华人老板的回应: 这个事情我必须澄清一下。这个访问学生是被FbI 在机场挡住,我和组里的学生只是回答FbI的所有问题。这个学生从实验室的备份盘和其他在读学生的目录下下载大批文件。犯了错,但因为我们的管理问题并没有触犯法律。学校决定不追究。说我们阴了他,迫害他,那真是点到黑白了。这个事件对我们组里的中国学生影响很大,好在已经过去了。请大家不要相信一面之词。我们选择不在媒体上反击,也是为了保护丢失数据的学生的隐私和避免让大家在这个非常时期看中国师生之间的笑话。请多体谅。学校的声明如下。 Even though the criminal charges have been dismissed, we continue to investigate the circumstances surrounding the former research scholar’s unauthorized possession of University files while attempting to leave the country. The former student did not have permission to access or take the files and was repeatedly denied permission to access them. Nonetheless, while cooperating in the investigation, we determined that one of the computing systems to which the student had access included permission settings that were not sufficient to establish a violation of law. As a follow-up to this incident, we also are reviewing our data access and permission standards.
对,法律成案要看他们NDA有没有签,学校具体policy,举证的困难等等。所以UVA教授在接受WSJ采访时说 Mr. Hu’s adviser at UVA, Haibo Dong, reiterated to the Journal what he had told the FBI: that he believed Mr. Hu had improperly taken his code (像胡这样直接拷贝实验室的备份盘以及实验室其他学生的目录). “It’s not ethical and not appropriate but whether it reaches a criminal level, I’m not sure,” he said, referring questions about the case to university officials. 但很难想象naval research资助的研究一点要求都没有。可能学界做事风格真的很宽松。经过这场,UVA和Dong教授会不会改进他们的IT呢?
你放狗搜一下都是啊? Dong, Hu's adviser, told the Journal he thought Hu stole his code, saying, "It's not ethical and not appropriate but whether it reaches a criminal level, I'm not sure."
Mr. Hu’s adviser at UVA, Haibo Dong, reiterated to the Journal what he had told the FBI: that he believed Mr. Hu had improperly taken his code. “It’s not ethical and not appropriate but whether it reaches a criminal level, I’m not sure,” he said, referring questions about the case to university officials. 你要是觉得WSJ是中文媒体就当我没说。 一个老中坑老中的故事,并不是只有中文媒体这么说的好吧
你放狗搜一下都是啊? Dong, Hu''s adviser, told the Journal he thought Hu stole his code, saying, "It''s not ethical and not appropriate but whether it reaches a criminal level, I''m not sure." rabbitu 发表于 2020-09-24 19:23
he told FBI 跟FBI先问他问题然后他回答问题有什么矛盾吗?没有啊。 你自己脑补成他举报的,那请给出证据啊。也许他有举报,但WSJ可从头到尾都没讲他们怎么盯上HU访学,顶多是Dong没为HU美言。老美好歹还无罪释放HU,这里就直接给Dong扣起帽子了?WSJ反倒写了: Federal Bureau of Investigation agents questioned dozens of researchers over the summer about their work and military affiliations, leading to the arrests of at least six scientists accused of hiding their ties to the Chinese military when applying for U.S. visas or of engaging in other alleged misconduct. Most of the cases were filed after airport confrontations as the and pulled aside for questioning by border protection officers, leaving prosecutors rushing to file complaints based in part on the answers the researchers provided just as they were scheduled to get on a plane. 按照你的逻辑,这些同样在机场被逮捕的研究人员都是被举报的?
这个事情我必须澄清一下。这个访问学生是被FbI 在机场挡住,我和组里的学生只是回答FbI的所有问题。这个学生从实验室的备份盘和其他在读学生的目录下下载大批文件。犯了错,但因为我们的管理问题并没有触犯法律。学校决定不追究。说我们阴了他,迫害他,那真是点到黑白了。这个事件对我们组里的中国学生影响很大,好在已经过去了。请大家不要相信一面之词。我们选择不在媒体上反击,也是为了保护丢失数据的学生的隐私和避免让大家在这个非常时期看中国师生之间的笑话。请多体谅。学校的声明如下。
Even though the criminal charges have been dismissed, we continue to investigate the circumstances surrounding the former research scholar’s unauthorized possession of University files while attempting to leave the country. The former student did not have permission to access or take the files and was repeatedly denied permission to access them. Nonetheless, while cooperating in the investigation, we determined that one of the computing systems to which the student had access included permission settings that were not sufficient to establish a violation of law. As a follow-up to this incident, we also are reviewing our data access and permission standards.
没办法不政治化的。这个学生本科哈工程,硕博北航。所以一到机场就被拦住检查,发现他带了两个硬盘,马上就扣下了。和他同飞机的我组里的华科大的访问学生就没事。结果,后面几天的调查就发现了大量的我们组的源代码。我们也很佩服fbi的筛查手段。不过美国的司法还是比较公正的。调查发现我们的IT有漏洞,就马上撤销指控。
我看到的英文媒体都没写是advisor 举报,只有中文媒体这样写。。。如果英文媒体也这样写请分享一下连接。
之前哈佛一个白人大牛教授就被控告了呀。。。不公正也是有的,但还没到你说的系统性阴谋
所以他到底是偷了没偷,警察带走他调查是不是乱抓人?
