Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Science vs. National Security

Posted by michael on from the town-ain't-big-enough-for-the-both-of-ya dept.

capt.Hij writes "The NY Times has an article about how scientific journals are struggling with how to avoid publishing information that might help bio-terrorists. Once people start deciding that knowledge should be held by only a few then we are sanctioning ignorance. This is scary when it comes to democracy and decision making."

31 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. Let's all become Amish... by bowronch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's give up on this pesky science and technology stuff, and all become Amish...

    No research == nothing to publish

    --
    My Stuff: pspChess and foobar2000 plugins
  2. We're going to have to deal with this... by zulux · · Score: 2

    Civilisation is a wonderfull thing, but due to the fact that we communially share our resources and intelignece inorder to build it - it's making it aughfully easy for one nutcase to bring it all down.

    Cosider, a first year biology student has the capability to make resistant bacteria. Ecoli, anitbiotics bought from a fist store, time and a warm agar from a japanses market - are all thats needed.

    There is no easy solution, but unfortunatly the only methods at are disposal are all ugly: survalance, forced ignorance, indoctrination and fear.

    Ugh - what a nasty future. We either survive in a harsh new world, or we die.

    Sombody - please, come up with a better solution. Soon.

    --

    Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    1. Re:We're going to have to deal with this... by zulux · · Score: 2

      argument goes like this: terrorism is bred by poverty, and the only way out of poverty is literacy.

      The trouble with this logic it that the predicate isen't even remotely true.

      Almost all acts of terrorism against civilisation has been comitted by people who are above the poverty level - they have the education and means to carry out an attack. Regardless of their angnst of the stupid and poor against civilisation, they can't perpetrate large-scale terrorism. Sure they may kill a tourest now and then with a knife, but getting a dirty bomb together is beyond their means.

      Notice that the IRA, Timothy McVey (sic) and Bin Ladin are are not poor. From experience, most members of the Black Panthers, Neo-Nazi's, Rainbow Push, and Greenpeace are usuually educated and with means. Ususally they are crafty debators, and know how to stay just inside the law. Usually they can mount expensive defences when brought into court.

      I do agree that education is by itself noble, but the kind of education that would strip all will for terrorism, would allso strip the will for independent thought and is unfortunalty really just indoctrination.

      Even mild forms of education indoctrination, like the "politically correct" movement leaves it's followes blindly trusting and easy to manupilate.

      Oh well, I'm just rambeling.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    2. Re:We're going to have to deal with this... by zulux · · Score: 2


      Yes, there are a *bunch* of low-level suicide bombers. I'm not really worried about them...

      The person we have to fear is the inteligent and well funded person who makes a drug-resistant bacteria, or a new virus, or a dirty bomb packed with "radioactive goodness!"

      Based on body count, we should fear the smart ones. Kobar, 9-11, Oklahoma City - those are far more deadlier than the annoying rash of bus bombers.

      The fun starts when one of these buggers figguers out how to read a Biology 101 textbook and combines it with uncle Bin Ladins moeny. Or some skin-head decided to play shower-time with the Ney York underground.

      Ugh. I guess the only thing that would make a diference, is if we colonised other planets. Soon.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    3. Re:We're going to have to deal with this... by zulux · · Score: 2

      terrorism is caused by poverti is well established

      By who? Chomsky?

      Care to cite staticstics?

      I'll go you one futher -

      What is known, is that *state* sponsered terrorism dwarfs the poverty-caused terrorism you mention, and the middle-class caused terrorism I mentioned.

      Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot have killed over 100 million people - way more than any rag-tag group of poor, or evem people like Bin Ladin.

      The higher up the food chain you go the more effective the killing.

      Sure the poor are pised, but they are ineffective. That's why they're poor - they are either lazy or not in a position of power.

      It's the rich, or the nation states, or the corportation - somthing large, that has the means to kill us all.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  3. Legal system by hackwrench · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have a legal system that can't be understood by the average person, specializing is rampant, and he says that once people start deciding that knowledge should be held by only a few then we are sanctioning ignorance?
    IT'S A LITTLE LATE FOR THAT!

