&w=3840&q=100)
2 Chinese scientists to remain in jail for bringing illegal material to US
Yunqing Jian and Chengxuan Han said in separate court appearances in Detroit that they would not challenge the government's request to keep them locked up while their cases move forward.
This is a constantly evolving situation involving a large number of factors, Han's attorney, Sara Garber, told a judge. She didn't elaborate and later declined to comment.
Han was arrested Sunday at Detroit Metropolitan Airport after arriving on a flight from China, where she is pursuing an advanced degree at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan.
She planned to spend a year completing a project at the University of Michigan lab, and is accused of shipping biological material months ago to laboratory staff.
It was intercepted by authorities. The FBI, in a court filing, said the material is related to worms and lacked a government permit. Experts told The Associated Press it didn't appear to be dangerous.
Jian's case is different. She is charged with conspiring with her boyfriend, another scientist from China, to bring a toxic fungus into the US Fusarium graminearum can attack wheat, barley, maize and rice.
The boyfriend, Zunyong Liu, was turned away at the Detroit airport last July and sent back to China after authorities found red plant material in his backpack.
Jian, who worked at the university lab, was arrested June 2. Messages between Jian and Liu in 2024 suggest that Jian was already tending to Fusarium graminearum at the lab before Liu was caught at the airport, the FBI said.
Jian's attorneys declined to comment Friday.
Federal authorities so far have not alleged that the scientists had a plan to unleash the fungus somewhere. Fusarium graminearum is already prevalent in the US particularly in the east and Upper Midwest and scientists have been studying it for decades.
Nicknamed vomitoxin because it's most known for causing livestock to throw up, it can also cause diarrhea, abdominal pain, headache and fever in animals and people.
Researchers often bring foreign plants, animals and even strains of fungi to the US to study them, but they must file certain permits before moving anything across state or national borders.
The university has not been accused of misconduct. It said it has received no money from the Chinese government related to the work of the three scientists.
In a statement, it said it strongly condemns any actions that seek to cause harm, threaten national security or undermine the university's critical public mission.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
5 hours ago
- News18
Classroom Spies? Chinese Students In UK Told To Monitor Peers, Here's Why
Last Updated: Chinese students in the UK are pressured to spy on classmates to suppress sensitive discussions, says UK-China Transparency. The Chinese Embassy in London called it "groundless." If you're a student in the UK, there's a possibility you might be spied upon—not by a government agency, but by a fellow student. A new report has suggested that Chinese students studying at UK universities are being pressured to spy on their classmates, in what is being described as an attempt to suppress discussions on topics sensitive to the Chinese government. Lecturers at several universities have reportedly been warned by Chinese government officials not to discuss certain issues, according to a survey conducted by UK-China Transparency (UKCT), a think tank focused on China studies, as reported by BBC. However, the Chinese Embassy in London dismissed the findings, calling the report 'groundless and absurd." The report comes just days after a new law came into force, requiring UK universities to actively promote academic freedom and free speech—even in cases where institutions have formal agreements with foreign governments. The higher education regulator—the Office for Students (OfS)—has stated that freedom of speech and academic freedom are 'fundamental" to university education. It warned that universities could face fines running into millions if they fail to uphold these values, BBC reported. What Are These Sensitive Topics? China, which is known to suppress dissent within its borders, has refused to acknowledge international allegations of ethnic cleansing in the Xinjiang region and criticism over Covid-19 origin. These are among the issues the Chinese government does not want discussed in classrooms abroad. Other sensitive topics include those related to science, politics, humanities, and the global rise of Chinese technology firms, according to the UKCT. Without naming China, UK Minister of State for Skills Jacqui Smith said that any attempt by a foreign state to 'intimidate, harass or harm" individuals in the UK will not be tolerated." Calling academic freedom 'non-negotiable" in UK institutions, she said the new legislation makes that stance 'explicitly clear." 'We are also working directly with the Office for Students to support universities in safeguarding free speech and tackling any form of harassment on campus," she added. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Economic Times
8 hours ago
- Economic Times
The stealth war: How China is quietly squeezing the lifeline of US military technology through 'magnets'
