Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Tighening Rules of Keeping Scientific Secrets

Posted by timothy on from the no-brain-scans-yet dept.

MobyTurbo writes: "In this article The New York Times (free registration, blah blah blah) reports that the Bush Administration is removing over 6,000 declassified documents from the public domain as part of the war on terrorism. Many scientists quoted in the article think that this will impead the development of science, especially the development of new vaccines."

32 comments

  1. whatever by pedro · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    It's 'impede', not 'impead'.
    Wow.. am I anal or what?

    --
    Brak: What's THAT?
    Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
    1. Re:whatever by MobyTurbo · · Score: 1
      It's 'impede', not 'impead'.
      Sorry about that, maybe /. needs a spell checker. :-)
  2. Conspiracy nut : Creationists strike back! by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is really far-fetched, but could it be that some of the christian fundamentalists in the current administration wish to limit the effectiveness of non-military science?

    Before, they've established means for limiting insight into and influence over what they do.

    Now, they wish to further strangle information so that the people able to systematically pull their schemes apart will not be able to publish their work if they do so.

    Long live big brother!

    --

    Stop the brainwash

    1. Re:Conspiracy nut : Creationists strike back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sweet. You're really intelligent... make your point by being religiously bigoted. Gee, you must be right.

    2. Re:Conspiracy nut : Creationists strike back! by tomhudson · · Score: 0
      He's not being a religious bigot to suggest an alternative motivation.


      After what we've seen Ashcroft do (Pentacostal beliefs = offended by nude breast on statue representing justice, so he puts screens up in front = justice now not just blind, but also invisible, in direct violation of constitutional provision of separation of church and state), anything is "reasonable".


      Remember, this is the gov't. - the same guys that back the DMCA.

    3. Re:Conspiracy nut : Creationists strike back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not surprising that antiChristian posts get modded up regardless of how inane the comment is.

      Slashdot: Opening New Doors For Religious Intolerance.

  3. This is a typical response... by gartogg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    of an administration that has demonstrated a penchant for glitz over substance, and stupid vote-mongering over intelligrent decisions.

    As long as Bush really beleives that he needs public support, he can not make decisions. The real problem I see is that Bush can't make unpopular decisions, ever. He will never do anything right as long as he tries to cater to everyone. In my book, the hallmark of a sucessful president is that he can make unpopular decisions and LEAD the populace, instead of following it. Bush has done nothing but invest in knee jerk responses to events: He labels the axis of evil so he can fufill the latent desire for revenge he has been unable to provide through the wholly half-assed, unsuccessful response to Osama Bin Laden.

    --
    I'm a concientious .sig objector.
    1. Re:This is a typical response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're living in a fantasy world. "Ineffective response to Osama bin Laden" doesn't even begin to explain what the consequences would be of *not acting.* The Taliban is out of power. Al-Qaeda is deprived of its ability to act without opposition, a condition they'd grown accustomed to from the previous Administration.

      Wake up. This is serious stuff. Bin Laden is a figurehead but the real threat of a terrorist organization is what needs to be stopped, not the one man Bin Laden per se.

    2. Re:This is a typical response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my book, the hallmark of a sucessful president is that he can make unpopular decisions and LEAD the populace, instead of following it.

      You mean like Hitler right ?

    3. Re:This is a typical response... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Wait, are you describing Clinton or Bush?? Hell, Dick Morris and other ex-clintonites will straight out admit EVERY decision that came out of the Clinton presidency was made by following poles. I don't see this nearly as true for Bush.

  4. Public domain by sydb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can you remove stuff from the public domain? Does no-one have any copies? If not, it was probably useless information anyway.

    --
    Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    1. Re:Public domain by Mdog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Especially in light of the google cache :)

      --
      Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
    2. Re:Public domain by kishi · · Score: 1

      Anyone with enough willpower, money, or net.savvyness can gain access to such information.

      The only people who are being denied access to this information are student researchers and the general public. Which is just as well, seeing as how students and the general public comprise the largest group of terrorists: MP3 pirates! Arr!

    3. Re:Public domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A number of months ago I read that the GPO (General Printing Office) had ordered all of the authorized federal document repositories (mainly larger libraries) to destroy thousands of documents in light of Sept. 11th and their increased concern over homeland security.

