U.S. Tighening Rules of Keeping Scientific Secrets

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."

Comments

Conspiracy nut : Creationists strike back!

[Jeppe Salvesen]

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!

This is a typical response...

[gartogg]

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.

Re:This is a typical response...

[Moridineas]

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.

Public domain

[sydb]

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

Re:Public domain

[Mdog]

Especially in light of the google cache :)

Re:Public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Public domain

[Tackhead]

> 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 ;)

The Doctor's Analysis

[Dr. Carl Jung]

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.

Odd, how you caught that but not Timothy's goof.

[Kasreyn]

Tighening^H^H^H^H^Htening

=P

-Kasreyn

Take it all off

[inerte]

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.

OT:Let me guess, you didn't vote Libertarian?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

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...