TIL Creatives Representative AI Image China is tightening its grip on the minerals that power the Western world's most advanced weapons, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. The controls aren't loud or flashy, but they're being felt in boardrooms, warehouses, and weapons factories across the United States. The Pentagon has already started to feel the strain. Missiles, fighter jets, radar systems, drones — all depend on a steady stream of materials like gallium, germanium, and rare earth magnets. And right now, that stream is being choked. In one example, a US drone component maker had its shipments of key Chinese-made magnets held up for weeks. Chinese suppliers had suddenly begun demanding detailed information about where the parts were going and how they'd be used. Chris Thompson, Vice President of Global Sales at ePropelled, said the company refused.'Of course we are not going to provide the Chinese government with that information,' Chris Thompson told a result, the magnets stopped arriving. Production delays followed. ET has not been able to independently verify these claims. These minerals aren't obscure. They're the building blocks of nearly every modern military is used in radar and satellite communications. Germanium is key for night vision and infrared imaging. Antimony is used in explosives and armour-piercing ammunition. Rare earth elements like neodymium and samarium are found in high-performance magnets, which power everything from missile guidance systems to drone propulsion and F-35 flight like dysprosium and terbium, are essential for heat-resistant alloys in jet engines. Others, like gadolinium, are critical for sonar and underwater surveillance materials aren't just important, they're irreplaceable. Substitutes either don't exist or don't work nearly as the problem isn't just that China mines a lot of them. It's that China processes and refines most of the global supply. Even when the raw materials come from somewhere else, they often pass through Chinese refineries before reaching the production isn't just a one-off problem. The deeper you look, the more it becomes clear: America's defence supply chain is built on materials it doesn't a defence analytics firm, recently found that more than 80,000 parts used across Pentagon weapons systems rely on minerals now facing Chinese restrictions. In many cases, these supply chains include only one or two vendors, and nearly all of them are connected to China. 'We talk about this daily and our companies talk about it daily,' said Dak Hardwick, Aerospace Industries Association, as reported by WSJ. Leonardo DRS, a US military tech supplier, warned it's already down to its "safety stock" of germanium, a metal essential for missile infrared sensors.'In order to sustain timely product deliveries, material flow must improve in the second half,' said Lenardo DRS's CEO Bill Lynn during a conference call with WSJ. That's the reality. Without these minerals, weapons can't be built. Full control isn't just about rare earths. It includes antimony, used in explosives. Gallium and germanium, critical for semiconductors and optics. Samarium, gadolinium, dysprosium, all found in advanced radar and targeting China blocked exports of germanium and gallium in late 2024, the market barely blinked at first. But by April 2025, it expanded the bans to cover seven more categories of rare earths. Prices spiked. Delivery times stretched out. In one case, a western buyer was quoted a rate 60 times above the usual market another, US Antimony Corporation had a shipment of 55 tonnes of Australian-mined antimony blocked at Ningbo port. It sat for three months before being sent back, with seals broken and no clear not supply chain risk. That's only one operational rare earths mine in the United States: Mountain Pass in California. While it's been scaling up output, refining remains a problem. Much of the ore it produces still ends up in China for Materials, which runs the mine, received over $400 million in US government funding to close that loop. But the gap between extraction and end-use is still has emerged as a possible new source of rare earths and titanium, with the US pushing to support its mining sector as part of postwar reconstruction. But experts are blunt about the timeline. 'Developing mine sites and sufficient infrastructure in the war-torn nation will take time, potentially decades,' said Aidan Knight, an associate analyst from GlobalData, as per a report by US Critical Minerals website. In the meantime, the Pentagon has invoked emergency powers under the Defence Production Act to fast-track domestic mining. DARPA is trying to predict global supply trends using modelling software. And companies like Charles River Analytics are being paid millions to map out alternative sourcing strategies. Still, none of this is fast. And none of it changes the fact that in 2024, China produced 750 out of 760 tonnes of primary gallium worldwide. The US produced is now the biggest factor. The Pentagon has ordered contractors to phase out all Chinese rare earth magnets by 2027. Most firms have a few months of stockpiles, at best. For smaller defence suppliers, that's not a transition, it's a cliff isn't the first time China has flexed its minerals. Back in 2010, it cut off rare earth exports to Japan over a maritime dispute. The move worked. Japan backed down. The message time, the target is wider. And the stakes are logic is simple. You can't build 21st-century weapons without 21st-century materials. If a missile guidance system needs gallium and there's no gallium, that missile doesn't get made. If a fighter jet needs neodymium magnets and none are arriving, the assembly line per a report by US Critical Minerals website, Lewis Black, CEO of Almonty Industries, which mines tungsten, put it plainly, 'We are trying to break that addiction [to Chinese supply] because… like all addictions, it is unhealthy. We cannot afford to go cold turkey because we are just not strong enough to do it."Until the addiction is broken, through new mines, new partnerships, and new infrastructure, Washington's military ambitions will remain dependent on decisions made in just a trade problem. A strategic vulnerability.
