编者按
2015年5月21日凌晨，荷枪实弹的FBI调查人员于宾州天普大学（Temple University）教授郗小星的家里，当着他妻子、孩子的面，将他戴上手铐，带走了！

FBI最初是以间谍罪来调查郗教授的，后来因为没有确凿的间谍罪证据，检察官改为以罪责较轻的为中国提供保密技术起诉。但还没走完审判的法律程序，被告辩护律师就说服检察官撤诉了。原来起诉方犯了个严重的技术错误，误把一个一般的技术理解为另外一个保密技术了。这是司法部门继2014年12月撤诉曹国庆和李树玉案之后不到一年内的又一个撤诉。同样的事情还发生在华裔水文学家陈霞芬身上，2014年10月20日她被指控从事间谍活动而被捕，5个月后所有指控都被撤销。

2016年4月，司法部发出新规则，要求华盛顿的检察官对有关国家安全的案子加强监督和控制，以免再犯如此尴尬的错误。

即便如此，政府的错误已经对郗小星和陈霞芬造成了巨大的、无可挽回的伤害和损失。日前郗小星和陈霞芬分别起诉FBI，目的就是为了维护自身的正当权益，讨回一个公道，同时也为大陆华裔科学工作者争取公正待遇和澄清名声。百人会的胡善庆博士就郗教授起诉之事撰文，和大家分享他的观点，值得大家深思和讨论。

华裔教授郗小星起诉FBI探员，
我们应该知道什么？做些什么？

（英文原作）胡善庆博士 （中文翻译）殷余民，王文奎
2017年5月31日

天普大学（Temple University）教授郗小星最近提出的民事诉讼[1，2，3]对每个美国人、尤其是在美华裔来说都具有非常重要和深远的意义。这里的“美国人”是从法律意义上讲的[4]，涵盖任何美国公民或者永久居民，以及根据美国法律成立的实体。

郗教授的诉讼案提醒我们，美国人享有宪法赋予的权利，并受到法律保护。毋庸置疑，国家安全是必要的，强大的国家才能更有效地保障我们的自由。然而，如果政府根据种族和原籍背景而针对无辜的人选择性执法，以国家安全为幌子滥用权力，那就破坏了人民的生活，践踏了宪法赋予我们的权利。任何美国人都可以因为这些不法行为而起诉政府。

本文试图对郗小星教授这次诉讼的背景和社会环境作一分析，并提出建议，以帮助、支持郗教授，支持我们的社区。

 美国宪法第四、第五修正案 

美国宪法的前十项修正案，统称为“权利法案”（Bill of Rights），于1791年由美国国会通过，并由各州批准。

具体而言，美国宪法第四修正案[5]规定：
不得侵犯人民的人身、住宅、文件和财产免受不合理搜查、扣押的权利。除非有合理依据，同时以宣誓或代誓宣言保证，并具体说明要搜查的地点、要扣押的人、物，不可签发搜捕状。

第四修正案的最终目标是保护人民的隐私权、和免遭政府随意入侵的权利。

美国宪法第五修正案[6]规定：
无论何人，非经大陪审团的报告或起诉书，不可被迫接受审判为死罪或其他罪行，除非案件发生在陆军、海军或者民兵队伍中，并且当事人正在服役，而且发生在战时、或出现公共危险情况时。任何人不得因同一犯罪行为而两次遭受对生命、人身的惩罚。任何人不得在刑事案件中被迫自证其罪，或者未经正当法律程序而被剥夺生命、自由或财产。除非给予公正的补偿，否则私有财产不得充作公用。

第五修正案的最终目标是确保人民在法律诉讼过程当中受到平等的法律保护(Equal Protection)，和司法公正（Due Process）。

随着时间的推移，新的法律条文和法庭裁决为这些基本的宪法权利提供了进一步的解释和支持。例如，随着我们进入信息时代，最高法院于1967年[7]裁定 ，宪法第四修正案中针对实地搜查的要求同样适用于电子监视。

随着快速搜集与合并大量电子数据的技术不断发展，1974年通过了“隐私权法案”[8]，旨在“避免由于对联邦记录的滥用而对个人隐私的侵犯”，以及“允许个人获得查看与自己相关的联邦记录的权限”。

