Classified data in the Jianyu Huang fraud case?
Roughly one year
ago, Jianyu Huang, a former employee of Sandia National Labs was charged
with multiple counts of federal contract fraud allegedly committed
during his employment by Sandia. The Albuquerque Journal reported on
June 6, 2012:
“The indictment says Huang on five separate
occasions between January 2009 and this February sold at least $25,000
worth of “equipment, materials, the time and work product of (Sandia)
staff, and intangible property, including the right to determine what
work is performed at (Sandia,) and Sandia’s proprietary interest in
intellectual property developed” at the labs.”
“The sixth count
in the indictment alleges Huang lied to a Sandia counterintelligence
officer, whom he told he would not take a lab-owned laptop computer with
him on a trip to China last July. The indictment says Huang took the
Sandia laptop on that trip.”
(http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/06/06/abqnewsseeker/updated-ex-sandia-scientist-pleads-not-guilty-to-stealing-data.html)
UPI
reported on June 5, 2012 that: “He did not have access to classified
national security information, Sandia National Labs said.”
(http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/06/05/Sandia-Labs-worker-arrested/UPI-43381338915993/#ixzz2TmiqTlsS)
But
on May 15, 2013, the Assistant U.S. attorney, Jonathon M. Gerson, filed
a “Motion for entry of stipulated protective order” that states:
“This
case involves “Restricted Data,” “Formerly Restricted Data,” and other
information that has been classified in the interest of the national
security and subject to the provisions of CIPA.”
But “Restricted
Data” and “Formerly Restricted Data” are specific to classified
information about atomic weapons.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_Data)
So what is going on?
How
could the trial of a person without “access to classified national
security information” involve “Restricted Data” and “Formerly Restricted
Data”?
6 comments:
National security information is information classified by executive order that has been identified specifically as needing to be protected in the national interest.
Restricted data and formerly restricted data are information regarding nuclear materials and the use of nuclear materials that by their very nature are deemed by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to be classified unless a specific determination has been made that the information does not require protection in the national interest.
Who knows, who cares? I'm sure he f'ed up majorly in some way. DOE and CI aren't out to fight imaginary battles, they have enough real ones to deal with.
Its the same deal with Wen Ho Lee. They couldn't prove in a court of law that he sold the Reds secrets, just like they couldn't prove OJ Simpson killed his wife. But we all know he did it, so they went to town on related charges.
Just remain a red blooded, god fearing American, and you'll be fine.
"How could the trial of a person without “access to classified national security information” involve “Restricted Data” and “Formerly Restricted Data”? "
In this case, "access" means having a clearance (i.e., "access authorization" in government speak), not necessarily actual possession or knowledge of classified data. If the guy was exposed to or obtained classified data without an appropriate clearance, then presumably the trial will "involve" that classified data.
But we all know he did it, so they went to town on related charges.
How do you know?
Just the theft element would get the guy a fine or some years in prison. If they have an espionage element to the case, even garden variety industrial espionage and export control violations, that will lead to more years to his prison sentence. Either way he deserves to rot in hell.
What is this Sandia that you speak of? Only LANL has a culture problem and is the problem, all other labs are pure. L
Post a Comment