Scroll.in
11 hours ago
- Scroll.in
India's embrace of dangerous facial recognition technology is great for AI, terrible for privacy
In February, India, along with France, co-hosted the AI Action Summit held in Paris. At the end, it was announced that the next edition will be held in India. In its naming, priorities, and focus, the summit witnessed a clear shift from 'safety' to 'innovation' as the principal theme in artificial intelligence discourse. This move aligns with India's lax regulatory stance on AI governance, even in high-risk areas like healthcare and surveillance-driven technologies such as facial recognition technology. In the upcoming summit, this shift will enable the Indian government to steer discussions toward innovation, investment and accessibility while avoiding scrutiny over its weak legal protections, which create an environment conducive to unregulated technological experimentation. Shortly after the introduction of Chinese start-up DeepSeek's R1 model – which upended assumptions about large language models and how much it might cost to develop them – the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology announced plans to develop indigenous foundation models using Indian language data within a year and invited proposals from companies and researchers under its IndiaAI Mission. While local development in these areas is still in the early phase, the domain of AI that has already seen widespread adoption and deployment in India is facial recognition technology. As India contemplates a sustained push toward AI development and will likely seek to leverage its hosting of the next AI Summit for investments, it is instructive to look at how it has deployed and governed facial recognition technology solutions. Understanding Facial Recognition Technology Facial recognition technology is a probabilistic tool developed to automatically identify or verify individuals by analysing their facial features. It enables the comparison of digital facial images, captured via live video cameras (such as CCTV) or photographs, to ascertain whether the images belong to the same person. Facial recognition technology uses algorithms to analyse facial features, such as eye distance and chin shape, creating a unique mathematical 'face template' for identification. This template, similar to a fingerprint, allows facial recognition technology to identify individuals from photos, videos, or real-time feeds using visible or infrared light. Facial recognition technology has two main applications: identifying unknown individuals by comparing their face template to a database (often used by law enforcement) and verifying the identity of a known person, such as unlocking a phone. Modern facial recognition technology utilises deep learning, a machine learning technique. During training, artificial neurons learn to recognise facial features from labeled inputs. New facial scans are processed as pixel matrices, with neurons assigning weights based on features, producing labels with confidence levels. Liveness checks, like blinking, ensure the subject is real. Still, facial recognition technology faces accuracy challenges – balancing false positives (wrong matches) and false negatives (missed matches). Minimising one often increases the other. Factors like lighting, background and expressions also affect accuracy. Over the past seven years, facial recognition technology has seen widespread adoption in India, especially by the government and its agencies. This growth has coincided with debates surrounding Aadhaar (the national biometric ID system), frequent failures of other verification methods, a rise in street surveillance, and government efforts to modernise law enforcement and national security operations. In this review, I have surveyed the range of facial recognition technology deployment across sectors in India, both in public and private service delivery. This adoption tells the story of an exponential rise in the use of FRT in India, with barely any regulatory hurdles despite clear privacy and discrimination harms. Locating India's regulatory approach While efforts toward regulating AI are still in their infancy, with a handful of global regulations and considerable international debate about the appropriate approach, regulatory discussions about facial recognition technology predate them by a few years and are a little more evolved. Facial recognition technology systems can produce inaccurate, discriminatory, and biased outcomes due to flawed design and training data. A Georgetown Law study on the use of facial recognition technology in the US showed disproportionate impacts on African Americans and tests revealed frequent false positives, particularly affecting people of color. In 2019, the UK's Science and Technology Committee recommended halting facial recognition technology deployment until bias and effectiveness issues are resolved. The UK government countered the report by stating that the existing legal framework already offered sufficient safeguards regarding the application of facial recognition technology. Civil society organisations have been demanding bans or moratoriums on the use and purchase of facial recognition technology for years, most notably after a New York Times investigation in 2019 revealed that more than 600 law enforcement agencies in the US rely on the technology provided by a secretive company known as Clearview AI. An impact assessment commissioned by the European Commission in 2021 observed that facial recognition technology 'bear[s] new and unprecedentedly stark risks for fundamental rights, most significantly the right to privacy and non-discrimination.' The European Union and UK offer regulatory models for facial recognition technology in law enforcement. The EU's Law Enforcement Directive restricts biometric