  4. as I've said on this site before by drDugan · · Score: 5, Funny

    as I've said before:

    you can't stop information.

    Maybe we should try to build a world
    where people aren't trying to kill us.

    1. Re:as I've said on this site before by protohiro1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Our nation needs to read "how to win friends and influence people" It would make a major difference. We just suck at pr.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    2. Re:as I've said on this site before by sl3xd · · Score: 2
      you can't stop information.

      Yes you can; it's been done before. In many cases, keeping a secret is much easier than the problems the information's misuse can cause. Some things should be kept secret, and world is a better place for it. By keeping the way to create VX a secret (for example), there is a greatly reduced chance of it being used. I don't have to worry about keeping chemical warfare gear and toxin antidotes on my person at all times.

      Oklahoma City and Sept. 11 were extremely localized in scope. A small geographic area was affected. I doubt that the synthesis of VX is much more complicated if you know the secret than these acts. Thank God Iraq couldn't find the way to make VX (they abandoned the program in '1989).

      If they did, we would have a far greater problem on our hands; a few well-placed aerosol cans could depopulate a city. And how do you protect from that? Nuke Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and every other country with ties to al-queda? How many innocents would that claim? Would it solve anything?

      Sorry-- but the way to solve the problem is to prevent it from happening. Don't spread the information by publishing it. Destroy all records of the existence of the information, and of the information itself. Inform and 'convert' all who know and can reproduce the information of the real (and dire) dangers that can arise should the secret get out. And, barring that-- and for all of the coldness involved, kill or otherwise silence the people involved who can reproduce or easily re-research even parts of the information from their memory.

      One thing is a guaranteed fact: If 'sensitive' information is easily available, it will eventually be misused. And many bits of information, when misused, end catastrophically. And it'll always be easier to destroy than create; entropy doesn't help to order/organize anything.

      There is no acceptable choice-- either:

      murder a few brilliant scientists who is guilty only of finding (even unintentionally) a dangerous bit of information.

      or

      watch thousands or millions of other perfectly innocent people murdered because of the information's misuse.

      It's a hard choice, but a good government tries to serve the greatest number of people; not its most talented people.

      Maybe we should try to build a world where people aren't trying to kill us.

      If you want to go that route, Stalin and Mao had the right idea. Just kill all of your ideological and social opponents.

      So did George Orwell-- the "Thought Police" is a work of sheer brilliance.

      So how many people have to die or be 'conditioned' before that becomes a real possibility? Our focus is not the problem; we've had the same kind of societal problems (if not the exact same problems) for all of recorded history.

      Most of us prefer to have our own thoughts, ideals, and moralities. And, unsurprisingly, we often disagree. There are always a few people who believe so strongly that they will die for their belief-- they'll lie to themselves, kill, mangle, and destroy for that belief.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  5. Isn't that a little shrill? by tm2b · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the principle of academic freedom and the free exchange of information. But.

    The fact is that some information, maybe not now but in the forseeable future, will be dangerous enough for one fanatic or lunatic to kill a very large number of people.

    We're going to have to have a long, reasoned conversation about how to deal with this fact, and cries of "we're sanctioning ignorance" are just as unhelpful as cries of "think of the children!"

    This doesn't mean that I'm happy with the way this administration is likely to approach this issue - I think it would be very good for the academic community to come up with a unified approach on this topic before a purely political solution is imposed.

    Bottom line: yes, I'd like people to be ignorant of how to (for instance) engineer aerosol Ebola in their basements.

    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    1. Re:Isn't that a little shrill? by McCart42 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Bottom line: yes, I'd like people to be ignorant of how to (for instance) engineer aerosol Ebola in their basements.
      As nice a fantasy as this is, the reality is that I can already download The Anarchist's Cookbook to learn about conventional terrorist tactics. It's almost a certainty that biological terrorist tactics will similarly be available in the near future--and the dangerous-type people you're trying to keep it away from are the first people that will get past the ways you have of trying to keep them ignorant. You can't defeat the flow of information. Here's where the question lies--do you try, by keeping research with potential terrorist applications out of scientific journals? I'll let others debate that for now, since I don't have the answer, or a solid opinion for that matter.
      --
      "I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
    2. Re:Isn't that a little shrill? by tm2b · · Score: 2

      The problem with this debate is that people keep trying to frame it in terms of absolutes. Yes, of course it's impossible with a human society to completely stifle the flow of particular information to "appropriate people," no matter how you define them.