 美国的大规模监视活动 

据报道，美国政府对人民的大规模监视起始于第一次世界大战期间[9]，在1917年“间谍法案”[10]颁布后。

20世纪70年代的水门事件丑闻揭露了尼克松总统利用联邦资源（包括执法部门），来监视国内的政治团体、社会活动团体。弗兰克·车尔驰参议员领导美国参议院一个调查委员会[11]对情报机关和其他联邦机构在1975年滥用权力的情况进行了调查。

随后，1978年通过了“外国情报监视法案”（FISA）[12]，旨在“保障司法部门和国会对美国政府监视外国实体和个人的活动进行监督”。

FISA法案允许政府在获得法院许可的前提下对外国组织和个人监视长达一年。只有指定的FISA法院才有权提供许可，并且必须有正当的监视理由、和具体的监视场所。法院必须确保拟报批的监视活动中涉及到美国人的信息的部分，满足某些“最低要求”。最小化（Minimization）[13]是一个法律术语，指“限制政府通过合法途径收集不相关的个人信息的能力”。

1981年，里根总统签署了12333号总统令 [14,15]，以扩大美国情报机构的职权，进一步加强了情报收集和监视活动。

1996年通过的“经济间谍法案”（EEA）[16,17]，把为盗取商业秘密为国外势力谋利，或伤害商业秘密所有权的行为定为联邦犯罪。EEA不同于1917年“间谍法案”的是，其涵盖的是商业信息，而不是机密、国防信息。

2001年的9·11恐怖袭击震动了美国和全世界，美国政府迅速加强了安全管制，并于2001年10月26日颁布“爱国者法案”[18]，开始打破了公民自由与国家安全之间微妙的平衡。 “爱国者法案”引起了大量的关于违反宪法权利、特别是第四修正案的争议，而且这个趋势还在继续。值得注意的是，中国人或者华人并没有参与任何恐怖袭击事件。

在911事件发生之后，布什政府还搞了一系列秘密的、没有搜捕许可的窃听活动，其中包括对数百万美国人的电话、电子邮件和其他电子通讯的监测。

2014年，PBS播出了一部两集纪录片[19]，描述了对外国目标的监视如何转向美国国内，以及美国国家安全局（NSA）与高科技公司之间的秘密合作。

许多这些秘密计划一直等到2013年被美国政府的合同工爱德华·斯诺登[20]披露之后，才被公众所了解。

斯诺登所披露的信息中令人不安的一个内容，是“2008年FISA修正法案”第702节[21]，被NSA用来直接从互联网服务提供商那里大量收集电子数据。虽然该法律原本只是针对美国以外的非美国人，但NSA据此来收集“附带性的”（Incidental）美国人的通讯，并使用“后门漏洞”[22]等有争议的做法[23]，在没有获得搜捕许可的情况下获取这些信息。

在2010年美国外交电报大规模泄漏[24]之后，2013年斯诺登泄密之前，奥巴马总统于2011年发布了13587号总统令 [25]，以“提高机密网络的安全性”。随后，2012年又开始在政府机构中施行“国家内部威胁管理条例”[26]，并预定在2016年底前全面实施。

 对美国华裔的影响 

每个美国人，特别是华裔，都应该关心和了解这些影响到我们宪法权利和国家安全的事件。

FISA法案于2008年被修订，并于2012年重新授权五年（有效期延至2017年底）。美国政府监视的范围就从只针对基地组织和恐怖组织，扩大到总体的国家安全。

美国司法部（DOJ）和联邦调查局（FBI）开始了公开宣传，把经济间谍活动视为排在恐怖主义之后的，对美国国家安全的第二大威胁，并将中国当作罪魁祸首。联邦调查局[27]的一个报道说，2015年有数百起经济间谍案件，比上一年上升53％，中国是导致这个上升的原因。

在短短两年的时间内，至少有四名入籍归化的华裔美国科学家，包括郗小星教授，被起诉、逮捕和指控为中国间谍。不过，无一例外，政府最终都撤销了对他们的指控，而且没有给出任何解释。然而，这些无辜的个人和他们的家庭却由此蒙受了重大的损失。

尽管在过去两年来，美国国会、美国民权委员会、各种媒体、社区组织和专业组织，以及关心这些事件的有关人士多次提出质询和呈请，司法部却拒绝对这些明显的针对华裔美国科学家的错误指控的现象展开独立调查，或提供充分的解释和道歉。