比喻不合适。
偷东西是刑事犯罪。主人没有权利决定是否起诉。
起诉权在检察官那里。另外检察官不起诉的主要原因基本都是:定罪证据不足
本案也是一个道理。
你这么说不合适吧
這個類比不確切。這個案子相當於主人先說了我家裏只要沒上鎖的的櫃子裏的東西你都可以拿,然後主人忘了鎖保險櫃,人家拿了裏面的東西,就不可以算偷。
人家这最多相当于说了我家里只要没上锁的柜子里的东西你都可以用(用在我家园艺工作上),没说你都可以带走,用在你下一个雇主那里。
这个比喻更贴切,不过WSJ文章中一句话很有意思,就是访学知道他拷那些文件会让老板生气,意味着他和老板应该就此交流过,老板也明确告诉他不可以。所以我再修正一下你的类比:
這個案子相當於主人先說了我家裏只要沒上鎖的的櫃子裏的東西你都可以拿,园丁问保险柜里好多首饰和钱,给我点吧,主人说不可以。然後主人忘了鎖保險櫃,人家拿了裏面的钱和首饰,这算不算偷?
好奇问,这样的园丁,你会招进家里来吗?
不乱写怎么能激起对美帝的仇恨呢?
这个说的好。漏了一个小点:拿的东西是为了用在我家园艺工作上。不是为了让你带走的
那個比喻只是從法律意義上説的。這個主人對應的是校方,唯一有設定文件訪問權限的,老闆不能算,因爲起訴的罪名是非法訪問下載沒有訪問權限的文件。如果有訪問權限罪名就不能成立,不管老闆説了什麽,都不能成立,所以撤訴了。算不算偷最後都要落實到起訴的罪名上,如果FBI開始知道真實的情況,可能可以用別的罪名起訴 。
估计fbi找不到别的罪名。他们不是很会用其他罪名搞么,比如电信欺诈,tax等等,最次还有亵渎罪啥的。。访学根基不在美国,没那么多辫子可以被抓。。如果有,Fbi必不放过。
对,法律成案要看他们NDA有没有签,学校具体policy,举证的困难等等。所以UVA教授在接受WSJ采访时说 Mr. Hu’s adviser at UVA, Haibo Dong, reiterated to the Journal what he had told the FBI: that he believed Mr. Hu had improperly taken his code (像胡这样直接拷贝实验室的备份盘以及实验室其他学生的目录). “It’s not ethical and not appropriate but whether it reaches a criminal level, I’m not sure,” he said, referring questions about the case to university officials.
但很难想象naval research资助的研究一点要求都没有。可能学界做事风格真的很宽松。经过这场,UVA和Dong教授会不会改进他们的IT呢?
你放狗搜一下都是啊?
Dong, Hu's adviser, told the Journal he thought Hu stole his code, saying, "It's not ethical and not appropriate but whether it reaches a criminal level, I'm not sure."
一个老中坑老中的故事,并不是只有中文媒体这么说的好吧
这句英文证明导师认为访学获得代码的形式不当,但里面哪个单词表明是导师举报的。。。?
请自己读新闻 谢谢…要是你认识这个教授我觉得你得告诉他,他应该跟媒体说明白,不要让媒体发这么模棱两可的东西让大家都以为是他举报的
我读了。如果你看到类似Dong reported Hu to authorities 或Dong initiated the investigation字样, 请指出。我没看到。 这只是简单的英文阅读理解而已,又不是什么高深科学
不想跟你争了…还是那句话…你要是认识这教授告诉他联系wdj的记者把这篇文章写清楚了,什么叫他told FBI这件事儿的。跟媒体吵清楚比在这里跟我掰扯有效多了
he told FBI 跟FBI先问他问题然后他回答问题有什么矛盾吗?没有啊。
你自己脑补成他举报的,那请给出证据啊。也许他有举报,但WSJ可从头到尾都没讲他们怎么盯上HU访学,顶多是Dong没为HU美言。老美好歹还无罪释放HU,这里就直接给Dong扣起帽子了?WSJ反倒写了:
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents questioned dozens of researchers over the summer about their work and military affiliations, leading to the arrests of at least six scientists accused of hiding their ties to the Chinese military when applying for U.S. visas or of engaging in other alleged misconduct. Most of the cases were filed after airport confrontations as the and pulled aside for questioning by border protection officers, leaving prosecutors rushing to file complaints based in part on the answers the researchers provided just as they were scheduled to get on a plane. 按照你的逻辑,这些同样在机场被逮捕的研究人员都是被举报的?
应该是规定锁了的柜子里的东西不能拿。 结果他拿了没锁的柜子里的东西。 要起诉发现规定里没有。要不就不叫漏洞了。
想起了孔乙己,窃书不算偷。