crime

Researcher at Japan institute denies leaking secrets to Chinese firm

78 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

78 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Not all data is constitute as trade secret, and he has authority to decide which one is confidential, which is not. Collobaration is normal thing in research institute, however Japanese media just like to show him as a culprit in trade secret case as if no data should be out or even in.

-25 ( +3 / -28 )

and he has authority to decide which one is confidential,

Definetely not all data is to be considered confidential, but the authority to access confidential data is not the same as the authority to decide if something is confidential or not. Being a senior researcher is not a position that comes with the ability to decide on the confidentiality of things. If the information can be proved to be confidential he would still be in trouble even if it was fine for him to access it (but not to leak it).

Collobaration is normal thing in research institute

Yes, but that requires agreements and rules decided by the institutions, not by individuals. Unless there is an agreement between the Japanese Institute and the Chinese Firm any transfer of sensitive information or materials have to be approved beforehand.

18 ( +22 / -4 )

An email? That doesn't sound very smart if he is guilty of the charges. What computer did he use? If he used the institute's computer in his office, then he could be telling the truth and made an innocent mistake. But if he copied the data onto a personal thumbdrive, took it home and sent it or uploaded it from his own computer, then that's a heck of a lot more suspicious.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

@virusrex

Have you really check Japan UCPA (Unfair Competition Prevention Act) those items that classified as trade secret should be categorized and labelled as secret to be considered as secret, if organization doesn't provide any label. One can consider that not secret at all.

but that requires agreements and rules decided by the institutions, not by individuals.

No that's not true, many things is solely being decided by head of lab, since the head of lab really decide funding, collaboration and in many labs do things by their own things, institution just providing place with some research theme, that's it.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

Not all data is constitute as trade secret, and he has authority to decide which one is confidential, which is not. Collobaration is normal thing in research institute, however Japanese media just like to show him as a culprit in trade secret case as if no data should be out or even in.

Nonsense, why would a foreign researcher with ties to a communist government that is actively attempting to steal state secrets have the authority to decide what information gather in Japan should be considered classified in Japan.

Are you even reading what you typed?

16 ( +19 / -3 )

@Bordeaux

please check Japan's UCPA (Unfair Competition Prevention Act) before your create your comment. If what he provides is specifically being labeled and categorized as a secret, than by UCPA he need to inform his institution if he wish to shared to anyone outside his workplace, other than that is not. Also what he gave is way to insulate transformer, that's not really sophisticated technology anyway.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

 if organization doesn't provide any label. One can consider that not secret at all.

It is terribly common for documents to be labeled as confidential, and anybody with access to them must also have a course on confidentiality, cybersecurity, etc. etc. So there is no excuse about ignorance either.

What makes you think the information was not labeled as confidential? if it was common knowledge why would anybody need to leak it?

No that's not true, many things is solely being decided by head of lab

Confidentiality is NOT decided by the head of a lab, as long as any information is considered this way approval is necessary to transmit this information, even inside of the company. Aproval is even required for the person to take the information for personal use outside of the company systems.

since the head of lab really decide funding, collaboration and in many labs do things by their own things, institution just providing place with some research theme, that's it.

The head of the lab do NOT decide funding or collaborations, he can get funding but has to adjust to the rules of his institution to use it, collaboration is also something that has to be approved by the institution as well, a researcher can initiate negotiations, but not decide a collaboration is in place (and specially what information or materials can now be shared) by himself, there is a reason why MTAs are not simply signed by the head of a laboratory but require approval by the head of the institution.

Also what he gave is way to insulate transformer, that's not really sophisticated technology anyway.

That is irrelevant, if the institution that he works for wants to consider the information confidential that is what he needs to obey.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

@virusrex

Nice long comment but is it really relevant with UCPA, again please check Japan's UCPA which he is being indicted for.

That is irrelevant, if the institution that he works for wants to consider the information confidential that is what he needs to obey.

The thing is not new, not sophiticated, it's even that worth of being confidential at all?

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Nice long comment but is it really relevant with UCPA, again please check Japan's UCPA which he is being indicted for.

Yes it is, because the UCPA do not define what can or not be considered confidential but leaves that to the companies to do. You have provided no source that refutes this, meaning that anything the Japanese institute labels as classified can't be shared by anybody without receiving institutional permission first.

The thing is not new, not sophiticated, it's even that worth of being confidential at all?

Worth enough that the accused felt the need to share it, clearly indicating this is something useful to know.

The UCPA is not a blanket excuse that you can just mention and expect to justify anything, nothing in the UCPA justifies sharing confidential secrets even if the person has access to them, nothing on it says the institution is not the one that can decide what internal information is or not confidential, nothing in the UCPA says trade secrets must pass a threshold of sophistication.