1997年至2015年间，在“经济间谍法案”（EEA）下进行诉讼的有136起案件，涉及187名被告。通过对这些案件的实证研究，百人会最近发布了一份白皮书[28,29]，其中发现：

自2009年以来，EEA指控的华裔百分比增加了两倍
在大约一半的案件中，美国实体是受益方，大约三分之一的案件涉及中国受益人
涉嫌间谍罪的亚裔被告人，被判决的刑罚比其他族裔人士严重程度超过一倍
在间谍案中被起诉的，亚裔有五分之一可能是无辜的；这个比例是其他族裔的两倍

郗小星教授的起诉书共有21页，其中被告是联邦调查局的首席探员，和几个没有指定姓名的探员。郗教授的起诉书指出，他们有以下五项侵犯他的宪法第四、第五修正案权利的行为：

恶意检控 (Malicious Prosecution)
违反平等保护和正当司法程序 (Equal Protection and Due Process Violation)
非法搜索和扣押 - FISA监视令 (Unlawful Search and Seizure - FISA Orders)
非法搜查和扣押 - 无证监视 (Unlawful Search and Seizure - Warrantless Surveillance)
非法搜查和扣押财产 (Unlawful Search and Seizure of Property and Belongings)

可能还会有更多联邦调查局探员被加到被告名单里。据媒体报道[30]，郗小星教授还可能会依据“联邦侵权索赔法”[31]对政府提出索赔。

在法律界，郗教授的案件被认为是一起“比文斯诉讼”（Bivens Action）[32]；比文斯诉讼通常是指“联邦官员违反美国宪法导致损害的行为。最高法院于1972年裁定，“联邦官员违反宪法第四修正案的行为，可以作为针对非法搜查和拘捕造成的伤害而发起联邦诉讼的依据。”

对宪法第四修正案权利的关切是广泛的，特别是随着现代技术进步，社会正在快速变化[33,34]。2016年7月,美国国会设立了由两党共同组成的“国会第四修正案核心小组”[35], 由共和党议员泰德·波（R-Texas）和民主党议员佐夫·洛夫格伦（D-California）主持，旨在保护数字时代美国人的隐私和安全。

由背景多样化、跨党派的公民自由权研究专家联合起来成立了“宪法第四修正案咨询委员会”，以辅助国会第四修正案核心小组的工作。该委员会已经在国会大厦组织了一系列的讨论会，以教育国会工作人员，促进公众参与，讨论如何保护公众的隐私权。2016年12月1日，郗教授作为特邀讲员，在他们组织的“常见的嫌疑人：政府监视活动中的偏见”讨论会[36]上演讲。

2017年，国会第四修正案核心小组的一个重要任务是对FISA修正法案的重新授权，特别是第702节----该法案将于12月31日到期。虽然基于政治和国家安全的原因，不会让这项法律失效。但是，在重新授权的过程中，一定要增强透明度和问责机制。

目前，越来越多的报道指出，华裔美国人常常被“国家内部威胁者项目”[37]选择性地追踪。美国国土安全部和联邦调查局等联邦机构已经开始着手改变法律程序，以在“隐私法案”下豁免他们自己[38]。例如，拒绝正在被调查的个人查看自己的文件等。这些隐蔽做法如果得到实施，将为绕过宪法赋予的个人权利提供方便，使无辜个人被不法指控的可能性增加，并且没有追索权。

 我们如何帮助郗教授、帮助我们自己 

宪法是美国立国之本，美国宪法包含了核心的基本原则和法律规则。尽管这个国家并非完美，但是由于包括亚裔内的美国人民的智慧和贡献，她在不断地改进。

亚裔美国人经历了长期被歧视、排斥、甚至拘禁的历史。我们不能继续容忍政府行为中那些拿亚裔当替罪羊、或者用定向思维把亚裔（或者任何一个美国人）与特定的不良行为联系起来的做法，任由恶意歧视、隐性族群偏见[39]、或者粗暴疏忽大行其道。然而，在现实中，选择性执法、种族形象定性还在继续破坏人们的生活，践踏宪法赋予我们的权利。

