Slashdot Mirror
US Secrecy Efforts Hurting Scientific Research
EnlightenmentFan writes "The new, ultra-vague category "sensitive but unclassified" is being used to stop publication of research, according to this
NY Times article (Registration required, but it's free). Bruce Alberts (President, National Academy of Sciences), William A. Wulf (President, National Academy of Engineering), and Harvey V. Fineberg (President, Institute of Medicine) made a joint statement after bureaucrats declared a major NAS report on bioterrorism unpublishable."
Time to change the name to "People's Republic of the United States"...
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Anyone read the Cookoo's Egg (by Clifford Stoll) lately? He briefly talks about "Sensitive but unclassified" and how it was a problem back then (read the book) when they LACKED such a definition, and the need for one.
So I guess there's another side to the arguement...who would've thought?
--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen
Any time you limit speech by placing restrictions on access to information you thus are classifying it. It does not matter that you do not stamp it TOP SECRET if you do not make the information available for public comment and use. This would also be a easy way to hide fraud and abuse from the public eye by making it a breech of ethics to release the information on frivolous but sensitive research.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
The most terrifying terrorist act is the threat of a terrorist act.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Reporter: "What has your research proven?"
Scientist: "I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you!"
Hey, that's not such a bad idea. All the US needs to do now is drop millions of publications of a classified research papers from the sky over any country they want, and soon, WORLD DOMINATION WILL BE OURS!
I really hope that you do not have any sort of privileged access to anything worth knowing.
The problem here is that some of these ideas are obvious: intentionally introducing diseases to US livestock could hurt us - pretty obvious. The same sort of mind that sees a comercial jet as a weapon sees poison and disease as a weapon.
Some of these things are specific threats: numbers, weaknesses, breeding histories, especially deadly or dangerous disease strains, etc - things only profesional researchers are in a position to discover. Why should this sort of tactical information be published before the government can take action regarding it?
Or are you just lashing out against W. without thinking? :)
Why is Triangle Man so MEAN?
Actually, this is a rather bad analogy.
The reason the Brits kept that information secret was because the means of collection was secret.
That's pretty much standard policy amongst all intelligence agencies: Do nothing that will give away how (or that) you know about the enemy's actions. Until you can use the information to cripple him decisively.
What the Bush administration, OTH, is doing in it's usual ham-handed way, is going through public domain documents and re-classifying them.
Rather like closing barn doors if you ask me, but then, nobody has ever accused Bush of being intelligent.
The Bush administration just doesn't get it, a police state is NOT how you handle terrorists. You take away the terrorist's ability to complain by making his country somewhat wealthy. Hard to get recruits when they're all fat, dumb and happy, isn't it?
There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.
There are very few places where "security by obscurity" works to protect anyone but the bad guys. If I were a farmer, I might find that report of great personal interest. If I know of a security problem, I might be able to do something about it. Or at least knowing what's on my farm and its surroundings, to know exactly what kind of help to buy or ask for from the Feds. Some answers might be as close as one's county agricultural agent, if one knows what questions to ask.
Let's put it this way, how would you feel as a netadmin if BugTraq suddenly became "unclassified but sensitive"?
Should the "War on Terrorism" ever become more serious than "The War on Some Drugs", i.e. more than inconveniece for the average American and an excuse to peck away at more civil liberties of the sort that the terrorist also want to see disappear, the front line of the war starts where we are sitting, we're going to have to protect ourselves, and the most important defense in this kind of war is accurate information.
Information, i.e. the stuff that Big Brother has decided is none of the public business.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Why the hell is that funny? It's a sad comment on the state of contemporary America.
It is quite obvious that the US government is trying to keep America on terrorist alert for as long as they can. By having the "terrorists" disrupting the American way of life in every area possible, ensures public support for the Bush war effort.
This is overkill!
Instant Karma's gonna get you - John Lennon
Well, look at it this way: If Alan Turing et al would have published a 'scientific paper' spreading the knowledge about how to go about cracking cypher systems that would have been fine from a scientific point of view, but totally against the national interests of the day. It would have more than likely tipped of the Germans that their communications should no longer be considered secure and given them a tool they could use against the allies to boot.
And even if such a paper would have been circulated restricting access to it might have helped (but then again if it was realy widely published then I agree with you that would be useless).
MP3 Search Engine
The problem is not existance of sensitive information, the problem is who and how defines what is sensitive. Everybody (well, most) are OK with existance of classified information (created by military or intelligence, as in your case). But when not classified information (i.e. one that was obtained without access to any military secrets or other classified info) becomes "sensitive" and prohibited from publishing, this is an issue.
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
Haven't we learned by now, that the terrorists already -have- the weapons of mass destruction they need? Faith in their government, ambition, and follow through.
So how much faith in your government, ambition, and follow through do you have?
Unfortuantely, for many academic institutions, even private ones, federal funding provides a significant chunk of operating revenue (at my school, a major private research university, it's 25% or so).