How about you quote the relevant parts of the document that supposedly support every claim you are making?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The damage is done, so it’s too late, whether he is caught now or not. In addition it’s not very clever, because his research is interrupted or stopped now. Probably, as aged 59 he is an experienced and dedicated expert on the field, someone you’ll not find anymore among youngsters or coming generations. It would have been much better to let him find some more valuable research results for here, but filtering or setting his communication and the spying output such , that it is not really sent to China and the CCP but only makes him thinking that it works.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

A tik-tok game. A japanese was arrested in China for stealing secret information. Now Japan arraest a nobody for a diplomatic game. They are more Japanese working in China than Chinese working in Japan.

Stop that non-sense a lets peace be please.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

So how did they know he sent this e-mail and its contents? Were they spying on him, on all researchers at the institute, or on the Chinese firm?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

please check Japan's UCPA (Unfair Competition Prevention Act) before your create your comment. If what he provides is specifically being labeled and categorized as a secret, than by UCPA he need to inform his institution if he wish to shared to anyone outside his workplace, other than that is not. Also what he gave is way to insulate transformer, that's not really sophisticated technology anyway.

UCPA nor you have not addressed the issue. Why would a foreign resident with known Chinese Communist ties have the authority to decide what information in Japan is/is not confidential? The information was not confidential because Quan Hengdao did not label them confidential?!

Not all data is constitute as trade secret, and he has authority to decide which one is confidential, which is not. 

These are your words!

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@virusrex

Yes it is, because the UCPA do not define what can or not be considered confidential but leaves that to the companies to do.

I get it you don't read UCPA but did you really read that article, he's not working for a company, it's research institute which more relaxed in term of how things being done, in some occasions it more like labs in university. Every head in charge of many aspect of the lab, there's no top down structure.

How about you quote the relevant parts of the document that supposedly support every claim you are making?

How about find out that research lab can vary from one to another instead just making your claim based on your ideal lab should be?

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

@Bordeaux

Why would a foreign resident with known Chinese Communist ties have the authority to decide what information in Japan is/is not confidential?

Do you have any idea how many Chinese people working in Japanese big companies, Japanese research institute? No one should be surprised by this, given the number of population of Chinese people in Japan which over than 800 thousands people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_people_in_Japan

While many western foreigners just end up teaching English for kids in schools or child nursery, Chinese people working in sophisticated technology across Japan.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

@Bordeaux

UCPA nor you have not addressed the issue. Why would a foreign resident with known Chinese Communist ties have the authority to decide what information in Japan is/is not confidential? The information was not confidential because Quan Hengdao did not label them confidential?!

Based on UCPA, that's the case, unless his institution choose to label it in different way.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

I get it you don't read UCPA but did you really read that article, 

It is you that have failed to provide any quote from the UCPA to support the claims you made, either you did not read it yourself or you have and found out none of your claims have any basis.

Can you quote where in the UCPA are the requirements for something to be considered confidential?

I can, nowhere.

he's not working for a company, it's research institute which more relaxed in term of how things being done

That is irrelevant, both institutions and companies are the ones that decide what is confidential or not, not single researchers, even if they can access that information. You have provided no source that says the contrary.

How about find out that research lab can vary from one to another instead just making your claim based on your ideal lab should be?

No claim made by any "ideal lab" the claim is made by the Japan's national institute of industrial technology, which obviously means they know what are their own rules and regulations more than you do. Not to mention that it is a national institute, which means it has extra rules because of being a governmental institution and because of the multiple consortiums it has with private companies that require at least enough protection of intellectual properties as they have.

Based on UCPA, that's the case, unless his institution choose to label it in different way.

In what part of the UCPA this comes? obviously the institute making the claim confidential information was leaked means they do consider the information confidential, what evidence do you have of the contrary.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

As long as the CCP maintains the legal power to control and instruct it's nationals, and have a capabilty to police Chinese nationals outside of China, the employment of any Chinese national poses a security risk to any host country. Japan, US, UK,EU, Austr, everywhere.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Based on UCPA, that's the case, unless his institution choose to label it in different way.

So, you do not know whether the research institution allowed this Chinese researcher to decide which information should be state secrets. On again, why would. foreigner with ties to communist government have that authority?

Do you have any idea how many Chinese people working in Japanese big companies, Japanese research institute? No one should be surprised by this, given the number of population of Chinese people in Japan which over than 800 thousands people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_people_in_Japan

While many western foreigners just end up teaching English for kids in schools or child nursery, Chinese people working in sophisticated technology across Japan.

Once again, what does the population has to do with A Chinese national illegally sending data that the Japanese government considers confidential to a private company in his home country without the knowledge of the institution that he is working for? It only takes one.

Since you cannot answer that question, you resort to insulting Western foreigners for teaching English.

By the way, that large Chinese population also engages in other industries more than any other foreigners like the sex industry, drug dealing, gangs, theft, restaurant staff, fashion, factory workers, and farm workers.

That 800,000 are not all researchers. They are not all honest saints.