美国政府和国家司法系统不仅有义务惩罚有罪的人，还有义务保护无辜的人。

郗小星和他的家人，以及陈霞芬和其他的无辜人士，遭到了错误的检控和调查，是在国家安全的幌子下遭受长期不公正对待的最新受害者。

对于许多人来说，郗小星教授这次起诉政府，象征着在恢复公民宪法权利道路上的一个突破性的步骤；这有别于过去的只是针对错误指责作出被动反应的做法。无辜、守法的美国人应该能够自由地在电话中交谈、发送电子邮件、参与科学交流、进行正常的社会活动和职业活动，而不受政府的持续监听，不用担忧会像住在由警察控制的国家里一样遭到迫害。

缘此，我们可以从以下四个方面来帮助郗小星教授、帮助我们自己：

主动了解郗小星教授的遭遇，并广泛宣传和推动对郗教授的支持。
向郗小星教授法律维权基金捐款：http://www.xiaoxingxi.org/。
积极与代表自己选区的议员联系，推动加强政府工作透明与问责机制的立法改革，尤其今年FISA修正法案的重新授权,保护我们的权利。
在适当的时候，向法庭呈递支持郗小星教授的“法庭之友”书状（Amicus Briefs）[40]。

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

英文原文及引文（Original English Version)：

What Every U.S. Person Should Know and Do about Professor Xiaoxing Xi’s Suit

Jeremy S. Wu, Ph.D.
May 31, 2017

The recent civil suit filed by Temple University Professor Xiaoxing Xi [1, 2, 3] has strong implications and lasting meaning for every U.S. person, especially those of Chinese origin.  Here a “U.S. person” has legal meaning [4] that covers any U.S. citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence in the U.S., and any entity organized under U.S. laws.   

Professor Xi’s suit is a reminder that a U.S. person has rights under the Constitution and he is protected by laws.  Few can dispute the need for national security and the freedom we enjoy from a strong nation.  However, targeting innocent people by race or national origin and abusing authority in the guise of national security ruin lives and violate our constitutional rights.  A U.S. person may sue the government as a result of these violations.

This blog offers personal observations and an overview of the background and environment that contribute to the suit.  Four suggestions are provided on how individuals and organizations may help Professor Xi’s cause and the community:

Educate ourselves and publicize our support for Professor Xi
Donate to Professor Xi’s legal defense fund at http://www.xiaoxingxi.org/
Engage your elected representatives and participate in the process to reform legislations and protect our rights
File amicus briefs [40] in support of Professor Xi when they are appropriate   

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were passed by Congress and ratified by states in 1791.

In particular, the Fourth Amendment [5] states that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The ultimate goal of the Fourth Amendments is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions.

In addition, the Fifth Amendment [6] states that:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The ultimate goal of the Fifth Amendment is to ensure equal protection and due process relevant to legal proceedings respectively.

Over time, new laws and court decisions provide refined interpretations and support to these fundamental constitutional rights.  For example, as we moved into the Information Age, the Supreme Court [7] held in 1967 that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches.

As the power of technology to rapidly compile and merge large amounts of electronic data began to grow, the Privacy Act [8] was created in 1974 to “safeguard individual privacy from the misuse of Federal records” and “to provide that individuals be granted access to records concerning them which are maintained by Federal agencies.”

Mass Surveillance in the U.S.

Mass surveillance by the U.S. government [9] reportedly dates back to the First World War with the enactment of the Espionage Act [10] in 1917.

The Watergate scandal in the 1970s revealed that President Richard M. Nixon used federal resources, including law enforcement, to spy on domestic political and activist groups.  Senator Frank Church led a U.S. Senate Committee [11] to investigate the abuses by the intelligence and other federal agencies in 1975.  

Subsequently in 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [12] was created to “provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States.”

FISA allows the government to seek a court order permitting the surveillance for up to a year.  A designated FISA court must find probable cause and specific places of surveillance before approving a FISA application.  The court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain "minimization requirements" for information pertaining to U.S. persons. Minimization [13] is the legal term for “the constraints placed upon the government's ability to retain non-relevant private information collected legally.”

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333 [14, 15] to extend the powers and responsibilities of U.S. intelligence agencies, further expanding their data collection and surveillance activities.   

The Economic Espionage Act (EEA) [e.g., 16, 17] was enacted in 1996, making the theft of trade secrets to benefit a foreign power or to injure the owner of trade secrets a federal crime.  EEA differs from the Espionage Act of 1917 by covering commercial information instead of classified or national defense information.