      The question is, though, how difficult do you want to make it? Do you want every loon who wants this information to be able to get it, or do you want people to have to work a bit to get it?

      The thing is, the harder it is to get, the fewer people will actually expend the effort to get it. Some information should take a lot of work to get, and for some of that information, the cost-benefit analysis says that it's worth expending a lot of effort to raise that difficulty as far as possible.

      I am, by the way, a card carrying member of the ACLU. I'm just not a blind follower of absolutes.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    3. Re:Isn't that a little shrill? by eXtro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I understand where you're coming from, but lets say we raise the bar on accessing the information. At what point is the bar high enough that an extremist says "Golly... it's just not worth it, I think I'll just head home"?

      If you're thinking from the point of view of the average couch-potato anarchist who gets a stiffy from downloading factually incorrect information then it doesn't need to be very high. If you're an extremist, with an agenda, and part of that agenda involves murder then I don't think that you can raise the bar high enough to both protect us from threats and allow scientific research to carry on.

      There's also the problem of the way scientific minds work, or at least good ones. You can withhold a piece of information, B, but from the other pieces of information A, C and D, an expert in the field can work out B.

      Perhaps you could buy yourself time before an enemy knows B, but you won't prevent its eventual discovery. There are great minds outside of the U.S., and there are great minds in the U.S. that for various reasons might disclose the information regardless of prohibitions against it.

      --

      Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware

    4. Re:Isn't that a little shrill? by chriso11 · · Score: 2

      Another issue is when you withhold information nugget 'B', it delays development. Additional time/money/resources are wasted in other areas of legitimate research rediscovering the already known but censored information 'B'.

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    5. Re:Isn't that a little shrill? by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      The only problem with the argument is that the world doesn't have a well-organized research structure; concurrent development of a technology without any sharing of information is a reality. Leibnitz and Newton both developed calculus around the same time, independantly of each other. (Both methods work fine, but are *very* different.)

      So, to be honest, a fair amount of the time, the exact same technology is researched at the same time, completely independant of each other; the discovery is literally made twice before anything is published. It's also paid for twice. That doesn't mean that there was waste involved.

      Frankly, I can deal with slower development of some technologies if its censorship increases my personal safety. This is espescially true in the case of leathal chemical agents, or deadly (but uncommon) bioagents such as ebola or anthrax.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    6. Re:Isn't that a little shrill? by chriso11 · · Score: 2

      While Newton/Liebnitz is an excellent example of concurrent development, it was 350 years ago. Communication technology has been vastly improved. Why cripple legitimate technological development? There is no predicting what will be the next 'important' area.

      An additional factor to consider is that delaying the development of these technologies may delay cures and counter-measures against such agents.

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    7. Re:Isn't that a little shrill? by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      The problem is that in many cases, the counter-measure, while being released far sooner (perhaps even decades), can very easily come too late.

      What good is a countermeasure / vacciene / cure to a deadly virus, if because of that little tidbit being published openly, terrorists were able to infect and kill a few hundred thousand?

      It doesn't matter that the countermeasure came out sooner because of the publication. The countermeausre would not have been necessary to begin with. The disease would have remained a 'niche' disease contained to a small geographical area, and a small population. But with premature publication, the disease was easily modified into a weapon; and used before a countermeasure existed. It is still too late for the dead or dying by the time the countermeasure is developed.

      If by witholding the information, lives can be saved... it's worth the extra time. Even if it saves only one life, it's worth the extra time.

      It is like the close watch the nuclear countries have over non-nuclear countries (but who have fission reactors for electricity). We still have no countermeasure against a nuclear bomb in a city. But if we can keep any more bombs from being made, there is a greatly reduced chance of a bomb ever detonating in a city.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  6. come on by tps12 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's no reason to make this into more than it is. So a few patriotic scientists realize they're research could be destructive to mankind...isn't this a good thing? It's basically the kind of rational decision making that never happens at the beginning of science fiction movies.