If the feds didn't like what you were publishing, maybe it couldn't censor it directly without going to great legal lengths, but what it could do and probably would do is withhold federal funding. That would mean financial disaster for any institution. It's almost virtual financial blackmail.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
The WHOLE point of terrorist attacks is to make ppl live in fear, terrified.
The attack/act/threat per-se is not the important thing.
That is why the attack on 09-11 (and the post anthrax threat) was SO effective, it shook ppl out of the safety they lived in into a world of terror. It "made" media blow things up out of proportion to feed that fear. More than 1000 times the deaths of the so called "anthrax threat" are killed every month in violent crimes in the US, so which one is a greater threat, and which one got more publicity, and which one made ppl afraid ?
Do you see it ?
His general point (I believe it was his...), that the dissemination and democratization of knowledge and modern technology has made possible super powered individuals who are able to leverage the kind of power that was previously only available to nations, rings true. When Clinton fired cruise missiles at Bin Laden, it was the first time that the US had shot missiles and bombed not a country, but an individual. The anthrax attacks appear to a another example of the intersection of powerful knowledge and destructive intent creating significant dangers and disruption.
Back on the topic of science and this article, I'm not advocating a system that is both useless and obstructing (which the system mentioned in this article might be). But I think we must think about some of these concerns in a reasonable way and think about if there are things to do and not to do which limit dangers while not obstructing useful scientific progress.
C'mon people. It's not that hard to use a stupid free registration. The Wall Street Journal has a subscription cost, the Economist has a subscription for some articles... NY Times doesn't HAVE to provide free media content, so don't blatantly disregard the law when it's so incredibly easy to follow.
The problem here is not that the government classifies material for national security, but the 'sensitive, but unclassified' categorization and attempts to browbeat the independent scientific community into not publishing results.
I'm not so sure about this. It is true that Saudi Arabia has a vast oil wealth and generates a great deal of income. But this money is hoarded by the royal family and their close associates. The common man, on the other hand, lives a rather poor and meager existence.
It doesn't help when all these poor, unhappy people see their rich princes and king associating so much with the West, and particularly the US. It isn't a hard case to make; "you're miserable because the royal family is hoarding the money - see, they have been corrupted by the contact with the West".
I realize that the Saudi hijackers from 9/11 were mostly well-off and not particluarly poor. But, I would imagine that most of the "foot soldiers" of groups like the Taliban and Al Qua'ida are coming from very poor situations, and they can easily (at least in their minds) trace the cause of their poverty to the US and the West.
Their poverty not a valid reason to kill people, and I'm not in any way justifying their acts of terrorism. But it's very important to try to understand what THEY see as a valid reason and justification.
Going back to Saudi Arabia and its wealth... That country (and much of the region) is only one tech-revolution away from being destitute. Once somebody figures out how to economically use hydrogen, or develops a workable fusion reactor, the need for oil as a a fuel source will quickly diminish, and much of the Middle East will lose its relevance in a geopolitical sense. Of course, we'll (probably) always need petroleum for lubrication, petro-chemicals, plastics and some fuel, but definitely not in the volumes it is produced and consumed now.
In that situation, you'll have even more destitute people who will have old hatreds of the West, which will only be fueled by its prosperity and affluence.
As other people have mentioned, sensitive but unclassified is NOT new. But, no one has mentioned the checks and balances in place - namely the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It's a tool for use by citizens who can request information the federal agencies have not made public. The information is reviewed and some information is not released. I'm guessing that one of the reasons for this category is the additional costs for something to be handled as classified (assumption on my part). Relating it to something most people here are familiar with, computer networks. Would you want someone to have a list of all of your users, their habits, background information on their family, etc? The passwords could be considered "secret", but the other information isn't. An attacker could definitely use the other information to break into your network. It isn't practical to keep the other information "secret", but you can at least tell people not to make a directory containing all that information and send it to the NY Times. Other good examples of sensitive information are unlisted phone numbers, SSNs, etc. This story is just more media hype. Keith
While CNN provides How-to instructions on making a dirty bomb.
Ok time to move.
| - | - |
I think Bill Joy goes to far as well. The type of information we are talking about is basic science and technology, not specific stuff. The article is really more talking about having clear guidlines of what to publish and what not. Given clear distictions, which the field experts are more qualified to make than the government, people will intelligently self-censor just like we already do with system security issues. That is what happened in the case cited in the article. They pulled a few specific examples to an unpublished appendix. I'm sure that if you have a need to know (i.e. you are in a role where you might encounter the specific threat), you will be able to get the appendix too.
What Joy is proposing is essentially security through obscurity, and it is a losing proposition. All the social progress that has been made comes from openness, not fear. What is important is that people pay attention to what knowledge is being used for, and what people around you are up to. If a 'fundamentalist' of any stripe can learn a destructive technology without anyone ever talking person to person deeply enough to get a real sense of the them, then there is great danger.
What this bungled attempt to censor scientific publishing shows clearly is that the administration does not understand that terrorism and protecting ourselves from it is a social problem, not a technical one. You have to trust that most people are well meaning and intelligent enough to contribute to the solution. We all have the same goal, but there is disagreement about methods.