The 9/11 attacks in 2001 shook the nation and the world.  The U.S. government rushed to strengthen security controls and enacted the Patriot Act [18] on October 26, 2001.  It began to tilt the delicate balance between civil liberty and national security.  The Patriot Act generated numerous controversies about violations of constitutional rights, especially the Fourth Amendment, that are continuing today.  It is noteworthy that no Chinese person was ever implicated in the terrorist attacks.  

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration also initiated a series of secret warrantless wiretapping programs, which include monitoring of the telephone, email, and other electronic communications of millions of Americans.

PBS broadcast a two-part documentary in 2014 [19] that describes how a surveillance operation turned from foreign targets into a domestic dragnet of U.S. persons, as well as the secret relationship between the National Security Agency (NSA) and hi-tech companies.  

Many of these secret programs were not known to the public until they were revealed by Edward Snowden [20], a contractor to the U.S. government, in 2013.  

A disturbing aspect of Snowden’s disclosure is known as Section 702 of the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 [21], which NSA uses to justify collection of massive amounts of electronic data directly from the Internet service providers.  Although the law is intended to target only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S., NSA also uses it to justify the collection of “incidental” communications of U.S. persons and accesses such information without a warrant through “backdoor loopholes,” [22] among other questionable practices [e.g., 23].

Following the massive leaks of diplomatic cables [24] in 2010 but prior to the Snowden disclosures in 2013, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13587 [25] in 2011 to “improve the security of classified networks.”  It was followed by the government-wide National Insider Threat Policy [26] in 2012, with the goal of fully implementing a National Insider Threat Program by the end of 2016.   

Relevance to U.S. Persons of Chinese Origin

Every U.S. person, especially those of Chinese origin, should be aware and concerned about these developments affecting our constitutional rights and national security.

FISA was amended in 2008 and reauthorized for five years in 2012 (expiring December 31, 2017).  The focus of U.S. surveillance expanded from Al-Qaeda and terrorist groups to national security in general.  

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) began publicity campaigns identifying economic espionage as the second highest national security threat to the U.S. after terrorism with China as primary culprit.  FBI [27] reported that China was responsible for a 53% jump in its economic espionage investigations in 2015, which numbered in the hundreds.

Within a short period of about two years, at least four naturalized Chinese American scientists including Professor Xi, were indicted, arrested, and accused of being economic spies for China, only to have their separate cases dropped by the government without explanation.  However, substantial damages have already been inflicted on these innocent individuals and their families.  

Despite numerous inquiries and petitions from Congress, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, media, community and professional organizations, and concerned individuals in the past two years, DOJ has refused to conduct an independent investigation or provide a full explanation or an apology to the apparent pattern of wrongful prosecutions against these Chinese American scientists.

Based on empirical evidence from 136 cases involving 187 individual defendants charged under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) from 1997 to 2015, a recent white paper [28, 29] released by the Committee of 100 found that:

The percentage of person of Chinese heritage charged under EEA tripled since 2009
In about half of the cases, the alleged beneficiary of espionage was an American entity while about a third of the cases involved a Chinese beneficiary
Defendants of Asian heritage convicted of espionage received sentences over twice as severe as those of other ethnicities
As many as 1 in 5 Asian people prosecuted as spies may be innocent, a rate twice as large as for other races

In his 21-page complaint [1] against the lead FBI agent and other unnamed agents, Professor Xi made five counts of violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights:

Malicious Prosecution
Equal Protection and Due Process Violation
Unlawful Search and Seizure – FISA Orders
Unlawful Search and Seizure – Warrantless Surveillance
Unlawful Search and Seizure of Property and Belongings.  

Additional FBI agents may be named later in the suit.  According to media report [30], it is also likely that claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act [31] will also be brought against the government.

Within the legal circle, Professor Xi’s case is known as a “Bivens action” [32], which generally refers to “actions for damages when there has been a violation of the U.S. Constitution by federal officers” acting under invalid federal authority.  In particular, the Supreme Court held in 1972 that “violation of one’s Fourth Amendment rights by federal officers can give rise to a federal cause of action for damages for unlawful searches and seizures.”
Concerns about Fourth Amendment rights are broad-based, especially as society is undergoing rapid changes with the advancement of modern technology [e.g., 33, 34].  