    4. Re:Public domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes. That was an initiative to destroy or classify public records having to do with possible terrorist targets (ie. blueprints of resivior dams, detailed information about how to operate a nuclear reactor, etc. and i'm probably using bad examples). The point was to eliminate the facilitation by the government of information to possible terrorists of these targets' weaknesses. For example, a blueprint of a resivior dam would help a terrorist plan where the explosives should be placed. While this doesn't really stop any terrorists from blowing up anything, it does keep responsibility of facilitation of that dangerous information away from the American government. Mod parent reply up, it's informative.

    5. Re:Public domain by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Insightful
      > How can you remove stuff from the public domain? Does no-one have any copies? If not, it was probably useless information anyway.

      That's OK, 99% of the classified information is also probably useless too ;)

  5. The Doctor's Analysis by Dr.+Carl+Jung · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to the article, "The federal reports already withdrawn, once sold freely to the public, include not only declassified ones from the 1940's, 50's and 60's but also modern ones that were previously judged to contain nothing that had to be kept secret." The attempt to restrict both old declassified research and modern unclassified research will prove unsuccessful:

    Old Research: Passing legislation in an attempt to restrict the flow of 60 year old information is pretty hopeless. If the information has already been exposed to the public for over half a century, one can assume that terrorists already have a hold of it.

    New Research: We shouldn't be worried about terrorists utilizing modern research to develop a super-mega-death bomb. Cold-War era weapons are deadly enough for a terrorist. After all, about 2000 people died on Sept. 11, while 70,000 were decimated over half a century ago by the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    --
    -Linux was for the masses, who spoke, and everything was crystal clear.
    1. Re:The Doctor's Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Permissive access to some kinds of information leads to temptation to and propensity for its use.

      Think about it... do you believe Einstein would have favored the free publication of plans to build nuclear weapons?

      Wake up from your cartoon world... your arrogant shouting about free access to any kind technical information is nothing more than the ramblings of a feeble-minded malcontent who believes that freedom must necessarily discard all protections. Meanwhile, the actions you promote could very well be responsible for some future war.

    2. Re:The Doctor's Analysis by Dr.+Carl+Jung · · Score: 1

      Permissive access to some kinds of information leads to temptation to and propensity for its use.

      What are you talking about? This information has been available to the general public for over 50 years. It'd be like trying to close the source to Apache or FreeBSD - something impossible and unfeasible.

      ramblings of a feeble-minded malcontent who believes that freedom must necessarily discard all protections.

      I never mentioned anything about liberty or freedom. I'm just saying that this restriction won't work.

      We're living in the 21st fucking century. One can assume that terrorists (a) know how to build weapons capable of inflicting mass death and (b) will use these weapons against us if they get a hold of them. We should be restricting materials needed to build these weapons rather than the knowledge to do so.

      --
      -Linux was for the masses, who spoke, and everything was crystal clear.
    3. Re:The Doctor's Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how the world works. Yes, terrorists have access to certain knowledge. But you don't combat terrorism by opening the floodgates to particular advantages that you hold in your arsenal. That's just tactically foolish.

      Yes, materials containment is the better long-term route but you have to have a plan to prevent plans for imminent mass destruction that's based on pragmatics in addition to long term balances.

      The problem there in my opinion is *not* that too many people think that all knowledge should be distributed widely. The problem is that a lot of people who are wound up in that argument tend to want to promote the *worst* kinds of destructive information possible, just to prove a point.

      Let's not be dumb. Our children depend on the free flow of knowledge to a point. Pretending there's no need for any security strategy is just foolish.

      If you really disagree with me, go ahead and post your root password here, and see what happens.

      What? Well, can't we assume that hackers can get your root password anyway? Why not just post it?

      Hmm.

    4. Re:The Doctor's Analysis by Dr.+Carl+Jung · · Score: 0

      Pretending there's no need for any security strategy is just foolish.

      I'm all for security strategies. I am against strategies that don't work.

      Yes, materials containment is the better long-term route but you have to have a plan to prevent plans for imminent mass destruction that's based on pragmatics in addition to long term balances.

      You're unnecessarily abstracting the topic. This isn't a philosophical debate. This doesn't *need* to be about censorship issues that slashdot has forced through your thick skull. Its about whether or not this restriction will *do* anything!