You also fail to mention you are comparing the population of foreigners multiple Western countries to one country (China). Why don't choose one particular Western country like the US. The majority US citizens are military personnel or family living on American soil not even Japan. The rest of the non military US citizens must all have university degrees to acquire a visa. They are also running many of the major international companies in Japan.

What is the percentage Chinese living in Japan with university degrees compared to US citizens residing in Japan? Which population seems more educated now?

Do you not see how illogical your argument is?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

@virusex

It is you that have failed to provide any quote from the UCPA to support the claims you made, either you did not read it yourself or you have and found out none of your claims have any basis.

Can you quote where in the UCPA are the requirements for something to be considered confidential?

I can, nowhere.

They cannot. Whenever you ask for proof, they resort to insults. Their argument is founded on unverifiable assumptions.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

@OssanAmerica

As long as the CCP maintains the legal power to control and instruct it's nationals, and have a capabilty to police Chinese nationals outside of China, the employment of any Chinese national poses a security risk to any host country. Japan, US, UK,EU, Austr, everywhere.

From all foreign residents that live in Japan, currently Chinese people counted 800 thousands people where they can easily acquired Japanese kanji, so language barrier is not that significant compared to someone let's say from America. The only thing Japan can restrict is whether those Chinese have affiliation with military and security links of China’s universities.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

@Bordeaux

What is the percentage Chinese living in Japan with university degrees compared to US citizens residing in Japan? Which population seems more educated now?

Do you not see how illogical your argument is?

Do you have data to back up your statement at all?

Check this data,

https://www.studyinjapan.go.jp/en/statistics/zaiseki/data/2021.html

if it's hard to believe for you go to university and then got to any Japan's job hunting event, tell me from those events how many of those events which really having zero Chinese applicant? Chance you'll have some Chinese students that will go for a job in Japan with university degree and stay in Japan. Even by using 2021 data is more than 100 thousands, is from China. Western country is not even in the top list.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Do you have data to back up your statement at all?

Check this data,

https://www.studyinjapan.go.jp/en/statistics/zaiseki/data/2021.html

if it's hard to believe for you go to university and then got to any Japan's job hunting event, tell me from those events how many of those events which really having zero Chinese applicant? Chance you'll have some Chinese students that will go for a job in Japan with university degree and stay in Japan. Even by using 2021 data is more than 100 thousands, is from China. Western country is not even in the top list.

Since you are so intelligent. If 100,000 Chinese people in Japan have university degrees and their 800,000 Chinese residents, what is the percentage of Chinese residents in Japan with university degrees?

Japanese laws states that US citizens must have a university degree to obtain a minimum one-year work visa. If the majority of non military US citizens are teaching English (your words), then which population has the largest percentage of formally educated individuals? Do not forget US citizens are also running major international and domestic companies, too?

Do you have data to back up your statement at all?

Yes, it is common knowledge that US citizens must have a university to acquire a working visa in Japan. Even those US eikaiwa teachers have university degrees.

For someone who believes that they are informed, you do not really seem informed

6 ( +8 / -2 )

@Bordeaux

Japanese laws states that US citizens must have a university degree to obtain a minimum one-year work visa. If the majority of non military US citizens are teaching English (your words), then which population has the largest percentage of formally educated individuals?

Since you like being spoon-fed, here's the actual data more than 400 thousands Chinese have working visa in Japan while US and other G7 countries being aggregated and the number is only 80 thousands, which make sense from the same job those people from G7 will make more money in their home country.

https://www.tsunagulocal.com/en/17253/

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Since you like being spoon-fed, here's the actual data more than 400 thousands Chinese have working visa in Japan while US and other G7 countries being aggregated and the number is only 80 thousands, which make sense from the same job those people from G7 will make more money in their home country.

https://www.tsunagulocal.com/en/17253/

Chinese workers are not required to have a university degree to have a working visa in Japan.

What percentage is 100,000 of 400,000? only 25%? The other 400,000 may or may not have a degree.

Only 12-20% percent of the Chinese population in Japan have university degrees. The rest work in the sex industry, drug dealing, gangs, theft, restaurant staff, fashion, factory workers, farm workers, etc.

US citizens need to have a university degree to acquire a one-year working visa because most jobs require them including Eikaiwa jobs. US citizens also run major international companies, and scientific research.

The percentage of educated US citizens working in Japan is higher than 20%. It would be in 80s. There are no working holiday visas or special internship programs for developing countries like China to use to send large groups of immigrants to Japan.

Which country has the highest percentage of formally educated (university -level) residents working in Japan again? China of US?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

@Bordeaux

Chinese workers are not required to have a university degree to have a working visa in Japan.

Nationality doesn't matter it looks for working visa requirement, again another spoon-fed since you couldn't get your information right.

https://www.workjapan.jp/jobseeker/blog/visa/how-to-acquire-japan-work-visa.html

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

There's a fairly simple antidote to China's documented governmental policy of aggressive theft - never employ Chinese nationals, or anyone with any connection to China regardless of nationality - at your organization.