The FBI doesn't even trust other government agencies enough to share critical information. Their culture is so broken that it is disfunctional, and it is clear to everyone, but nothing happens to change it. It sure would be refreshing to see the director of the FBI say, "We might have been able to stop this. We failed, I'm sorry". I'd trust someone who said this to actually try to fix the problem.
Three of the most-respected US scientists--the heads of three groups that "were created by the federal government to advise it on scientific and technological matters"--have come out with some important and clearcut advice. Let me quote from the story:
Here is what I see as the heart of the story: If researchers know that anonymous bureaucrats can block publication on any grounds they choose, you are going to see self-censorship that is more dangerous than any external censorship could be. Young researchers especially will stay away from "sensitive" areas, because they have a lot to lose if their work disappears into some bureaucratic black hole.
The reporter suggests the statement reflects "at least partly" some trouble over a government-financed report about bio-terror.The NAS spokesman denies that report is the issue.
If the government paid for this research, why can't they suppress it? Most important scientific research is paid for by government--that is, by taxpayers--with the idea that the result of this research could benefit the public. As a taxpayer, I don't want bureaucrats left free to hide any results that don't suit them. I paid for that research, and I'm entitled to know what it said unless there's some very clear reason to keep it secret. Most privately-funded research (Viagra anyone?) is already secret.
"Is this really a science story?" Some major science guys are calling attention to a government policy that hurts science and scientists directly, and the public only indirectly. But I suppose if you consider any criticism of government on any grounds to be political....
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
I think that the underlying problem is that many people are now as cynical of government motives as during the Watergate crisis.
There is absolutely nothing an administration can do that is more harmful to national security than to use security classifications for political ends. Unfortunately it is very hard to believe this government when it says 'trust me'.
They said 'trust me' over the tax cut which would not break the budget, guess what it did. Then again it still claims that the names of the energy companies that paid to take part in Dick Cheney's 'energy taskforce' are privilleged.
Federal government research that is inconvenient to the administration simply disappears.
I am less worried by this report than the fact that the director of the CIA is unable to support the claims made by the administration concerning Iraq.
I am less concerned about the actions of the administration than the fact that the 'liberal-press' appear determined not to ask the obvious questions.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Federal funding actually makes it HARDER to supress your work, not easier. It's that whole constitution thing. You know, freedom of speech? And the federal funding doesn't have jack to do with whether or not they can classify it.
Happens in america too.
There were many deaths of microbiologists after the anthrax attacks.
Sometime in the last 60's or early 70's (?) there was research into the relative effiency of innovation and R&D in the U.S. and the Soviet Union. I believe the research was conducted in response to similar concerns about some research being sequestered in the U.S.
While there were many causes cited, one of the most significant conclusions of the paper was that the U.S. was far more efficient because of the openness of the U.S. R&D community. Specifically, that U.S. military research could benefit significantly by adopting a "no secrets" approach. (As you might imagine, that was quite controversial within the DoD community.) And, while the Soviet Union led in certain areas, cross-discipline pollination suffered, as did application.
All this should be intuitively obvious to anyone who's watched ideas spread and grow, which fosters a virtuous cycle, which is inhibited by secrecy. I'm sure other research has been done in this area by now, but this was the first time (at least that I know of) that it was taken beyond the "inutitively obvious" stage.
I can't find the paper on the web (my paper copy disappeared long ago), and I don't remember who conducted or sponsored the research, but the findings caused quite a stir and debate which is why I remember it. If anyone out there has a solid reference, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks.
How long for a new iron curtain betwen USA and the rest of the world? :) Are we about to see a major North American firewall alike China in the forge? The question in everyones mind is: how far can the current administration in the USA can go?
P.S: War on Terrorism? Nah.. I smell oil
But you see, you are completely wrong. First of all, the less freedom to own firearms we have, the MORE gun crime there will be (this is examplified by the states like Maryland, and cities like New York and Washington D.C., and countries like Russia, where the criminals have run amok). The problem is that the old cliche is true, if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them. Why should a criminal give a rats ass about a gun registration or a "finger-print" when they procurred the firearm illegally, making all of your vast database completely WORTHLESS in CATCHING the criminal (though the fingerprint may be useful in convicting the criminal, assuming you can connect the firearm to the criminal). Foolish foolish people. Giving up freedoms NEVER EVER results in more safety or (duh) freedom. This goes for document classification or anything else.
All anti-gun control arguments just boil to an appeal to fear.
And all pro-gun control arguments use fear, too. "Think of the children! We must protect the children from evil guns!"
Shooting people is bad. Does fingerprinting new guns prevent people from being shot? Not really. Does it help us find criminals who are using guns that they bought illegally or have had their barrels modified or had their barrels replaced by spare parts or been fired enough to alter their barrel's fingerprint? No. Does fingerprinting cost lots of money that could be spent on better causes, such as schools? Yes.
cpeterso
If you're not allowed to tell someone that a truck is headed at them, all you end up with is a more surprised victim.
I really think that this is an issue that we ran into with the cryptography restrictions. Research is protected speech. period.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.