A bipartisan Congressional Fourth Amendment Caucus [35], chaired by Congresspersons Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Zoe Lofgren (D-California), was launched in July 2016 to protect the privacy and security of Americans in the digital age.

The Fourth Amendment Advisory Committee, composed of a diverse and bipartisan alliance of civil liberty experts, was formed to support the work of the Congressional Fourth Amendment Caucus.  It has already organized a series of panels on Capitol Hill to educate congressional staffers, engage the public, and discuss how to protect our rights to privacy.  Professor Xi was the featured speaker in the “The Usual Suspects: Bias in Government Surveillance” panel [36] on December 1, 2016.

Among the specific actions the Fourth Amendment Caucus will undertake in 2017 is the reauthorization of the FISA Amendment Act, especially Section 702, which is scheduled to expire on December 31.  While politics and the need for national security may not allow the law to lapse, additional transparency and accountability should certainly be demanded in its reauthorization.

There are now mounting reports that Chinese Americans are being targeted in the National Insider Threat Program [e.g., 37].  Federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have already started the rulemaking process to exempt themselves from the Privacy Act [e.g., 38], such as denying individuals who are under investigation the chance to access and review their own files.  These secret practices, if implemented, will bypass individual constitutional rights and increase the likelihood of wrongful accusations against innocent individuals without recourse.

How We Can Help Professor Xi and Ourselves
The United States was founded on a Constitution of core principles and rule of law.  It has not been a perfect nation, but it has improved itself over time because of the wisdom and participation of its people, including Asian Americans.  
Asian Americans have faced a long history of explicit prejudice in exclusion laws and internment.  It is unacceptable to scapegoat and stereotype Asian Americans, or any American for that matter, through malicious treatment, implicit bias [39], or gross negligence in the conduct and behavior of government actions.  And yet, targeting and profiling continue to ruin lives and violate our constitutional rights.
The U.S. government and the American justice system are obligated not only to punish the guilty, but also to protect the innocent.
Professor Xi and his family, as well as Sherry Chen and other innocent individuals subjected to wrongful prosecutions and investigations, are the latest victims to suffer the long ordeals of injustice in the guise of national security.     
To many, Professor Xi’s suit symbolizes a ground-breaking step to regain our constitutional rights instead of just reacting defensively to false accusations.  Innocent, law-abiding Americans should be able to talk on the phone, send an email, participate in scientific exchange, and conduct normal social and professional activities without being constantly surveilled by the government and fearful of persecution as in a police state.
In this regard, we can help Professor Xi and ourselves in at least four ways:

Educate ourselves and the community about the issues and publicize broadly our support for Professor Xi
Donate to Professor Xi’s legal defense fund at http://www.xiaoxingxi.org/
Engage your elected representatives and participate in the process to support legislative changes and our rights by enhancing transparency and accountability, such as in the upcoming reauthorization of the FISA Amendment Act
File amicus briefs [40] in court to support Professor Xi when they are appropriate   