By far Chinese talent is the easiest one when it comes transition to Japanese language compared to other nationalities, so to never employe Chinese nationals in Japan is not that easy.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Bordeaux did you really check and read the link that was posted by yourself?

In case that not obvious, it's only for short term visit/tourist not for working visa at all. Just in case you haven't read it by yourself. Here's the point

Visas for “short-term business affairs” or “visit to relatives/ acquaintances”

2.Visas for Chinese group tourists and individual tourists residing in China

Multiple–entry visas for Chinese visitors residing outside of China with a substantially high income or a sufficient level of financial capability

Hopefully, you realized that Chinese nationals are treated differently from other countries. Now, that this is established.

From the Wikipedia page you posted:

Permanent resident = 225,605

Spouse or Child of Permanent resident = 11,889

Resident Student = 108,331

Technical Intern training = 89,086

Dependent = 64,492

Specialist in Humanities / International Services = 60,504

Others = 44,027

Spouse or Child of Japanese National = 34,010

Long-Term Resident = 126,626

Special permanent resident = 21,277

Total = 665,847

Now your argument about Chinese and English teachers:

While many western foreigners just end up teaching English for kids in schools or child nursery, Chinese people working in sophisticated technology across Japan.

Looking at Wiki, the majority of the longterm Chinese residents are not working in tech in Japan. In fact, the percentage of Chinese with university degrees are less than US citizens with degrees including those teaching English and running Japanese and foreign international companies.

The majority of US citizens are not married to Japanese nationals like Chinese. They were not brought over as workers during the WWI or WWII. US citizens are not coming to Japan to go to Japanese language to work legally or illegally at convenience stores, farms, and etc. Do not forget about the crime rate. They are not working interns from a third-world country. They are not using their working visa to bring dependent family members to start a restaurant or an export/import business. US citizens have fewer options than Chinese nationals. The options that US citizens do have or prefer outside of entrepreneurship mostly require a university degree.

Therefore, the percentage of US populations in Japan with university degrees is significantly higher than the Chinese population. Most of those US Eikaiwa teachers have university degrees when the majority of the Chinese population in Japan does not.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@Bordeaux

Japanese laws states that US citizens must have a university degree to obtain a minimum one-year work visa.

You recent comments really deviate from your initial comment, I quote about that your initial comment, you emphasis as if that US citizen to be able to work in Japan required a university.

Well the fact that every foreign nationalities that wish to work under certain visa (Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services/High skilled profesisional) in order to work in Japan, it doesn't matter from China, US, Canada, India etc will required to fulfill some requirements. It doesn't discriminate by nationalities like your previous statement (only US citizen?)

If they want to fullfill that requirement by study in Japan, they can do that. So go to Japanese Universities while earning their degree they can prepare for Job hunting. The Chinese students in Japan currently over 100 thousands which can add to current Chinese working visa holder that already in Japan.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

you emphasis as if that US citizen to be able to work in Japan required a university.

Ironically......which is true

Well the fact that every foreign nationalities that wish to work under certain visa (Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services/High skilled profesisional) in order to work in Japan, it doesn't matter from China, US, Canada, India etc will required to fulfill some requirements. It doesn't discriminate by nationalities like your previous statement (only US citizen?)

Which is not true.

https://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/w_holiday/index.html

Other Western countries do not need a university degree to work in Japan for a year.

If they want to fullfill that requirement by study in Japan, they can do that. So go to Japanese Universities while earning their degree they can prepare for Job hunting. The Chinese students in Japan currently over 100 thousands which can add to current Chinese working visa holder that already in Japan.

Why would they? The majority of US citizens in Japan already have university degrees. The same is not true for Chinese residents. In fact, only a small percentage of Chinese residents have a university degree.

Therefore, the number Chinese working in tech is not as significant as you make it. Also, by percentage, the Westerners foreigners in particular the US citizens based on comparing (one country to one country only) teaching English are more educated on average than the Chinese population in Japan. From the Wikipedia page you posted, the majority of residents are not university degree holders unlike US citizens in Japan, so you do not know how many are in tech. It certainly not most of Chinese population in Japan.

Correct?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Have you really check Japan UCPA (Unfair Competition Prevention Act) those items that classified as trade secret should be categorized and labelled as secret to be considered as secret, if organization doesn't provide any label. One can consider that not secret at all.

You seem to be either misinformed or lying. The English translation of that Act can be found here:

https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2803/en

On reading it over I can’t find any such requirement. The Act defines “trade secret” much more broadly than just things that have a label on them:

“The term "Trade Secret" as used in this Act means technical or business information useful for business activities, such as manufacturing or marketing methods, that are kept secret and that are not publicly known.”

4 ( +4 / -0 )

No ambiguity as far as Japan is concerned, it's a trade secret. Japan has just barely lifted export ban of such compound to South Korea recently.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/japan-lift-restrictions-chip-material-042922006.html

There are Japanese companies I know of that won't employ Chinese nationals, period, because they think it's not if but when.

