Censure the Engineers for Illegal Tech Transfer? 1

[gibfrog]

Loral was accused by the US State Dept of illegal missle technology transfer to an unnamed nuclear nation and paid a $14 million fine but did not admit guilt. Boeing Satellite Systems and Lockheed & McDonnell-Douglas are also under investigation for the same crime.

This unnamed nuclear nation can now better threaten US cities with more accurate missiles, years earlier that it could have without this assistance and put US citizens at risk. This unnamed nuclear nation can also now better threaten other neighboring democracies.

I contend that the engineers who participated in this technology transfer should be investigated by their local engineering societies for their lack ethics. "Just following orders" is not an allowable defense for a professional, per the Nurenburg trials. What do y'all think? Clifford H Laubstein
FL Certified PE #58662

 

[etch]

It does not say what country, there is a big difference seling information and components to a country like Britain, and selling components to a country like North Korea. It would be highly unlikely that this information would have been sold to a country not allied with the USA, as all shipments to these countries are carefully examined, and under present circumstances and political climate, the punishment would have been more severe. I think what is more likely is that the information was traded to an allied country, the degree of trisk that puts your country at is open to discussion.

 

[gibfrog]

Please read the following press release from the US State Dept.

Thursday, January 10, 2002

U.S. Customs Probes Into Satellite Manufacturer Results in Record $20 Million Fine

Washington, D.C. -- The U.S. Customs Service today announced that Space System/Loral, a U.S. satellite manufacturer, has agreed to pay a $20 million fine for allegedly passing licensable technology to China to improve its missile guidance systems. The Customs Special-Agent-in-Charge Office in Baltimore investigated the case.

The four-year investigation began in May 1996 after reports surfaced that Loral had released sensitive technical data to the Chinese. Earlier that year, Loral had undertaken a review of a failed launch of one of its satellites in China. The satellite was built for Intelset and was being launched by a Chinese rocket. Loral later admitted to the U.S. State Department of having unintentionally released sensitive information to Chinese authorities after the review.

Loral was charged with violating the Arms Export Control Act, which governs the transfer of sensitive U.S. technology to foreign governments. Under the terms of an agreement reached between Loral and the State Department, the company agreed to pay the fine without admitting or denying the government's charges.

The $20 million fine is the largest paid by an American company under the Arms Export Control Act. Approximately $6 million will be used by Loral to implement better export controls, and $14 million in cash will be paid to the government.

The U.S. Customs Service is charged with preventing the illegal movement of U.S. munitions and technology having sensitive civil and military applications to proscribed destinations around the world, and to terrorist organizations that pose a threat to the national security of the United States.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site:

http://usinfo.state.gov)

Clifford H Laubstein
FL Certified PE #58662

 

[PM]

A criminal investigation is quite a different thing than a professional investigation.

In my jurisdiction if an engineer is negligent or incompetent in the duties of his office, if he violated any of the by-laws of the engineering association, if he is unethical or if he is convicted of a criminal offense, then he may be professionally disciplined.

If his employer instructed him to convey information to others (just following orders) then it can't be argued that he violated the duties of his office. If he was not convicted of a criminal offense, it's hard to argue that as grounds for discipline. It's difficult to imagine what ethical rules he broke. I don't see why the PE should be investigated. In any case, professional investigations are usually initiated after a formal complaint, so if you are aware of specific grounds, you're ethically bound to raise a complaint.

Regards,

 

[gibfrog]

1) In my jurisdiction, if an engineer, pleads "nolo contendo" or has "adjudacation withheld" for a crime, he or she may be subject to professional discipline. I interpret paying a $14,000,000 fine to the govenrmment and paying another $6,000,000 to implement better internal controls so that illegal technology transfer does not occur, must be close to a corporate plea of "nolo contendo". The size of the fine that Loral elected to pay, suggests that there may be something worth investigating.

2) In my jurisdiction, an engineer has a primary obligation to the public welfare, a secondary obligation to the client and a tertiary obligation to the employer. Illegal technology transfers to "proscribed destinations around the world, and to terrorist organizations that pose a threat to the national security of the United States" endanger the public welfare. I sincerely hope that you have no friends or family in the cities now targeted by the improved missles.

3) I have no specific knowledge of a misdeed. I do not personally know any engineer who has worked for any of the companies in question. I am very troubled by what I read on the internet from many news sources, including the US government. I wanted to know if my peers are troubled by this. Oh Well...

4) I am not really looking for engineers to be disciplined. I am interested to know if engineers could have prevented this from occuring. I would like to know why engineers could not prevent this. Maybe you are correct, the engineers were just following the employer's instructions, not breaking any laws and there was nothing to prevent. Maybe they did the "right thing". Maybe this is why I do not work for a large company.

Clifford H Laubstein
FL Certified PE #58662

 

[StressGuy]

I doubt very seriously that engineers at Loral had or could have had any impact, unless they could have found some way to alter the data in a way to make it incorrect or otherwise unusable.

This was entirely a political action and we are all to blame for having allowed it to happen. Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[Ron]

gibfrog..you have raised an extremely interesting question. Many of us who participate in these forums approach engineering from a licensed/registered perspective which would likely lead to penalties for being involved as you described. It is a perspective to which I ascribe and believe in, otherwise I'd happily go off and do something a bit more lucrative.

Many who are titled "engineers" in the manufacturing/production arena are not of the same legal nor ethical ilk. By all means, I am not implying that those in manufacturing are less ethical or less technical by nature, it is just not as prominent in their area of practice as it is in the public realm. Often they are not licensed and though they perhaps have academic degrees in certain engineering disciplines, do not practice directly to the public. Personally, I feel that they affect the public and should be held to the same legal and ethical standards to which we are held as Professional Engineers.

 

[RDK]

Criminal charges have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil cases are to be proven on the balance of probabilities.

What is the standard for professional censure?

This would determine if there is enough evidence to proceed. I do think that there is sufficient evidence for the professional association to at least open an investigation. When you see smoke, look for fire.

In Canada where almost all degreed engineers are P.Eng’s the local associations would have jurisdiction. In the US where the industrial exemption would apply the issue is not clear cut. Censuring the PE’s while allowing the non PE’s to get off scott free would encourage others to not be registered. (I’m not suggesting that the PE’s be exempt from censure. They voluntary joined and voluntary accepted a higher standard of conduct.)
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[PM]

Rick:

The standard we used for establishing the burden of proof on our professional tribunals was "balance of probabilities".

Regards,