    We've all seen the dire predictions of what happens when technology "goes too far." 2001: A Space Odyssey, Godzilla, Jaws, Minority Report, the list goes on. So the handful of scientists who are researching the potentially dangerous stuff say, oh, okay, maybe we shouldn't be doing this stuff that might fall into the wrong hands, and you're complaining? Please.

    The vast majority of scientists are working on good, useful technology and research, like cures for exotic diseases and inventions that will improve life for all. The few who are meddling where God did not intend are right to have second thoughts.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
  7. Re:Tecnology & terrorism by AnalogBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That depends on the way you look at it now, doesn't it.

    Two possible views:

    View A) Science allowed the investigation of lift, drag, jet propultion, fuel manufacture, and the building's design itself. This type of view would be the "new" view when it comes to censoring information. CAN this be used to harm us in the future. I don't agree with it.. you can kill someone with a hammer or a nailgun. My point? Pretty much anything can be dangerous in the right context. Stay Puft Marshmellow, anyone?

    View B) The terrorists flew an airplane into a building. Terrorists bad, shoot on sight, yada, yada..

  8. National Security by AnalogBoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IMHO,

    The nation was secure enough before this crap happened. Terrorism is going to happen one way or another.. What's that quote about tightening your grip on water?

    This discussion on "National/Homeland Security" scares the bejeezus out of me normally.. And now we're discussing CENSORING INFORMATION!?

    McCarthyism 2.0: Attack of the Republicans.

    1. Re:National Security by AnalogBoy · · Score: 2

      Are you taking slashdot a bit too seriously again? Go outside, take a brisk walk, and consider if the profanity is really needed.

  9. Damn that "Aersolized Ebola Reviews" journal! by Peter+T+Ermit · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm gonna cancel my subscription. Besides, Mr. Postman from operation TIPS was bound to get suspicious of me anyhow.

  10. Open Source by TamMan2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is exactly like the open source software!

    If the information is free and available, then anyone can read it and think about it and make a contribution. If it is not, the weekneses are known to a small subset of society who has less motivation to do something to solve the problem (think about treatments and cures), they also become more valueble to those who would do wrong, and could be kidnapped or bribed.

    So what is safer, Windows, or *nix?

    I think the answer is that we NEED to have this informaition published. Anything else endangers us, and inhibits the progress of knowledge.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  11. Now I've heard of duplicate stories before... by tswinzig · · Score: 2

    ...but posted by the same author, 19 minutes apart?

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  12. Re:Way to post things twice, Slashdot! by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2
    The best part is that the other, earlier, story has just one post, and it's a -1, Offtopic "FP". LOL! Here we have proof that not only do the /. "editors" not read Slashdot, the readers don't either.

    What is Michael smoking, and where can I get some?

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  13. Re:National Security? Terrorism? Idiots? by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2
    Let's see: You can't go anywhere in public without being photographed. You have to show ID to even go to an airport, let alone get on an airplane. Same for trains and boats. Soon, if you use a cell phone the cops can track your location anywhere on the planet (well, at least they can track the cell phone's location). Taken to the logical extreme, copyright violation is subject to the death penalty (Using a computer to copy music is a crime; using a computer to commit a crime is terrorism; terrorism is punishible by death). The cops can read any email and check any ISP's records without a court order. American citizens have been arrested by the miltary and are being held indefinately without charges and without access to lawyers or their family; we only have the millitary's word that there are only two of them so far and that they are sill alive. Citizens are asked to spy on fellow citizens and report anything "suspicious." Most of the United States government is being re-organized into one huge department that will be exempt from labor laws and the Freedom of Information Act.

    I say the terrorists have already won. We're no longer the land of the free; those brave enough to object are subject to arrest.

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  14. How about worrying about real dangers? by Wesley+Everest · · Score: 2
    If you look over the past 100 years, to see where technology was used to further mass killing and suffering, the "terrorists" aren't even a blip on the radar. Even Sept 11th was pretty minor compared to all but the smallest of wars.