Chinese EVs suffers from driveline whines and inefficiencies, so JATCO a Japanese transmission and e-axle specialist has been target for take over for a while now. They've tried every avenue...but owners and partners won't sell.

Google HBM3 memory, Micron, and AI, they're trying to get at that to circumvent export ban too.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Bordeaux

Why would they? The majority of US citizens in Japan already have university degrees. The same is not true for Chinese residents. In fact, only a small percentage of Chinese residents have a university degree.

How would you know that? Only 60,000 Americans live in Japan, discounting the troops.

There are about 700,000 Chinese. I have several Chinese friends. One is a surgeon and the others all went to universities and have well-paid jobs. I know two Americans who never went to university.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

How would you know that? Only 60,000 Americans live in Japan, discounting the troops.

There are about 700,000 Chinese. I have several Chinese friends.

Simple, Americans, discounting military, have had fewer avenues to entering the country longterm than Chinese nationals. Most common avenues for Americans require an advance degree.

One is a surgeon and the others all went to universities and have well-paid jobs. I

I know two Chinese nationals who never went to university also living in Japan long term. I also know how they were able to acquire long-term residency. What about other 698,000? Sakurasuki 's own Wiki evidence shows that a majority of Chinese residents would not need to have a degree. It also does not disprove that the percentage of US citizens living and working in Japan with university degrees is greater than Chinese residents Chinese residents have more avenues that do not require a university degree. See how that works?

I know two Americans who never went to university.*

Are the Americans working in Japan? Did you ask them how they were able to get longterm residency? Marriage, business owner, or military?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Sh1mon M4sada

No ambiguity as far as Japan is concerned, it's a trade secret. Japan has just barely lifted export ban of such compound to South Korea recently.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/japan-lift-restrictions-chip-material-042922006.html

That export import rules, it's different thing sometimes relevant related ministries can even enforce certain restriction in particular physical goods export/import without need using particular law.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@rainyday

You seem to be either misinformed or lying. The English translation of that Act can be found here:

https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2803/en

Check lawyer website not the exact law for interpretation and interpretation, that material at least should be labelled as secret or non-disclosure, any outside party interested to obtain need to follow proper procedure within organization. The thing if that's not labeled as secret in the place, there's no secret.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@Bordeaux

Which is not true.

https://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/w_holiday/index.html

Now you are mixing with working holiday visa which really irrelevant at all, no Chinese can apply for that at all.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The stupidity of firms and institutions - from electronic and car companies, to universities, to farms or even 7-11 - in hiring Chinese staff beggars belief.

In hiring Chinese staff, these companies are reaping what they sow.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Bordeaux

the 700,000 Chinese in Japan were born here fourth and fifth generations. Most with Japanese names who went through the Japanese education system.

The Americans I know entered Japan via marriage.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

the 700,000 Chinese in Japan were born here fourth and fifth generations

So, 700,000 Sleeper cells for the ccp....

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Wesley

   the 700,000 Chinese in Japan were born here fourth and fifth generations

> So, 700,000 Sleeper cells for the ccp....

I think that would be called paranoid. There are Chinese born in Japan who have never been to the PRC. It was the Japanese who brought their families here in the first place.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Therefore, the number Chinese working in tech is not as significant as you make it. 

This is a teeny tiny amount.

Simple, Americans, discounting military, have had fewer avenues to entering the country longterm than Chinese nationals. Most common avenues for Americans require an advance degree.

Exactamento.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Some people still believe that Japan's research capabilities are among the best in the world and simply not working well because of poor political decisions and business practices. That's already a myth.

In years (or already) Japan will have to steal Chinese technologies to catch up with the rest of the world.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I'm French.

The only ones making valid arguments here are the ones that actually cite UCPA.

Here is a citation:

"The term “trade secret” as used in this Act means technical or businessinformation useful for commercial activities such as manufacturing or marketing methods that is kept secret and that is not publicly known."

Fluorine compounds are nothing new.

He worked at an institute too, not a company that uses a secret formula as insulator. You can't argue a fluorine compound formula to be that much better than any other. At most, it was more practical, which is far from being grounds to consider it a trade secret.

It's just a political arrest, that's all.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

I have worked for a research centre before that wasn’t located in china, or in japan (thanks God). I have sent out data without any agreement to some institutions at different countries including a Japanese university to build network, sometimes to get funding, etc. If a person is authorised to send data, he is also authorised to decide if a set of data is secret, confidential or not. Other people’s opinion including government’s opinion on the subject is not valid. If we disagreed with this logic, each time someone wants to send an email would be required to get government’s permission. And it’s that it’s not feasible to do so.

having government or military link is also not something to consider in the situation. I would argue that everyone in this world would have a link to government or military though relatives working, people’s doing military service in the pasts, governments and military funding organisations for various purpose. So it’s vague to claim the other institution had link to military. Most institutions in Western countries do have that link.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

His defense would come from why he sent the email in the first place. If it's within the course of his job and there was no specific mention, statement or agreement of confidentially with regards to data itself then I fail to see he is at fault.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I think that would be called paranoid. There are Chinese born in Japan who have never been to the PRC. It was the Japanese who brought their families here in the first place.