References

[1] Mintpress News (2017).  Xiaoxing Xi vs FBI Special Agent Andrew Haugen and John Doe(s).  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case 2:17-cv-02132-RBS.  http://bit.ly/2r54Xx6.
[2] Apuzzo, Matt (2017).  Former Espionage Suspect Sues, Accusing F.B.I. of Falsifying Evidence.  New York Times.  http://nyti.ms/2qSOtrV.
[3] Roebuck, Jeremy (2017).  Temple professor, once accused of spying for China, sues FBI agents. Philly.com.  http://bit.ly/2pAv4rC.
[4] Legal Information Institute (n.d.).  22 U.S. Code § 6010 - “United States person” defined.  http://bit.ly/2r99jAs.
[5] Legal Information Institute (n.d.).  Fourth Amendment.  Cornell University Law School.  http://bit.ly/2qbMTyB.
[6] Legal Information Institute (n.d.).  Fifth Amendment.  Cornell University Law School.  http://bit.ly/2qh8jMO.
[7] Legal Information Institute (n.d.).  Supreme Court Decision: Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347. Cornell University Law School.   http://bit.ly/2prv01C.
[8] Wikipedia (n.d.).  Privacy Act of 1974.  http://bit.ly/2gfSrqx.
[9] Wikipedia (n.d.).  Mass surveillance in the United States.  http://bit.ly/2r3tKl2.
[10] Wikipedia (n.d.).  Espionage Act of 1917.  http://bit.ly/2r10YSi.
[11] Wikipedia (n.d.).  Church Committee.  http://bit.ly/2r3lVvQ.
[12] Ambinder, Marc (2010).  Minimization: A Term You Need To Know.  The Atlantic Magazine.  http://theatln.tc/2rcfweR.
[13] Wikipedia (n.d.).  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  http://bit.ly/2r7i79c.
[14] National Archives (n.d.).  Executive Order 12333 – United States Intelligence Activities.  http://bit.ly/2qasxYc.
[15] Wikipedia (n.d.).  Executive Order 12333.  http://bit.ly/2pFiTsM.
[16] Simon, Spencer (1998).  The Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 13 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 305. http://bit.ly/2pFdxxP.
[17] Wikipedia (n.d.).  Economic Espionage Act of 1996.  http://bit.ly/1GIja65.
[18] Wikipedia (n.d.).  Patriot Act.  http://bit.ly/2q92NM3.
[19] Public Broadcasting Service (2014).  United States of Secrets, two-part documentary.   http://to.pbs.org/2pG8BcS.
[20] Wikipedia (n.d.).  Edward Snowden.  http://bit.ly/2qA3IWQ.
[21] Wikipedia (n.d.).  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.  http://bit.ly/1NvPEUw.
[22] The Guardian (2014).  NSA loophole allows warrantless search for US citizens' emails and phone calls.  http://bit.ly/2pvtfQT.
[23] Kayyali, Dia (2014).  The Way the NSA Uses Section 702 is Deeply Troubling. Here’s Why.  Electronic Frontier Foundation.  http://bit.ly/2qdGWRt.
[24] Wikipedia (n.d.).  United States diplomatic cables leak.  http://bit.ly/2qb4tEF.
[25] The White House (2011).  Executive Order 13587 – Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information.  http://bit.ly/2qBtycV.
[26] The White House (2012).  Presidential Memorandum -- National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs.  http://bit.ly/2qdM3CU.
[27] Chon, Gina (2015).  FBI blames China for 53% spy case surge.  Financial Times.  http://on.ft.com/2qdFJvo.
[28] Kim, Andrew (2017). Prosecuting Chinese “Spies:” An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Espionage Act.  Committee of 100.  http://bit.ly/2qXKHNf.
[29] Wu, Jeremy (n.d.).  Federal Cases Under or Related to the Economic Espionage Act.     http://bit.ly/FedCases.
[30] Fuchs, Chris (2017).  Scientist Formerly Accused of Spying Sues Alleging FBI Agent Falsified Evidence.  NBC News.  http://nbcnews.to/2qj2Oet.
[31] Wikipedia (n.d.).  Federal Tort Claims Act.  http://bit.ly/2qfjPbe.
[32] Legal Information Institute (n.d.).  Bivens Actions. Cornell University Law School.  http://bit.ly/2rfhMlQ.
[33] Pasquale, Frank (2015).  The Black Box Society – The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information.  ISBN 978-0-674-3827-9.  Harvard University Press.  
[34] Wu, Jeremy (2016).  The Dark Side of Big Data and Predictive Analytics?  http://bit.ly/2qHeLOb.
[35] Fourth Amendment Caucus (n.d.).  4th Amendment Caucus Launched.  http://bit.ly/2qjfC4x.
[36] Fourth Amendment Advisory Committee (n.d.).  News and Events.  http://bit.ly/2pL07RA.
[37] Fox News (2016).  Attorney: FBI singling out Chinese-Americans with insider-threat program.  http://fxn.ws/2hRxvW2.
[38] Wu, Jeremy (2016).  ALERT: Reject the DHS Proposal.  http://bit.ly/2qj2SwR.
[39] Wu, Jeremy (2016).  Concerns of Implicit Bias against Asian Americans.  http://bit.ly/2pyjnGa.
[40] Wikipedia (n.d.).  Amicus curiae.  http://bit.ly/2qjLxlh.

作者简介：胡善庆博士是百人会的董事，陈霞芬法律维权基金的托管人，曾经在美国联邦政府任职30多年，担任过个农业部、能源部、交通部和商务部的高管。

作者：（英文原作）胡善庆博士 （中文翻译）殷余民，王文奎