data processing to strictly necessary cases. While initial drafts of the EU's AI Act banned remote biometrics – such as the use of facial recognition technology – the final version has exceptions for law enforcement. In the UK, the Data Protection Act mirrors Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and a landmark court ruling deemed police facial recognition technology use unlawful, citing violations of human rights and data protection, and the technology's mass, covert nature. The EU's AI Act, while not explicitly banning discriminatory facial recognition technology, mandates data governance and bias checks for high-risk AI systems, potentially forcing developers to implement stronger safeguards. The GDPR generally bans processing biometric data for unique identification, but exceptions exist for data made public by the subject or when processing is for substantial public interest. In Europe, non-law enforcement facial recognition technology often falls under these exceptions. As per EU laws, facial recognition technology use may be permitted under strict circumstances in which a legislator can provide a specific legal basis regulating the deployment of facial recognition technology that is compatible with fundamental rights. US Vice President JD Vance's rebuke against ' excessive regulation ' of AI at the Paris Summit in February telegraphed a lack of intent for the current US federal government to regulate AI. However, there are numerous state-level regulations in operation in the US. Canada's Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) follows the EU model of risk regulation. Countries like South Korea have taken a more light-touch approach, with Seoul's AI Basic Act including a smaller subset of protections and ethical considerations than those outlined in the EU law. Japan and Singapore have explored self-regulatory codes rather than command and control regulation. The Indian Supreme Court's Puttaswamy judgment, which upheld a right to privacy, outlines a four-part test for proportionality to test whether state actions violate fundamental rights: a legitimate goal, suitable means, necessity (meaning there are no less restrictive alternatives), and balanced impact on rights. Facial recognition technology applications, like those that use the technology to mark attendance and carry out authentication, often have less intrusive alternatives, suggesting they fail the necessity test. Street surveillance using facial recognition technology inherently involves indiscriminate mass surveillance, not targeted monitoring. India's newly legislated Digital Data Protection Act, whose rules are currently being framed, permits the government to process personal data without consent in certain cases. Section 17(2) grants a broad exemption from its provisions for personal data processing, exempting state entities designated by the Indian government for reasons as broad as sovereignty, security, foreign relations, public order, or preventing incitement to certain offenses. In India, the primary policy document on facial recognition technology is a Niti Aayog paper, ' Responsible AI for All,' which anticipates that India's data protection law will handle facial recognition technology privacy concerns. However, it lacks detailed recommendations for ethical facial recognition technology use. It suggests the government should not exempt law enforcement from data protection oversight. It remains to be seen whether this recommendation will be followed, but this alone would be insufficient protection. Data minimisation, a key data protection principle that recommends the collection only of such information as is strictly necessary, restricts facial recognition technology by preventing the merging of captured images with other databases to form comprehensive citizen profiles. Yet, tenders for Automated Facial Recognition Systems (AFRS), to be used by law enforcement agencies, explicitly called for database integration, contradicting data minimisation principles. India's lenient approach toward facial recognition technology regulation, even as there is widespread adoption of the technology by both public and private bodies, suggests a pattern of regulatory restraint when it comes to emerging digital technologies. Rest of World recently reported on an open-arms approach that India has taken to AI, with a focus on 'courting large AI companies to make massive investments.' As a prime example, both Meta and OpenAI are seeking partnerships with Reliance Industries in India to offer their AI products to Indian consumers, which would be hosted at a new three-gigawatt data center in Jamnagar, Gujarat. These investments in India need to be seen in the context of a number of geopolitical and geoeconomic factors: data localisation regulations under India's new data protection law, the negotiating power that the Indian government and the companies close to it possess by leveraging the size of its emerging data market, how these factors facilitate the emergence of domestic BigTech players like Reliance, and most importantly, the Indian government's overall approach toward AI development and regulation. It was earlier reported that the much-awaited Digital India Act would have elements of AI regulation. However, the fate of both the legislation or any other form of regulation is, for the moment, uncertain. As recently as December 2024, Ashwini Vaishnav, the Indian minister of electronics and information technology, stated in the Indian Parliament that a lot more consensus was needed before a law on AI can be formulated. This suggests that the Indian government currently has no concrete plans to begin work toward any form of AI regulation, and despite the widespread use of AI and well documented risks, will stay out of the first wave of global AI regulations.