    You'd think scientists would be more concerned with preventing their work being used for another Nazi hollocaust, the nuking of civillian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the repression of millions under Stalin.

    Or maybe they've already given up hope and figure it would be better their work is used by the next Hitler to kill millions than by the next Bin Laden to kill thousands.

  15. Don't restrict information. by Dthoma · · Score: 2, Interesting
    OK. Let's run through a quick scenario to demonstrate what is wrong with only allowing a few people to have a certain piece of dangerous knowledge.

    If you withhold knowledge:

    1. The discoverers keep the knowledge for themselves
    2. They can use it with impunity
    3. It has a devastating effect, since no one else has enough knowledge to develop a defence for it

    If knowledge is in the public domain:

    1. The discoverers distribute the knowledge to anyone who asks
    2. Anyone can use it with impunity
    3. However, the effects are greatly lessened, since everyone knows about the danger and knows what steps to take to reduce/eliminate it.

    If you keep dangerous information secret, then it can be abused by a group of individuals much more readily. If everyone knows about something dangerous, then they can take precautions to prevent it (and those who are stupid enough not to will get hurt).

    --

    Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

  16. Re:Ridiculous by tm2b · · Score: 2

    Uhh.... do you think Palestineans are really the only (or even the most) worrisome group out there? Please, they are the least of the worries out there, they are only effective because of how desperate they are.

    Four words: Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols.

    Two more: Operation Rescue.

    Do you know about the Weathermen in the 60s?

    How about AUM Shinrikyo, the doomsday cultists who used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subways?

    My point is that impoverished desperate people are not the only ones who do stupid, incredibly destructive things with any means at their disposal.

    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  17. or improved living conditions... by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yes, any with the knowledge the should have learned the first year of bio can make resistant bacteria or splice bacteria. It's not anything that any amount of surveilance, ignorance, indoctrination and fear is going to help with. All that does is make an unpleasant place to live full of ignorant dogmatic highstrung types without removing the actual risk. Perhaps it would even increase the risk.

    Besides, it's lack of knowledge that causes the worst economic damage. Just look at the damage from fire ants, africanized bees, starlings, zebra mussels, elm beetles and so on. Or if you don't like those examples, then look at the TCO at the national and international level for chlorinated hydrocarbons, dioxins, and PCBs or for BSE-friendly agricultural practices. Someone was sloppy, ignorant or decided that rules are for other people and that plus time is all that was needed. Since you cannot remove the technical possibility to cause damage, you can remove the incentive.

    Naively, improving living standards would help. If people are literate, capable of analytical thought, educated, employed, kept healthy, and well fed like an average Finn, then they're less likely to cause trouble and more likely to contribute. I think you can probably find an inverse correlation between quality of life and crime.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  18. Re:a human is an animal by zulux · · Score: 2

    AFAIK, The West Nile virus is also carried by birds. Are they now terrorists? Just because somehing can be infectious, doesen't meen they are guilty of being a terrorist. As I understood it, terrorism implied intent .

    I don't disagree with you one bit, on the need for education, but just on the concusion that an educatied population is free from terrortst thoughts.

    A good example is Iran - smart and beautifull people, and yet a den of terrorism. Germans are considered smart and yet have been capable of great crimes.

    It will be interesting to see if computing holds its promise for education - unfortunatly I'm a bit jaded and have seen how technology initially helps education but then turnd into edu-taiment in the long run. In the 50' - audio tape was the panacea (Hear wonderfull foreing peoples!), then TV in the 70's (Learn from the best educators), then in the 80's VCR/TV madd it's presence felt (and kids stated getting doses of comercials in school).

    When computers first came on the education scene - they were wonderfull: kid were learning LOGO or BASIC. Now all I see them used for is browsing for porn, and instant messaging. Oh, and somtimes they get used as giant typewriters. If a kid brings a C compiler to school - he's likely to be branded as a hacker/terrorist.

    Computers have gone form a complex tool to be experimented with, to a mostly passive form of media. Hopefully, with cheaper computing this will change again.

    --

    Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.