Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Science Editors Urge Nondisclosure Of Bioterror Info

Posted by timothy on from the gently-gently dept.

Jeraph Mason writes "According to this story on ABC news, science editors want to censor their publications because terrorists may use them. It's the same argument used to prevent security disclosures from being published." There's also coverage on the BBC and at The Washington Post.

6 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Not going to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How many average Joe's knew what a nuclear dirty bomb was 2 years ago? How many terrorists knew? The terrorists have had access to far more dangerous information (i.e. CIA handbooks from the 1980s), and have decided to get educated enough to be able to come up with their own scientifically-sound methods of mass destruction. There are terrorists out there that I'm sure could *write* for these science journals. All this policy does is create ignorant bliss among the masses as to the possible terrorist risks that exist.

  2. It's *not* the government, this time by trmj · · Score: 5, Interesting


    According to the article, it's the editors of the science journals that wat to censor their content. Not the government or some other organization wanting to censor it for them.

    This isn't as big an issue as it sounds. People censor themselves all the time: it's called being polite ("Don't have anything nice to say? Then don't say anything at all." Yeah, right).

    It's not MS saying they want to censor 2600 from ppublishing content that might expose vulnrabilities in their software.

    It's not the government saying they want to censor Slashdot because most people here think Bush is a confused muppet.

    Let them censor themselves. They might just do it so much that they don't have any readers left.

    --
    Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
  3. And by the same logic... by assaultriflesforfree · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Rand McNalley should censor their maps of cities, omitting key terrorist targets.

    This is retarded. The real danger, as I see it, is in keeping science secret, and not just due to concerns for public health (a very valid point). Allowing government policy to steer the direction of popular science is one of the greatest threats to our freedom.

    Similar "arguments" to this one are made over encryption systems, because they might be used by criminals and terrorists to hide what they're doing. The "logic" bleeds into countless other debates as well, and the end conclusion always involves the government getting more control over what you can say and how you can say it.

    Now, they look to seriously hinder all biological research. Who's going to spend years and grant money working on projects when they won't even get published? And for how long will this censorship go on? A couple years? That's probably enough to seriously diminish the number of fresh students entering the field. Let it go on longer, and in another 10 years we might not have any doctors.

    Science is interdependent. You can't cut off your star running back's leg and expect him to keep scoring touchdowns for you. It just doesn't work.

    1. Re:And by the same logic... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Rand McNalley should censor their maps of cities, omitting key terrorist targets.

      They do.

      Try finding army bases on UK ordanance survey maps. Quite often they are missing and in other cases they are shown quite a way from their actual location.

      This tactic worked quite well in WWII, less well when satelite reconasaince became possible and not at all well in the days of GPS.

      That is why you are likely to find yourself in big trouble if you go near an army base with a GPS receiver in many countries, including many NATO allies.

      Now the ordinance survey is a military outfit and always has been so it is self censorship, however that is not the only issue here. The problem is that this administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it will tell any lie to get its policy through, take for example the tax cut which was passed on the promise it would not cause a deficit - even though non-partisan estimates already showed the economy headed for deficit before 9/11.

      As Ari Fleicher put it 'people need to be carefull about what they say'. This is an administration that will use any means to stop publication of undesired news.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    2. Re:And by the same logic... by flippet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Try finding army bases on UK ordanance survey maps. Quite often they are missing and in other cases they are shown quite a way from their actual location.

      I have an overhead picture of the town in which I used to work. There were two defence-related sites on it; they had been carefully replaced with playing fields and grasslands. Very carefully... there were even tracks and areas of wear drawn on.

      I found quite comical that I used to work in the middle of a field...

      --
      "Cattle Prods solve most of life's little problems."
  4. Welcome to the Middle Age by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is hard to tell when something could be used for good or bad. Not publishing something maybe avoid that it could be used for bad, but also that it could be used for good.

    With this kind of criteria, we would never know about atomic energy, space exploration, worldwide communications, modern medicine and almost everything that makes our current way of life.

    Worst than this, if you don't publish, i.e. about a kind of disease, poison, etc, not ensures that "the bad guys" (whatever they are) will not discover it, and will put obstacles to the good guys that want to find a cure/solution/etc.