You think the ccp doesn't closely monitor and influence overseas china-nese?

They've already been caught having illegal "police stations" overseas. Look it up.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Chinese in Japan are not Chinese citizens. The People's Republic of China does not recognize dual nationality for any Chinese national.

Many Chinese take Japanese nationality.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

He’s a Professor at AIST, not a researcher. These media talks like he’s undercover or something. He has multiple publications and has contributed to the institute more than most Japanese ever had.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Chinese have been residents of Japan since at least the 6th century, sharing knowledge and contributing to the Japanese economy, arts and culture.

Some people's blind hatred bordering on racism as demonstrated in this thread is troubling.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Fluorine compounds are nothing new.

That don't mean a specific one does not represent an advantage, this is quite obvious the moment the suspect felt there was merit in sending an e-mail with the information, else why would he do it?

He worked at an institute too, not a company that uses a secret formula as insulator

He worked in a national institute involved in several consortiums with private companies that do use trade secrets, which is why rules are extremely strict, that is part of the requirements made from the companies to enter these kind of agreements.

 You can't argue a fluorine compound formula to be that much better than any other. 

Why not? what evidence do you have this specific compound is equivalent to others? of course this still do nothing to refute the information was confidential as the institute claims.

 If a person is authorised to send data, he is also authorised to decide if a set of data is secret, confidential or not. 

That works backwards as well, if the person is NOT the one that decides what data is secret or confidential that means he is not authorized to send it, for that he requires written authorization. The institution claims this is the case, leaking information that was labeled as confidential by the institution.

If we disagreed with this logic, each time someone wants to send an email would be required to get government’s permission. And it’s that it’s not feasible to do so.

Not really, only emails containing information labeled as confidential would require permission, and only those working for a governmental institution (as a national institute) would require permission from the government.

having government or military link is also not something to consider in the situation

If the authorization to send the information or not would depend on this information being available to the people giving it then it is definitely something to consider.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I have nothing to do with china, i am independent person.

Working people are allowed to send emails to anyone as they like. Government permission is not required to send emails. Any professional person knows that there is no agreement or contract to send emails in most cases. Another important fact is that his company didn’t complain and sue him for violation of confidentiality or any sort (they may make it up later on to justify the arrest). There hasn’t been any violation of a procedure. This is purely a political arrest of him for being a chinese.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Working people are allowed to send emails to anyone as they like. Government permission is not required to send emails

Working people are not allowed to include in their e-mail information that is considered confidential unless they have previous authorization. Goverment permission is required to do this when the person is working for the goverment (and researchers of national institutes do work for the national goverment).

Another important fact is that his company didn’t complain and sue him for violation of confidentiality or any sort

His institution did, which is why he was sent to the prosecution.

There hasn’t been any violation of a procedure.

If the information he included in the communication was confidential then it is a violation of rules or even laws.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Confidentiality is NOT decided by the head of a lab, as long as any information is considered this way approval is necessary to transmit this information, even inside of the company.

False, as anyone working in a lab knows.

Aproval is even required for the person to take the information for personal use outside of the company systems.

This is a strange statement because using information for private use would breach confidentiality so there would be no approval given anyway.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

False, as anyone working in a lab knows.

Since you fail to provide any evidence or argument to prove this is wrong that means you accept it is actually correct, you just did not like it.

This is a strange statement because using information for private use would breach confidentiality so there would be no approval given anyway.

Cybersecurity rules demand approval for taking out any kind of confidential information not because the intended use is to transmit the information but because there is always the risk of losing the information or it being stolen, so approval is required.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Cybersecurity rules demand approval for taking out any kind of confidential information not because the intended use is to transmit the information but because there is always the risk of losing the information or it being stolen, so approval is required.

Cybersecurity laws don't cover "taking out" confidential information!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

A useful reference is the Security Policy Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Information that regulates what anybody working for the goverment (including national institutes like the AIST)

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-10800000-Iseikyoku/0000102092.pdf

Anybody is required to take an online security training course in order to access confidential information, precisely to make invalid the claim of ignorance about what is or not confidential or what is allowed to do it.

for example in the section 3.8 it is clearly written that it is required authorization to even have confidential data into portable electronic devices, explain the use and store the device in a certain way.

As long as the Institute have the information labeled as confidential then Quan Hengdao can be clearly found at fault for transmitting that information without previous authorization.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The suspect played a central role in a research team at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in Ibaraki Prefecture ... The suspect also taught at the Beijing Institute of Technology

If you hire someone it is more or less guaranteed they will learn and gather information, and eventually send it or take it back to China. Notably, "he played a central role" indicated he may have been a valuable contributor as well. If it the information "leak" is that important, they should have avoided hiring him to begin with - even if his presence was a help.

