trade act of 1974 does *NOT* grant the president the authority to implement tarriffs without congressional approval unless it involves a threat to national security.
Most countries consider fundamental industries (energy, telecom, banking, steel, transportation) as critical to national security. You may not like it, but that was the justification - and it was legal.
categorically denied by the national weather service
But NOAA confirmed it. And the NWS answers to/is part of NOAA. So at best you can say it wasn't really solid either way; at worst you can say it was politics.
nvestigation you refer to might have named Hunter Biden, but information about him was not specifically requested for by anyone in the US before that time
How does that make an investigation wrong, now? Are you suggesting this information wasn't known earlier? That the reason Shokin was fired after jus
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that Canada was a threat to US national security as a justification for imposing the steel tarriffs without congress approval? Of all places, Canada?
Even if you want to make the argument that it was legal, it was still an outright, bold faced lie, and only one of his numerous abuses of executive pri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, which itself completely exposes how false the allegation of "national security" was. Since the president didn't have any actual national security grounds, he didn't really have the authority to do what he did.
Just because he got away with it doesn't mean it was right, nor that it wasn't just one of many abus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There were plenty of facts that the house case rested on, at least according to them, but the alleged facts were not admissable as evidence because the senate voted to end the trial without calling witnesses.
So yeah... innocent by default, but anyone with more than half a brain can realize what probably actually happened.
Just because there are no consequences for having done something which was against the law does not mean that it was not against the law in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that the text of NAFTA, which was still in force at the time of the tariffs, fairly clearly laid out what the scope of a national security exemption would have looked like, the entire argument of "national security" was actually only a pretext. The tariffs were only employed as a bullying tactic against Canada, a far less economically powerful nation, to compel Canada to agree to the US's new trade terms, and "national security" does not apply to trade agreements under *ANY* circumstances. So A
Re: (Score:2)
There were plenty of facts that the house case rested on, at least according to them, but the alleged facts were not admissible as evidence because the senate voted to end the trial without calling witnesses.
False. The Senate voted to not allow additional witnesses. You could call any of them that had testified in the House. You know, when facts and the case are built. If the House's case wasn't strong enough with the witnesses they called in the House, then why did it even come to the Senate?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a really good question... one that I don't have the answer to. I imagine it's because they did not expect to get stonewalled in the trial to not allow any further witnesses at all, but that's just speculation on my part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the president *was* telling his administration to ignore subpoenas, so the likelihood of being able to get more witnesses to testify at the proceedings was diminishing. Since impeachment proceedings are not a criminal trial, an argument can be made that any president that was actually innocent of the wrongdoing he had been accused of would sort of have the authority to do this, but it's still kind of a farce when a person who is being accused still has the authority to influence who is allowe
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a conspiracy for crying out loud, it's happening right now, and the republican senate has openly admitted that they will not hold the president accountable for actions which might otherwise be entirely illegal.... the republican senate admitted the veracity of the articles of impeachment, but other than Romney, have refused to try and hold him accountable for it.
So no... there's no conspiracy theory here at all.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a conspiracy for crying out loud, it's happening right now, and the republican senate has openly admitted that they will not hold the president accountable for actions which might otherwise be entirely illegal.... the republican senate admitted the veracity of the articles of impeachment, but other than Romney, have refused to try and hold him accountable for it.
The house can pass articles of impeachment for calling Nancy Pelosi a blow-hard.
The senate can then agree, that yes, Trump did indeed call her a blow hard, but then decide that this is not an adequate reason to remove a sitting president from office.
The only conspiracy that would be involved, would be a conspiracy in the house to try and throw mud on the current president(as the democrats have been attempting since at least November 2016).
Clinton was not removed form office for getting caught lying under oa
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I did say that... and of course that part is speculation.
But given his past claims, it's hardly an unrealistic one.
And I wouldn't say there's any conspiracy to cover it up either... it's already been widely suggested that Trump will refuse to accept the results of any election in which he is not the victor.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it is worth pointing out that I only said he apparently *INTENDS* to do so.... not that he necessarily would actually be able to succeed. He has a loyal enough following that I estimate his chances of success are significantly above zero, although I would not go so far as to say that it is certain.
The idea that he would try to use executive privelege to postpone the election is not an unrealistic one either, because he has already used it to do things that he wasn't supposed to be able to use it
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, seriously.... what ARE you talking about? What on earth did I say that gave you the idea that I would have done any of the things which I've been saying about Trump?
And I've only tried to justify why I think those things.... if you believe that to not be an adequate basis to come to the same conclusion, you're welcome to it, of course, but that isn't going to change the fact that I think it's likely.
Also, doesn't a conspiracy theory require that be some sort of.... you know, conspiracy?
What c
Re: (Score:2)
False.
He has already used executive privilege to do things he wasn't supposed to do. Several times in his term so far. Just because it happened to accomplish what he was trying to do all along or because it may have happened to work out doesn't alter that. Just because you happen to not be drunk or cause any sort of accident while driving down a highway at 50mph over the limit doesn't mean you aren't still doing something hugely illegal. People keep trying to justify th
Re:America has fallen behind China in Tech (Score:5, Insightful)
America has fallen behind China in Tech
We didn't *fall* behind, we were *sold* out. There is a difference!
I need new towels, my old towels are 20+ years old and have had it. They were really nice Cannon, made in USA.
Can't find 'em now. Cannon's gone. There seems to be precious few towel-makers left here, and they're not priced very friendly (because there's so few.) But I don't care. I will buy them, even at 3x what a Chinese towel costs, because fuck China and fuck all the goddamed CEOs who sold us out.
So fuck right off, a'ight? We were *sold* out.
Now we're trying to fix it, and you shit all over the effort.
Why do you hate America?
Re:America has fallen behind China in Tech (Score:5, Insightful)
So how do you explain the 5G debacle? Huawei put in the R&D, patented the technology they invented and worked with the ITU and IEEE to develop the 5G standards. Exactly what western companies do.
Before someone says it they couldn't have stolen it because it's new, original and novel tech that was granted international patents.
The simple fact is that US and European companies wanted to milk 4G a bit longer. LTE actually stands for "Long Term Evolution", as in they expected it to keep iterating and getting better. But Huawei came up with something genuinely new and better and no amount of evolution will get 4G there.
Nothing was sold out, a competitor simply made a better product.
Re: (Score:2)
The are licencing the patented technology from Huawei. Usually it's via cross licencing their own patents so no actual money changes hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Waving your hands and saying "usually" about a specific situation proves you didn't check.
It turns out, the US companies partnered with the Germans to create the missing pieces of technology that the Finnish and Swedish companies needed to license. And they're mostly not cross-licensing in this case, the US wants the Europeans to manufacture this, and the Germans are mostly not interested in that part, so it is mostly northern Europe doing traditional licensing.
Why do you hate Capitalism? (Score:2)
Isn't that what 'sold us out'? Are you fixing it by going socialist? No? Then you kid yourself that you are fixing anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So the US doesn't have that tech anymore? (Score:2)
You Nutjob-American always believe you're 1. the sane ones, and 2. the majority.
Kiss our swetty balls, ya fat fuck. [youtu.be]
I've got an insult for you: Your nickname. (Score:2)
Says it all [youtu.be], dear Obvious-American, doesn't it?