      If you really disagree with me, go ahead and post your root password here

      Well, my root password hasn't been available to the public for 50 years, now has it? If it were available to the public for that long, would taking the password offline make security any better? No, because everyone would know it already!

      Perhaps I've been a fool to feed the trolls. Your inability to respond to any of the arguments I previously put forth suggests the presence of early-stage delusional psychosis. If you seek psychotherapy counseling, you can respond, but please don't further your idiotic argument, it will be ignored.

      --
      -Linux was for the masses, who spoke, and everything was crystal clear.
  6. Let me guess, you didn't vote Libertarian? by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 0, Troll

    Golly gee, people keep voting for candidates who promise bigger, more intrusive government, and have the gall to act SURPRISED when they themselves end up looking at the business end of the governments restrictions.

    Anyone who voted Democan or Republocrat is a hypocrite if they dare to object. You asked for this.

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
    1. Re:Let me guess, you didn't vote Libertarian? by Sarcazmo · · Score: 1

      I think there should be some rule, you shouldn't be able to mod down a message that has not been replied to as "Flamebait". If it was such flamebait, it would have drawn a response.
      Maybe the moderator just hates being wrong. Maybe he voted for a Republicrat. This is what you reap people. If you vote for big government, you get big government. Suck it up next time and vote for freedom, vote Libertarian.

    2. Re:Let me guess, you didn't vote Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I DID!!!!

      Every libertarian candidate I could vote for!

      Come on everyone! Join us!!!

    3. Re:Let me guess, you didn't vote Libertarian? by Lectrik · · Score: 1

      wow... so 2 whole people (and 63 disembodied left arms, but don't tell the Florida Supreme Court) voted Libertarian...

      When faced with the choice between a robot and an idiot, neither is the lesser of the two evils (63 disembodied left arms can't be completely wrong)

      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    4. Re:Let me guess, you didn't vote Libertarian? by Sarcazmo · · Score: 1

      Voting Libertarian doesn't mean you want a "Libertarian government". Does voting for a Democrat mean you want a "Liberal Government"? I vote for people, not platforms. The Libertarians that are in office are the only ones that have stood up and opposed many Big Brother measures. We refuse corporate and government sponsership in our campaigns. We believe in encouraging competition, not eliminating it. I think you have many misconceptions about Libertarianism. I hope you see the light before it is too late.

  7. Odd, how you caught that but not Timothy's goof. by Kasreyn · · Score: 2

    Tighening^H^H^H^H^Htening

    =P

    -Kasreyn

    --
    Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger /. flamers since 1999.
  8. Take it all off by inerte · · Score: 2, Funny

    I will remove the left side of your brain because you can make evil strategies with, and don't think you will be able to use the right side of it either, because I will remove it so you can not make those annoying flower power musics.

    --
    Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
  9. OT:Let me guess, you didn't vote Libertarian? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2
    We're getting waaaaay OT here, but what the hell, I've got karma to burn...

    Libertarians can be their own worst enemies. The following statement is taken from the California Official Voter Information Guide. It's the statement of the Libertarian candidate for Lt. Governor:

    My message to the people of California is "Don't take your freedoms for granted!" For the past ten years I have been working to legalize the domestic ferret in California. During this process I have seen how politics works in California. And it only works for those who have political power. Domestic ferrets are legal in 48 states. Our state constitution recognizes our right to own domestic animals. Yet our state government has blocked efforts for this very simple matter. Our freedom does not come from the government; it is our birthright. Elect people who understand that.


    Now, I'm a registered Libertarian. And I'm embarrassed. This guy is running for Lt. Governor, and his campaign platform is FERRETS? Hell, is website is www.ferretsanon.com!!! Where are the issues that most voters care about? Crime, taxes, schools, etc.? I know the LP is about reducing the size of government, but he certainly doesn't get that across. I'd be very surprised if he even comes in 3rd.

    Until Libertarians stop shooting themselves in the foot like this, we will be relegated to minority status...
    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  10. Re:Odd, how you caught that but not Timothy's goof by Eccles · · Score: 1

    Tighening^H^H^H^H^Htening

    No, it is Tighening. Reclassifying documents was an idea suggested by actor Kevin Tighe, who (among other roles) played paramedic Roy DeSoto on "Emergency!" So they named the process after him.

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.