Now you will have a big stink, hurt feelings, more retribution, and the information has been leaked anyway.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Elsewhere I saw this:

One week after the email was sent, the Chinese company filed for a patent with Quan’s name as the inventor, Japanese media reported. The application was later approved.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yes, it’s always a smart move to allow Chinese access to industrial proprietary information. They’ll always keep it confidential and never share it.

Sheesh.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

ALL Chinese researchers in foreign countries have to act like spies and collect sensitive data for China. It is required by a Chinese law passed in 2017. Period. They may not like it but have to do it for the Party.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@virusrex

A useful reference is the Security Policy Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Information that regulates what anybody working for the goverment (including national institutes like the AIST)

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-10800000-Iseikyoku/0000102092.pdf

Did you even read the link that you gave us? That's how to handle health information more specifically patient data, which is not related to all government institution unless it handles health information data, healthcare idustry world wide already has it's own standard in handling health information. There's no data sharing unless necessary for example patient need to be transferred to different medical institution that more specialized.

Back to original case that being discussed in this article, which part mentioning health information? It's insulator for transformer, not patient health data.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@virusrex

He worked in a national institute involved in several consortiums with private companies that do use trade secrets, which is why rules are extremely strict, that is part of the requirements made from the companies to enter these kind of agreements.

That's true as national insitute invovled in several consortiums however for this case, what really matters does he really transmit any information that belong to another company in the first place?

I doubt it, if that's the case that detail will be over media by now.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Did you even read the link that you gave us? That's how to handle health information more specifically patient data

No, that is only the easiest example that can be given about confidential information, the guidelines never say this is the only kind of information that can be considered this way, misrepresenting the example given as if it was the only kind of information that have to be protected is not a valid argument to make. The rules apply to anybody working for the national government which obviously includes much more people that only those dealing with patients.

As long as the institution labels the information as confidential it is subjected to the rules of the guidelines.

That's true as national insitute invovled in several consortiums however for this case, what really matters does he really transmit any information that belong to another company in the first place?

Again, irrelevant, nothing in the rules says the information classified as confidential "must" be from a company, you yourself recognized this when trying to use the argument of patient information (that obviously belongs to the patient, not a company).

The argument is still the same, if the institution considers the information as classified then people are bound by rules and laws to keep it that way and can't just release that without authorization.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@ClemCa, thank you about that

@virusrex.

No, that is only the easiest example that can be given about confidential information, the guidelines never say this is the only kind of information that can be considered this way,

For health information is already widely known for people who really working for industry, that patient data information can not be transferred whatever they like. However aggregate data can, for example number of patient that visit that institution of given year, or what kind of health complain in that year in term of number.

You can make really convoluted argument, at the end is about common practice in that institution and what exact rules really apply in that place.

if the institution considers the information as classified then people are bound by rules and laws to keep it that way and can't just release that without authorization.

Not all information, it's really depend on what institution field of specialization and what common practice, some are really bound to exact details but some others just don't.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

For health information is already widely known for people who really working for industry, that patient data information can not be transferred whatever they like.

What source have you presented that this is not the case for confidential information of other kinds?

the answer is simple, none.

However aggregate data can, for example number of patient that visit that institution of given year, or what kind of health complain in that year in term of number.

That applies only when that data is not labeled as confidential, which is the whole point. A researcher for example can use that information, but if it is considered confidential that means he can't just release it based on his own authority, it would still require authorization from the institution. That can apply even to aggregate data.

Once the institution decides the information is not confidential then people with access to it are at a liberty of communicating it,

You can make really convoluted argument, at the end is about common practice in that institution and what exact rules really apply in that place.

In this case the institution clearly claims the information is confidential, so communicating it not justifiable. If you want to say there was no problem you have to prove it was not confidential in the first place.

Not all information, it's really depend on what institution field of specialization and what common practice, some are really bound to exact details but some others just don't.

Yes for all information that is labeled as confidential, that is the whole purpose of the classification in any field. The definition of classified information is all about things that require protection. There is no "institution field" or "common practice" where something being labeled as confidential can be freely released without authorization.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@virusrex

That applies only when that data is not labeled as confidential, which is the whole point. A researcher for example can use that information, but if it is considered confidential that means he can't just release it based on his own authority, it would still require authorization from the institution.

Until you are able land yourself in real actual job that handle various kind of data classification with its policies and see yourself how those things is being handled, I think it would be better for me just to finished this discussion.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

That is irrelevant, both institutions and companies are the ones that decide what is confidential or not, not single researchers, even if they can access that information. You have provided no source that says the contrary.

This is wrong when the single researcher owns the right to the confidential information.

Then the laws decide what is confidential or not.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

CraigHicksJune 20 08:43 am JST

If you hire someone it is more or less guaranteed they will learn and gather information, and eventually send it or take it back to China. Notably, "he played a central role" indicated he may have been a valuable contributor as well. If it the information "leak" is that important, they should have avoided hiring him to begin with - even if his presence was a help.

