It's kind of brilliant. He was probably confident that Google Cloud's security was good and wouldn't let employees access private data. And, it's a domain / network traffic that wouldn't be flagged.

It did go unnoticed though, for years. According to the indictment nobody detected this until the employee moved sensitive data out of Google and into a personal account while in the PRC. Even then they did not really figure it out until the person resigned.

Serious question: Can we presume he knew he was doing something wrong?

Do you mean morally or legally? It's hard to imagine a Google engineer not knowing that sharing trade secrets is something their employer would seriously frown upon, no?

There's a name for it, it's called Shadow IT. It's the most common and often non-malicious kind of data leak. The only reason we care about it here, is because he's Chinese, and because he allegedly did meaningful things at Google.

I went to Kubecon in Shanghai last year, and they should have probably just called it LLMcon, since that seems to be 90% of what big tech in China is focused on right now. Not saying that there probably wasn't some interesting stuff in the data he took, but I think people here massively underestimate the talent and investment in China in this domain. Nvidia literally just identified Huawei as their top competitor[1].

I've never had an imposter syndrome as big as the one I had there (and in Taiwan, but more on the hardware side of things) anywhere in the valley.

[1] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/nvidia-list...

Is your allegiance to your employer above your allegiance to your country?

The statement is not about allegiance, it is about knowledge of breaking company policy and conducting corporate espionage.

The question is, just to clear: "Regardless of whether it is right or wrong according to his personal morality, do we honestly believe that he didn't know it was going to anger his employer and likely violate his employment agreement to the extent that he'd face civil or legal penalties?"

I'm not sure why you're asking me that. I made it clear from my comment that there's a distinction between legal and moral "wrong," and I described the unlikelihood that he didn't know it was the former. That's all.

What's legal is not constant in space and time. I bet the only thing he thought he didn't do right is not get out of the US in time. Then it would have been both legal and moral for him.

If he felt that he had to "get out in time," then he knew he did something "wrong" in the sense that my parent is (presumably) asking about. That's the only question I'm answering. You seem intent on drawing me into a debate about subtleties of moral and legal ethics, but I'm sorry to say I'm not interested right now.

And yet you're the one who brought it up

GP asked a clarifying question. You're desire to read into the question and make assumptions about what you think must have been their intent, rather than just taking the question at face value does not mean GP is "the one who brought it up."

I've not read into anything. Someone brings up a subject, someone else expands on it, then the person who brought it up to begin with starts complaining about what they got. It's stupid, waste of text.

Don't reply to me btw. I didn't bring this up for you to speak about it.

What I'm inferring from this truly bizarre thread is that some people assume that clarifying questions are always fronts for hidden motivations (such as springing "gotchas" or getting into debates). It might be worthwhile to consider that not all people operate that way.

No and I also don’t think American companies should be employing citizens of foreign adversaries. That this is controversial shows just how naive the average American is and how unsustainable we are as a civilization these days.

> That this is controversial shows just how naive the average American is and how unsustainable we are as a civilization these days.

IMHO, dismissing any potential opposition as "naive" before you've even heard it, is about as naive as it gets. It also overshadows what otherwise might have been an interesting discussion point by declaring your unwillingness to actually discuss the point.

No it is naive to favor employing citizens of a foreign adversary. There is no argument for this that isn’t based on emotions and “not being mean”

Yes? And also it doesn't matter? Ignorance of the law doesn't mean you get a free pass. And by day 1 at any company you've already had to sign stuff saying you won't steal trade secrets (in addition to loads of other things).

He was supposedly moonlighting as well.

I've had an intern uploading code to his G Drive and after talking to him I concluded he was not malicious, just dumb.

That said you can't claim innocence for not knowing some law, plus any half serious company makes you sign cyber security / IP stuff during the hiring process (ofc one is entitled to sign contracts without reading them).

Many crimes require malicious intent, that exactly how most executives never spend time in jail - it’s hard to prove that Boeing executives where hiding the plane’s defects on purpose.

Of course he did. How could he not know taken documents and giving to a competing company wasn’t a violation?

Need more locks on this kind of stuff.

Should all uploads and content transmissions out of network require an approval by default?

Difficult to say it but it needs to be considered

> Should all uploads and content transmissions be locked for employees with foreign ties to an adversarial country?

Profiling works. Profiling is abhorrent to most people in 1st world countries, but it works exceedingly well.

If the hire is from an adversarial country, they should not only be locked but on a watch list. Our 3 letter organizations should be proactive toward information security. We're in the Information Age now. It's time our society treated that information like the gold it is.

It's a lot more nuanced than that. Racial profiling only works if it's impossible for an adversary to recruit a member who doesn't match the profile.

$ says that won't happen.

Information security meanwhile, doesn't need profiling because it applies to everyone.

Nonsense. It works if it's more difficult for the adversary to recruit a member who doesn't match the profile. It doesn't need to be "impossible".

Of course it doesn't work perfectly, but no security is ever perfect.

Like the Muslim-ban? Because that worked… /s

"Muslim-ban" is not accurate because it did not ban on the basis of being Muslim or not. It was a ban on travel to the US for 90 days from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. There are many predominately Muslim countries it didn't include and it was specifically about travel from those countries.

"Muslim ban" is what the person who initiated it called it, not a description of the actual effects.

Right - he repeatedly said he wanted a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country and then directed his legal staff to find a legal way to do so… pointing at the hamfisted EO that attempted to toe the line of the clearly unconstitutional order to excuse it is pretty obviously bad faith.

> Like the Muslim-ban?

No, like the way it wouldn’t be possible for an American national—whether of Chinese descent or not—to get a job at a Chinese missile research laboratory.

After exfiltrating the data, he was offered a job in Chinese AI startup. Whether or not a real startup, or just s Communist party / military company is an interesting question.

Eventually tech leaders will stop hiring Chinese nationals. This keeps happening again and again.

They should already be at that point. I’m surprised it isn’t a violation of sanctions or something to have them working on cutting edge tech.

No they won’t, they’ll get hit with the dreaded “racist hiring practices” accusations. China knows this, and they exploit it. If tomorrow Google announced a ban on hiring any Russian nationals the HN comments and the media would by and large applaud such a move, by contrast.

All Chinese startups are Communist Party companies, success dictates just *how* tied-in they are.

exactly, this guy understands how business in China works.

How do you imagine this works, western government can’t manage potholes but CCP beurocrats can manage AI, Car production and solar panel production and beat our companies? Are they superhuman?

I've worked for a Chinese company and with Chinese company partners, but I am not Chinese, so my understanding is probably very, very incomplete. The way it seems to work is that the "influence" from the CCP scales with the size/success of the company. Every business in China operates at the very least with consent of the government. As they get more and more successful, they gain a little more influence/encouragement/cooperation with government. By the time they are giant, successful companies, they're all but an appendage of the government. Hard to explain as an American because we don't have similar "quasi-government" institutions like this. I guess it would be a little like the Federal Reserve--it's technically not the government, but works hand-in-hand with the government.

You will find, it is closer to the old German standard (1).

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w

Civil - Military fusion.

Aka COTS, InQtel, CRS.

Check who's in charge of starshield.

Bureaucrats in different countries operate at very different levels of efficiency. e.g. Germany vs Italy

actually got some government shill who can't even spell to respond. touch a nerve?

that's irrelevant- Snowden thought what he was doing was right

A Chinese national helping his country not fall behind in what's perceived as an existential race? Wrong?

No from his standpoint it’s good and I’d probably do the same. It’s Google who is wrong for having this person working for them and having such access.

A Chinese national is trying to make big bucks with stealing technology maybe...

The Motherland rewards it's loyal servants, what of it?

It is capitalism actually. There are a lot money is looking for opportunities, and the hype generated from the US has a ripple effect on the global market. China has a big venture capital market, and domestic money is looking for these opportunities and quick bucks (maybe quick RMB). Started from social media, then e-commerce, a few years ago autonomous driving and now AI. There will be people taking risks with so much money on the table.

Yes, from his perspective it's likely morally right, but he was very likely aware it is illegal in the US. This nicely highlights a difficulty with globalism.

Failing to vet foreign employees working on highly sensitive projects predates globalism by a long shot. Even Manhattan Project got penetrated.

Hope they get the same treatment has those that penetrated Manhattan Project, the Rosenberg treatment.