But then they'd call you a racist, discriminating against Chinese. The foundation of racism is a defensive heuristic - all else being even, an "insider" without extraneous lines of possible loyalty will have one less reason to backstab you than an "outsider" with same. Anti-discrimination law and practices forces hirers to pretend that difference does not exist, with an uphill climb to prove it is absolutely necessary to "be racist" in a particular instance.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Until you are able land yourself in real actual job that handle various kind of data classification with its policies and see yourself how those things is being handled, I think it would be better for me just to finished this discussion.

You can't know what kind of job other commenters have or not, so this is not an argument to defend your claim. I have presented references that clearly say what kind of rules have to be followed in national institutes such as the one in this article, address that evidence presented and demonstrate it is false, because addressing the people that presented that evidence makes no difference, the argument that disproves your claim is still valid no matter what job anybody here has.

This is wrong when the single researcher owns the right to the confidential information.

As explained several times, being authorized to access the information and being authorized to transmit it are two very different things, the institution is saying the researcher was not authorized to divulge the information, so there is nothing wrong with the comment you quote, the incorrect part is not understanding what the researcher was authorized to do or not.

Then the laws decide what is confidential or not.

That is incorrect, the institutions are the ones that decide what they will consider confidential (sometimes based on laws but not always).

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

You can't know what kind of job other commenters have or not

Of course people know this. Especially when statements are made that have no factual relation to the industry that is being discussed.

Easy to see.

As explained several times, being authorized to access the information and being authorized to transmit it are two very different things,

Well, because your "explanation" has pointed out irrelevancies, and there are gaping inconsistencies in what you claim.

This does not disprove the fact that if a researcher owns the right to confidential information, the the power to decide what is confidential lies with the researcher.

Unless you have evidence that contradicts this, it means you accept the error in your claim.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Of course people know this. Especially when statements are made that have no factual relation to the industry that is being discussed.

Making imaginary accusations about what other people do for a living is not "knowing" anything. Can you present any evidence about what I do for a living? else this is not an argument, is just an excuse you are trying to use even when it clearly against the rules of the site, as you have done previously.

Well, because your "explanation" has pointed out irrelevancies, and there are gaping inconsistencies in what you claim.

Since you have no mention of anything that is irrlevevant nor inconsistent that would not be an argument either. There is nothing that contradict the fact that being authorized to access the information is not the same as being authorized to release that information. The reference clearly makes a distinction and explicitly mentions that people need to get authorization even to put that information into portable devices, even when they obviously are authorized to access it.

This does not disprove the fact that if a researcher owns the right to confidential information, the the power to decide what is confidential lies with the researcher.

Unless you have evidence that contradicts this, it means you accept the error in your claim.

The guidelines provided from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare is clear evidence that people can be authorized to access confidential information but not to release it. You have not refuted that source as invalid, so you have to accept it proves the argument.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The guidelines provided from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare is clear evidence that people can be authorized to access confidential information but not to release it. You have not refuted that source as invalid, so you have to accept it proves the argument.

It is a basic tenet of Japanese law that an inventor of a patent for example, is the owner, and therefore has the legal right to practice it in any way he desires. Or assign it to whomever.

This is know throughout the science and medical industry.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It is a basic tenet of Japanese law that an inventor of a patent for example, is the owner, and therefore has the legal right to practice it in any way he desires. Or assign it to whomever.

In this case this would be a researcher finding about the invention of somebody else and trying to give it to someone else.

The main point is that being able to access confidential information do not mean the person also have the right to divulge it, much less that this is the person that originated the information in the first place.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The main point is that being able to access confidential information do not mean the person also have the right to divulge it, much less that this is the person that originated the information in the first place.

This is only your personal opinion. Unless you can provide evidence that the inventor does not have ownership of his confidential information, such as his patent, then that means you accept that the inventor has the right to divulge anything he desires related to his confidential information.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is only your personal opinion

No, it is not, the reference already provided clearly proves this is the case. Why else would rules and guidelines clearly instruct people to ask for authorization before transmitting or even bringing confidential information with them?

Unless you can provide evidence that the inventor does not have ownership of his confidential information, such as his patent

Quan Hengdao is not the inventor of the information disclosed, he was just allowed to access it.

The government make their policies open for anybody to check

https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/kokusaiteki/integrity.html

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

This is your personal belief. Just saying it is not does not make it not so.

the reference is there, and you have not been able to argue how this is not the case, just claim it so. Just claiming it without providing even one argument to prove it would demonstrate you understand your claim is mistaken.

Good to see you finally admit that the inventor of intellectual property is the owner unless he assigns, transfers or otherwise willingly relinquishes such ownership.

The question has never been about who invented anything, that is all your strawman fallacy, the question is if the researcher had the right to divulge that information, something that is obviously not true. He did not even invented the flourine compounds, so your argument is irrelevant in this case.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites