Science Editors Urge Nondisclosure Of Bioterror Info

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.

Comments

Re:Good

[Adolatra]

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."
-Benjamin Franklin

Great.

[mrseigen]

I feel really secure knowing that security by obfuscation and overblown terrorism fears, my two favorite things in all the world, are finally together.

Just tell them to submit it as a story to /.

[corebreech]

That's what I do with information I don't want anybody else to see.

Re:Just tell them to submit it as a story to /.

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Just tell them to submit it as a story to /. That's what I do with information I don't want anybody else to see.

No, then everybody will see it twice.

Not going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not going to work

[nfk]

Sure, the terrorists can do their own research, but that's not the same as also having access to all the research that is done about the most diverse topics. I am against censoring scientific papers on principle, but their concern is understandable. They are aware it could also slow down research and that's why they want a balance.

Re:Not going to work

[LostCluster]

You seem to have forgotten how these terrorists work. If they were to establish the Journal of Terror Science, eventually they'd be found out for what they are, and it's likely they've done something (other than publish their magazine) that's illegal because afterall these are terrorists we're talking about. At that point, the Fed would raid the magazine, discover the subscriber list, and then have cause to check into the background of the subscribers, which will likely lead to more terrorists arrested. That's just not gonna work for them. If, however, one Al Queda friendly "researcher" is able to publish the instructions for how to make a nerve agent next to a flawed solution into how to undo the effects, then the recipe is out for all of the sleeper cells to see, and they have to do nothing more than to get a copy of a magazine at Barnes And Noble... no need to leave their name, and plenty of normal people who also bought the same magazine for other reasons to create overwhelming noise in the datastream anyway. I don't think anybody's going to be ignorant of the risks certain things can present... they just want to limit the number of people who know how to create those problems to a need-to-know basis.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this slows down scientific advances (like finding cures for various diseases) and effects your health/life in a negative way.

same but different

[s20451]

It's the same argument used to prevent security disclosures from being published.

It's a little different, though. It's much harder to issue a security patch for the human body.

Re:same but different

[amalcon]

They call them vaccines.

Re:same but different

[Waffle Iron]

It's a little different, though. It's much harder to issue a security patch for the human body.

Given the skyrocketing sales of duct tape this past week, I'm guessing there's a lot of people who are going to try patching anyway.

Re:same but different

[Stonehand]

And they're a lot harder to develop, if even possible at all, and sometimes have a risk of harming or killing the recipient. There's no comparison.

Re:same but different

[coolgeek]

The enormously huge differences are: 1) a computer virus kills your COMPUTER, not you and 2) there are way many more people capable of authoring software patches vs. creating vaccines.

Indeed this is not the "same" argument used to quash the full-disclosure movement. In fact, this is Timothy utilizing the same sensationalistic tools so commonly employed by the mass media. As I have said many times in the past, time to go, Timothy...I mean, Timmaaay.

Censorship

[lastberserker]

science editors want to censor their publications

Let'em. As far as they don't censor mine it's all right.

Re:Censorship

[TopShelf]

This is a voluntary measure, just an appeal to some common sense. Simply consider the potential audience, and tailor articles appropriately. Science can and must go on...

Re:Censorship

[ClarkEvans]

This is a voluntary measure

Just between you and me, of course; if you don't volunteer to publish your articles in a journal which supports this sort of meausre perhaps you may find your funding... err... dry up? Just a suggestion, we arn't quite sure how the new measure will affect future NIH funding, but you never know how administrations may change their perspective on things, especially retroactively.

Re:Censorship

[Qzukk]

Common sense says that if X can kill people, and you publish X, you can probably spur research into the Y that stops X. There isn't always a Y, but which would be better, dying because terrorists got an incurable X from a journal somewhere, or dying because terrorists figured X out on their own or from the notes scribbled on napkins they pulled out of the trash?

And what if publishing X did cause the development of Y? Then is it better to be saved by Y or killed by the X the terrorists figured out without the benefit of the journals?

Slippery Slope Rant Follows:

Why don't we just cancel all of the journals. After all, who knows what sinister ends even the most innocuous inventions could be put to at the hands of terrorists. But why stop there? There could be a Terrist(tm) in your college classes with you! We better close all CS classes, all Engineering classes, all medical schools, and all Chemistry and Biology classes.

Once we've secured the higher education front against this illicit "learning", we will begin to attack the lower grades. Budding Terrists(tm) might be in your high schools at this very moment. What dangerous things could they be learning there? Clearly we must put a stop to these infiltration classes, thinly disguised as "English" and "American History". Every Real American already speaks perfect English and has memorized the entire history of This Great Country. All "Geography" teachers must be captured dead or alive for teaching these so-called students how to reach their Targets of Terror. No honest citizen needs to know the difference between Washington State and Washington DC, unless they were actually a Terrist(tm) aiming to bomb one or the other.

Not quite the "same"

[J0ey4]

I fail to see how this is the "same" as security disclosures. When a software bug or security hole is released publicly, users and corporations have the option to either update or turn off the compromised products, and increases pressure on the proprietor of the offending product to fix it in due haste. The argument against censoring security disclosures is that you prevent people from doing things to protect themselves they could have done had they known of the problem.

OTOH, when scientifc research is published that allows chemical or biological weapons to be produced, there isn't anything joe consumer can do to protect himself because he saw the publication.

Believe me, I am an aspiring Ph.D. student and very anti-science censorship...but comparing it to software security censorship is like apples and oranges.

Re:Not quite the "same"

[anonymous loser]

OTOH, when scientifc research is published that allows chemical or biological weapons to be produced, there isn't anything joe consumer can do to protect himself because he saw the publication.

Unless he takes the time to learn all the little ins and outs of their computers and software, there's not much Joe Consumer can do about security flaws, either. It's up to the industry to cooperatively create and release a solution to the problem, which Joe then uses to fix his computer. Likewise, if there's no disclosure of the scientific research, the scientific and medical community is going to have a tough time coming up with a vaccine/policy/whatever to counterract whatever biological weapon the terrorsists come up with.

I don't believe that nondisclosure of the research is going to prevent terrorsists from obtaining the information. After all, look at the anthrax attack that occurred after 9/11. The particular variant that was used reportedely was from a strain that was stored in a highly secure facility, where only a handful of people had access. What's to prevent terrorists from buying information on the black market, kidnapping the researchers (or better yet, their families), or stealing it from the appropriate places where the research is being done? Not much that I can tell.

Re:Not quite the "same"

[Ed Avis]

It's all because God doesn't keep up with the new vulnerabilities and release patches to human DNA.

free flow of information,

[memnock]

used to be that was considered a part of a democracy. and i am sure most researchers consider an easy exchange of information important to furthering their endeavors. if a lot of scientific research could have military applications, are they going to start limiting even more information?

not to mention there are still other sources for weapons information...

Science and Politics

[BluBall]

Obviously the wrong direction. Such deciscions are political in nature and really shouldn't be made by scientists. Let alone the simple fact that there is no way of knowing in advance what could and could not be useful to terrorists in the future (boxcutters anyone?). The editors supposedly think that scientist need to be accountable for the spread of whatever information they have which we all know is a dangerous, slippery slope.

Re:Not liberty

[KDan]

So? You really haven't understood the saying, are you. "physical life" is interchanged with security, not libery:

"Anyone who trades liberty for physical life deserves neither liberty nor physical life."

Sounds a bit harsh when put like that but given that the probabilities that you'll be directly hurt by terrorist action is about the same as the prob that you'll be hit by a meteorite, I think it's fair enough to throw out that "physical life" term and put back "security", as that's what the argument is really about - not your life at gunpoint right now, but your security in general.

Daniel

What does this mean for science?

[yar]

Honestly, what does this mean for the future of scientific research in these areas? The article describes this as the end of an "Age of Innocence" for science. The whole point of scientific research is that it advances upon previous discoveries. If these discoveries are obfuscated, who can say how this will impact research and future scientify study? They acknowledge that this would be a problem, but don't tell us what the actual impact will be.

Did the scientists study the effects of this move themselves? :P

Silly..

[fadeaway]

I doubt that this will help at all.

It occurs to me, considering that the uncensored version of these journals will go through tens of thousands of people in the scientific community, that if there were any information the forces of evil wanted from the journals, there will still be plenty of opourtunity to obtain it. Censoring can't stop a janitor on the inside, a careless scientist, or a motivated hacker. If just one copy escapes, then everyone who's interested can have at it.

Folks, these are your rights. And they're being taken from you one at a time.

Escape from Alcatraz

[$$$$$exyGal]

Before you know it, terrorists will be making rubber rafts out of raincoats. It says how in Life Magazine ;-). (Note to moderator's: This post is a reference to the real-life escape of prisoners from Alcatraz... they used info that was not hidden from them to help them escape. You can get more info by watching Escape from Alcatraz).

--sex

Re:Don't be fooled

[Zeinfeld]

Case in point, see the last paragraph from the BBC

Everyone involved acknowledges the publication restraint is only part of the answer - there is nothing to stop scientists simply posting their research on the internet, for example.

First they didn't count the votes in Florida but I didn't protest because I didn't live in Florida.

Then they established military tribunals to try inconvenient cases without juries or appeal and I didn't protest because I wasn't foreign looking.

Then they declared prisoners of war illegal combatants but I didn't protest because I wasn't a prisoner of war.

Then they suspended habeas corpus, transfered prisoners to military jails without the right to see a lawyer, I didn't protest because they told me the prisoner was obviously guilty.

Then Ari Fleicher announced that 'people should take care of what they say', being a good citizen I decided to take care not to criticize the regime.

Then they told us that we should build shelters against biological attack using duct tape and plastic, yes really they did, I didn't protest because I have plenty of duct tape.

Then they told us that anyone protesting against a war against Iraq was allied with Saddam and Bin Laden, I did not protest.

Then they told us that publishing scientific information that contradicted the administration could not be published and I did not protest.

Then they armed their supporters claiming that the country needed a well regulated militia in case of internal dissent and I did not protest because I was affraid.

Then they cancelled the elections because they could only give comfort to the opponents of the administration and thus the opponents of American greatness and American power, I did not protest because they didn't count my vote last time.

No, we are not quite there yet, but haven't people noticed that we are getting close?

It's *not* the government, this time

[trmj]

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.

Re:It's *not* the government, this time

[ClarkEvans]

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.

Dr. Trmj,

We are pleased to receive your application for your new bio-whatever-mechanism. Furthermore, your astounding background and prior research is something we all look up to. Clearly you are our first choice for funding this year. Unforunately, due to your publication history, in particular your lack of self-censorship on issues deemed critial to national security, we are unable to move your grant proposal beyond technical approval. Sincerely, NIH

Oh no. We don't censor what you write, we just sopport those who censor as we wish.

Re:It's *not* the government, this time

[trmj]

your new bio-whatever-mechanism

Yes! Not only am I a doctor, but I also made something so cool that it doesn't even have a coherent name!

we just sopport those who censor as we wish

Projects that are truly important and helpful get money / promotion from not only the governemnt, but colleges, investors, and other groups that want to reap the rewards (money/promotion) of the finished product. Wouldn't you want your business' / college's name attached to said "bio-whatever-mechanism"?

Plus, if you get your name out there as being on the bleeding edge (no pun intended) of the business, (common sense tells me) it would be much easier to get funding from agencies other than the government.

Note: I'm not a scientist, nor have I had to get funding for anything other than a car, so I may be wrong in that area, but as the old marketing slogan goes, "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

Mod Parent UP

[DavittJPotter]

Right on. We're creating more and more "sheeple" by hiding the truth from people. This will allow our government to run without any public scrutiny, in the interest of "Fighting Terror at HOME! (TM)"

And by the same logic...

[assaultriflesforfree]

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.

Re:And by the same logic...

[Zeinfeld]

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.

Re:And by the same logic...

[flippet]

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...

Welcome to the Middle Age

[gmuslera]

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.

Christ

[Thing 1]

Let's all just stop communicating, then they can't use our words against us.

The terrorists are getting what they were after -- we are living in fear and are turning the USA into a police state, faster than any of us could have imagined.

double-plus-ungood.

Re:Not quite

[guanxi]

There was an analysis written regarding the phrase "Life, Liberty and Persuit of Happiness" and it essential boiled down to this. Those words were chosen very specificaly and placed in the order that they were specificaly. That the order is indicative to the order which they must be considered:

I can find an analysis written that says aliens populated the earth with clones. I need more to go on than that slender basis.

Re:Limited Distribution

[drooling-dog]

But don't forget that the anthrax spores that were being sent through the mail after 9/11 were traced to an Army lab in Maryland. I can see how these measures will screw up research by making it harder to replicate results and by making protocols untrustworthy, but it's hard to see how they will make us safer from terrorists. But that's the deal, isn't it? We're told we're trading liberty for security, but it's never quite clear how not being free will make us safe...

Re:sounds like the full-disclosure debate...

[ctr2sprt]

You're seriously trying to base an argument around similarity of wording, without addressing the subjects of the arguments at all?!

First, often security holes are not immediately disclosed. The discoverer will instead contact the company responsible for fixing the holes and give them a certain amount of time to acknowledge, examine, and then fix the hole. Only if the company involved ignores the problem or doesn't fix it in a timely manner is the hole publicly revealed without a fix in-hand.

Second, there's an obvious difference here. If Apache has a security hole, eventually the Apache folks will release a patch that fixes it. Where's my patch from God that makes me immune to anthrax?

If you insist on looking at human security as similar to computer security, try this. Security by obscurity is only one part of the process, and probably the least important. We also buy off former Soviet scientists to keep them from defecting, keep careful tabs on the equipment needed to build all sorts of nasty stuff, use our intelligence to track groups which might have the capability of making WMDs, and all the rest. Obscurity is one small part of the Onion of Security.

Chemical and Biological Weapons in 21 days

[KoolDude]

Note: This post has been deleted to prevent exploitation by terrorists reading Slashdot.

Ridiculous

[k98sven]

I don't even know where to start..

Maybe it's the fact that terrorists don't read scientific journals.

Why not? Because scientific journals present new research, and you don't need
new knowledge to produce biological and chemical weapons.
Sarin gas was first manufactured in 1938. Mustard gas long before that.
Almost anyone who has studied a fair amount of organic chemistry can make this stuff.
It's all common knowledge.

As for bioweapons.. the same thing goes. Making penicillin-resistant E. Coli takes undergraduate biotech skills.
(at least at my uni.)

Want to make botulism toxin, one of the most toxic substances known?
Leave a bottle of garlic in oil on top of your refrigerator for a few weeks.

Or maybe we should just ban education?
And books and libraries. Knowledge is dangerous, kids.

Re:Ridiculous

[Fulcrum of Evil]

But all this is based in the traditional meaning of "terrorist", which I don't think is what they're aiming at here. They're aiming at the new definition of "terrorist", that amalgamation of terrorist organizations and nation-states that support them and/or are hostile to the "western democracies".

I think you mean 'hostile to the current Bush administration'. Or haven't you seen Ari Fleischer telling people to watch what they say and the Senate discussing bans on French wine because they won't support our war effort.

Re:Ridiculous

[Markus Landgren]

Perhaps Al Qaida would see bio-weapons research as too expensive, much like nuclear weapons research. But other nations (hint: Iraq) have the budget and the manpower to pay for mass-production facilities, as well as the movitation (increasing military ergo political power).

I don't think they're afraid of terrorist organizations replicating their research. I think they're afraid of Iraq or someone else doing that, then selling or giving the weapons to terrorist organizations.

In my not so humble opinion, the proper way to stop Iraq from making biological weapons is not self-censorship of scientific journals. It would be much more effective to just not sell biological weapons to them. Who is to blame for the Iraqi bio-warfare capability? Reagan, Rumsfeld and Bush 1. Maybe what needs to be censored is the Washington D.C. phone directory? It gives terrorists instant access to morons in high places, willing to approve weapons exports to just about anyone.

Re:Canned Air

[trmj]

Speaking of canned air, you ever see those cans of presurized air for cleaning keyboards and stuff, theres the typical warning on the back, "deliberate concentration and inhalation of contents may cause illness or even death", its air for christsake!

If it was simply air, there would not be a probem with this. The issue occurs when they wat the air to some out of the can. They can't just pressurize regular air, as it would depressurize to fast.

So they add isopropyl. It's a form of rubbing alcohol. That's the stuff that'll kill you, if you inhale enough.

Also, if you are stupid enough to spray the stuff into your mouth through the little straw, it might expand your lungs, causing tearing of tissue, internal bleeding in lungs, collapsed lungs, or an adema-like condition where your blood causes you to drown. Remember, people are that stpid.

On a related note, it also shouldn't always be used in closed areas. Some computers have way too much dust inside the towers. That stuff isn't too good for you either.

Just silly

[Visaris]

While this restriction may stop someone who was not otherwise planning an attack from getting an idea, it will IN NO WAY remove potentially harmful information from terrorists. All it takes is common sense and an internet connection to find step by step bomb building instructions. Personnaly I think the US could use an ANTI-Bullshit dept.

Galileo reaches 20,000 rpm

[renegade_ewok]

This could be not so much the end of an age for science but for civilisation as well. Since the enlightenment one of the driving forces has been that knowledge enhances society - now people (including /.ers) are saying that knowledge should be controlled.
The problem with knowledge, and especially scientific knowledge, is that you never know what could be used for or against you. Take as an example nuclear astrophysics - whilst this pertains to unravel the mysteries of the universe the science is very close to that of isotope production which is important for amongst other things, nuclear weapons. Should we censor research because a paper on the r process in supernovae could lead to more efficient plutonium production?
The simple truth is that there are far better ways of inflicting "terror" on western civilisation than by using modern science. Just look at what a bit of initiative, belief in a deity and some fully fueled aircraft can do.
You cannot control knowledge like some politicians would have you believe and any attempts to do so will create a far more divided world than we have now. The only left hope is that knowledge begets understanding and understanding begets peace.

Sabotage

[kfg]

Do you know where the word comes from? It roughly translates into the English phrase "Throw a monkey wrench into the works," only in this case the "wrench" is a sabot, or wooden shoe.

You take your shoe off, throw it into the machine and, Presto! Instant terrorism.

Nothing more than simple, everyday objects are required to be a very effective terrorist.

Remember the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center? ( If you were shocked and stunned by 9/11 you weren't paying attention. They had already tried it and *told* us they would try again). It took one guy, a van and some high school chemistry. That's all.

The second ( and sucessful) attempt wasn't much more complicated really. It required a few people who could fly the planes rather than one who could drive a car, but other than that the plan was *less* technologically advanced than the first attempt, requiring some Stanley knives and some purely *human* engineering.

The natural reaction was to make it illegal for little old ladies to knit on long flights.

The fact that your own grandmother is now in danger of being arrested as a terrorist because she tried to sneak a plastic crochet hook onto an airplane hidden in her sock is just one of the indications that we may not be reacting to the whole situation in an exactly rational manner.

Ok, so science editors are in favor of restricting information usable to terrorists. I suppose it's a noble motivation, but to what real end? All they need is a shoe, or a wrench.

Shall we also leave out key bits of intro to chemistry or physics texts? Isn't basic knowledge of exothermic chemical reactions and the fact that F=ma of more real use to a terrorist that just about anything else?

Or that if you stab someone with a knife they fall down?

Do we really think that restricting knowledge of how to produce ebola virus is relevant when the e. coli bacterium is cheaper, easier and just as effective to use, and knowledge of it is already common? Or the influenza virus?

Anyone with access to a Walmart can already do just about as much terrorist damage as they could want.

That includes you.

KFG

The slippery slope, or a level head?

[watchful.babbler]

Any phrase like ""Self-governance [is] an alternative to government review of forthcoming journal articles" is almost calculated to leave me cold -- but it's important to note that the people behind this release include not only editors, but also research scientists and activists such as the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom.

The official AAAS release, including a list of signatories, is here.

Bye-bye Researchers

[Angram]

All well and good for the editors, who get their money regardless, but not so for researchers. It's "Publish of Perish" in the world of research. If an associate professor wants to keep their job or get promoted to full Professor, they'd better get published, and often. Yeah, the guy who just spent the last year working on a paper is going to hold it back due to some ridiculous fears. Riiiight. People working on grants, etc. will just have to avoid eating for a year to make ends meet. Yeah, that's the ticket. In the end the editors would lose their jobs, too. Great. Let's hear it for science!

More scarey stuff

[xtal]

Perhaps most terrifying of all these is Nerve Gas.. the Nazis discovered the base of all nerve toxins (IIRC, I'm an engineer, not a biochemist, Jim) in the 40's - Vx. That was over 60 years ago boys and girls, and science has come a long way since then. The world is a very scarey place now. Playing dumb and sticking our collective heads in the sand isn't the way to go. A dumb populace might be easy to control - but who's going to be in control? I think I read a story about that once. Something about a time machine?

Hiding science does nobody any good, and prevents people from having access to information. Those people who you are preventing from having access might be the people who have the insight to develop a new treatment, cure, or neuralizing agent for these evil compounds.

Last time I checked, all our engineering and universities were still open. Are we now going to ban biochemistry? Or maybe electrical engineering, becuase you might learn how to make a precision timer for a nuclear bomb? Or hell, ban mechanical engineering - you learn how to manufacture equipment to insane tolerances. The only people who might want to do that are TERRORISTS!

Yeah, I'm laying it on pretty thick up there, but this self-censorship crap smacks back to the 50's, and I don't like where it's going. How effective has the DEA been against people learning how to make amphetamines and other drugs in their backyards? Or when compounds are effectively removed from the public, discovering alternative, exotic synthesises? Not very.

Security through obscurity -NEVER- works. The only defense is to be well prepared, and in that case, that means educated.

Re:Don't be fooled

[Peterus7]

Ohh, I'm so afraid of terrorists building an anti matter bomb now! Or harnessing black holes to create massive weapons of mass destruction!

Re:I can see it now...

[edmo]

Because after all, the air we breathe may have been POISONED some how!

The air is already POISONED some how, ever herd of polution. Evry time you drive your car you help to poison the air...

Related radio show

[madmaxx]

This was the subject of this week's CBC radio program (available in .ogg) Quirks and Quarks : Bisecting Bioterrorism (ogg).

Is concerning to see the multitude of anti-Freedom directives produced in these last few years ...

NOT the same as computer security disclosures

[rbook]

It's the same argument used to prevent security disclosures from being published.

No, it's NOT the same! People can patch their software systems, but they can't patch basic biology and chemistry.

The argument for publishing COMPUTER security holes is that it enourages people to develop and apply patches to eliminate the vulnerabilities and make tme irrelevant. There is no way that publishing say, how to make anthrax, will get people to "patch" their bodies to be immune to it!

Re:NOT the same as computer security disclosures

[amalcon]

Yes there is.

Scientist makes anthrax.
Scientist studies anthrax.
Scientist finds way to make anthrax not kill you.
Cure is distributed.

Replace "scientist" with "programmer," and "kill you" with whatever suits your fancy, and you have a pretty solid comparison.

And it's not like terrorists wouldn't be able to do their job without anthrax, anyway.

You do, however. . .

[kfg]

have a right to pur your life in jeopardy, even to go so far as the virtual certainty of losing it, in order to attempt the preservation of your liberty.

If you enslave me and guaruntee my life I will escape or die.

I rather think the Mr. Jefferson fully understood, and supported, this attitude as he penned those famous words.

So, I have life, and am fighting for liberty, even though it may kill me.

Is that so hard to understand?

KFG

It�s already too late

[scotay]

Now that they know the secret of our duct tape and plastic sheeting, it's game over. The American infidels shall fall like dominos.

Re:Limited Distribution

[knobmaker]

I fail to see how this will help. If I'm a terrorist who wants to unleash an ebola epedemic, and I don't already know how to culture the virus (easiest way that occurs to me would be to kidnap a hundred hookers, infect them, and then turn them loose) I'd just capture a "legitimate researcher" and wire his nads to a field telephone. He'd tell me all about it.

I'm deeply suspicious of censorship, even self-censorship, even when the motivations appear at first glance to be admirable. At second glance, the consequences are often unforeseen. For example, in the example given by the poster above, you have restricted knowledge to those who are approved by the government. As I pointed out, it won't keep a dedicated and clever terrorist from getting the information. However, it will prevent some folks from having the information who might do good things with it-- perhaps the researcher who might have used the knowledge to come up with a new way of interrupting a disease vector, if only she'd had ready access to the data. But maybe she's a Muslim, and she criticized the administration, and so she didn't make the approved list. Laws that restrict information, whether medical data or porn, only keep the law-abiding from getting that information. And you're kidding yourself if you think self-censorship by the journals would not rapidly evolve into iron-clad and draconian censorship laws the first time something goes wrong and people get hurt by misused information.

Open source believers take note: which is the more efficient software development model-- an open-ended framework where anyone can contribute code, or a closed model where only a select few are allowed to contribute code? And how much more inefficient would the latter approach be if such difficult-to-quantify concepts as patriotism, jingoism, and wartime secrecy were mixed in?

Consider, finally, the stupidities that ensued when the government classified PGP as "munitions," and prohibited its distribution to foreigners. Censorship is futile, stupid, and destructive.

Re:Good

[Stonehand]

It's very convenient that you omit the essential word "essential".

Re:Why this is stupid - not

[JohnnyCannuk]

Absolutely incorrect.

Every source I have read (CNN, major newspapers) or seen (CNN again, CBC Newsworld, Discovery/TLC and PBS) has stated that the total collapse of the towers was not expected by anyone, not the designers or even Osama Bin Laden - he thought there would be mass casualties but never thought the buildings would fall (remember that little "smoking gun" video of him at the dinner party that was broadcast non-stop about a year ago?).

There is no evidence that any of the 9/11 attackers ever studied the plans of the towers. They followed the logic that if the towers were built to withstand the impact of a 727 (as was "common knowledge" as a strength and not a known weakness), then a 767 loaded with fuel should probably cause lots of damage.

Simple as that.

9/11 actually revealled a previously unknown weakness in the design. Without public access to the plans etc, experts and documentarians may not have found out why the towers fell, and engineers may be planning buildings with the same techniques today.

So much for security through obscurity...

We can't do this people

[samantha]

We can't afford to be so given by Fear that we stop living, stop growing, stop sharing and learning from one another. Yes, knowledge can be used for bad purposes as well as good. Exactly what is the news in that? Does that mean we are to stop learning and sharing what we learn?

Being seen as anti-terrorist has become trendy and an easy set of brownie points in some circles. We need to end that. We need to point out that there are things worse than terrorism. Things like grabbing meaningless points that in effect do nothing but make life harder and poorer. We can lose both freedom and ability to grow into our dreams by being so given by fear and in reaction. We can increase the terrorism in the world by acting in reaction.

I don't fear terrorism. I fear our own fear and stupidity ripping us and this world apart.

Re:Why this is stupid

[Henry V .009]

After the fact, bin Laden in a video claimed to have made precise strucural calculations. He also spoke about prophetic dreams regarding the event and soccer...(hint: nutso)

What actually happened, was 15 men with knives attacked the country. They ridiculously overtrained for the job by attending flight schools (nearly getting themselves caught). The hard part of flying commercial aircraft happens to be take-off and landing. They didn't need that training, and therefore didn't need flight school. When it came time to hit the WTC, they merely pointed the airplanes at the building and did their best to hit dead on. Not a high level of sophistication there. One of the planes even missed its target (the capital building) and hit the pentagon instead. Another plane crashed because they neglected to properly secure the cockpit after capturing it.

Underestimating the terrorists on 9/11? The real problem was overestimating them afterwards. We still have not come to terms with the massive damage a poorly equiped, poorly educated, poorly organized, enemy can do to our country. If we had, reforming the INS would be job number one, not reorganizing CIA and FBI flowcharts for the department of Homeland Security.

Self censorship as precedent

[skillet-thief]

Self censorship sets a precedent for official, external censorship. That is obvious, but is a point that is not raised often enough.

Here's how it works:
After a calm period of self censorship (they all seem like happy campers to me), someone decides to break the silence for whatever reason. Then the powers that be, step in, saying they need to enforce this, because there might be other "rogue" scientists who will do the same. The official censorship gets passed off as just a way of helping the scientific community maintain its standards.

This sounds bad to me.

We've got to decide where the line is to be drawn

[rtphokie]

Do we limit access to information that might be useful to terorists in the name of security, or do we make it freely available in the name of intellectual freedom.

There are extremists on both sides of this topic. Extremists suck though.

The answer lies in the middle, but nobody wants to discuss that. They just want to criticise the other extremists.

Nerve agents and terror.

[reverseengineer]

No, while the first organophosphate nerve agents were developed by the Germans in the years prior to WWII, including tabun, soman, and sarin, the most deadly (lowest LD50) nerve agent known, VX (o-ethyl methyl phosphonothiolate), was discovered by British scientists in the 1950s. The story I have heard is that the British then traded the process of VX synthesis to the Americans- for the details of building thermonuclear weapons.

All the nerve agents in this general class are rather nasty- tabun and soman were used by Iraq in their 1980-88 war against Iran, which the US cast a blind eye to (at the very least), and then they used them to kill Kurd and Shiite dissidents in Iraq itself afterward. Then in the mid-90s, the Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo released sarin in several attacks, including in the Tokyo subway system in 1995, killing 12 and injuring 5000. If they had used a more sophisticated delivery system (they used sharpened umbrella tips to puncture bags of liquid sarin), it is likely the death toll would have been far larger.

A nerve agent attack on any populated area could be extraordinarily deadly, and would certainly carry the additional weight of psychological terror- the fear that the air you breathe is contaminated with an invisible killer. And VX in particular is extremely long-lived in most environments (by design) Contact with residue could lead to injuries and deaths long after the initial attack. However, the syntheses involved in making organophosphate nerve agents are nontrivial. They make relatively unlikely terrorist agents simply because there are so many easier ways to kill and terrorize people- mustard, chlorine, phosgene, as well as biological agents like anthrax, botulin toxin, or a hemorrhagic fever virus. The feds seem so concerned about smallpox, for whatever reason, when the nations that have had Ebola outbreaks (Congo, Cote D'Ivoire, and Sudan) are in so much political chaos that setting up a lab and collecting and amplifying virus appears quite possible (whereas the only known smallpox stocks in the world are being kept in cold storage in Russia and the US).

I don't believe that much of this sort of information should be kept secret. I realize I know quite a bit about bioterror for a private citizen- but I'm not planning on becoming a terrorist- quite the opposite. I didn't obtain any knowledge from breaking into a top secret lab or kidnapping a scientist or cracking into a database anyway. As with many things, knowing how to defeat a threat involves understanding the threat (compare to computer security). Terrorists already know how to kill people- the information published in scientific journals is what's going to stop them. Secret government labs are of course going to be a large part of our nation's defense, as they have been for decades. However, the free exchange of information among labs holds the promise that discoveries could be made much more quickly.

When information is illegal...

[pjt48108]

...Only criminals will have information.

What a bunch of bullshit. I can't believe that rational people (such as scientists, etc.) would suggest such a thing. Those times when information is kept secret are when a population is most at-risk, because the masses cannot then defend themselves against what any ambitious terrorist is bound to develop independently, should said terrorist be evil enough.

Sheesh. Next they'll be requiring all firearms eliminated from movies and television, because people might get the idea that guns can be harmful, when used properly.

Re:Don't be fooled

[Zeinfeld]

The Bush Administration didn't ask for this, and this has nothing to do with whether or not the administration likes the information... Washington isn't involved in this story at all!

What is the basis for that assertion?

CNN has for the past week been full of stories concerning a request by Turkey for munitions etc. to be moved into Turkey in case of attack by Iraq. Only the thing is that if you listen to the BBC you would have heard the Turkish minister responsible stating that Turkey was not behind the request, it was the US that made the request.

Another example of this is the constant claim that the UK supports the position of the Bush Administration on Iraq. According to the BBC a million people marched in the UK to tell the world that they do not support the Bush administration. Getting a million people to mobilize in a country of 55 million is a non trivial event, particularly when the party in power is left wing, the people marching ar Blairs base.

Re:Good

[garethx1]

So I take it youd also support the Government banning Guns? I dont know about you, but I'm more afraid of getting a bullet in my head then someone releasing some bizarre toxin that some dude at MIT just discovered. It seems to me, that there is already more then enough weapons and info. on Improvised weaponry that terrorists arent going to build a 5million+ facility to try and build a weapon that may be possible to produce. Why bother? Just a random thought...

it won't work

[g4dget]

A large fraction of the results in medical and molecular biology research can potentially be used to create biological weapons. Does this mean medical and molecular biology publishing will just stop? Where will we draw the line?

With nuclear research, the raw materials are exceptionally dangerous and pretty hard to obtain in large quantities. For for biological work, the raw materials are ubiquitous, and it's pretty easy to keep things safe for research purposes. And a lot of really important publications are about making it simpler and cheaper to manipulate DNA sequences.

As an analogy, think of programming. It used to involve toggling switches, now you can write a Perl script that grinds through gigabytes of data without thinking twice about it. Or, you can get little embedded chips for a couple of dollars for computations that used to require computers filling rooms. Well, it's going to be the same for molecular biology, except that you don't even need the investment chip fabs and cleanrooms.

We better figure out how we can deal with the idea that anybody reasonably intelligent and with access to a library will be able to cook up deadly viruses in their spare time--this technology is not controllable or containable.

Big difference between net security and bioterror

[Yeechang Lee]

No, I'm not talking about the difference between a sendmail root exploit and actually killing someone (though that's important too). In net security, the leading edge of exploit/virus/worm research isn't CERT or Symantec or ISS; it's teenage males without dates in Prague and Ann Arbor and Hong Kong. Thus, security through obscurity doesn't work because it can't encompass enough of the right people in the know.

Research in the hard sciences is different. The UCSF biologists and MIT chemists, the ones who would author the articles in question, are the leading edge. It's not like Saddam's labs are two years ahead of the rest of the world. Being more careful when publishing their research has a real chance of keeping valuable secrets out of the wrong hands.

Re:Good - you are an egotistical buffoon

[mo2]

Are you really that self-absorbed that you think you could possibly be on anyone's list of targets? Puleez. Our RESPONSE to the 9/11 terrorist attack was an over-reaction on an order of magnitude beyond extreme, resulting in more damage to this country and it's constitution than 1,000 airliners could have inflicted.

Once you get out of your little dreamworld you will find that censorship in any form is a policy that has been implemented by 'great' nations such as Nazi Germany, Communist China, the former Soviet Union, and North Korea just to name a few. Americans should not aspire to join that group.

Sorry dude you could not be more wrong!!! You should be willing to give your pitifull life to protect our freedom and the Constitution instead of being such a little coward.

This plan can't work

[Ignorant Aardvark]

Within one month of the journal censoring the gory biological details, some person claiming to be a "current employee of a large monthly biological warfare scientific journal" will post all the secret details to Slashdot under the nickname Anonymous Coward. The information will never become useful to the terrorists, because even they aren't crazy enough to view posts at the -1 threshold.

Duct Tape

[Major]

With all this sudden hooplah about duct taping your houses to be airtight, I just wanna pose two questions to the masses:

1) How are you supposed to get back inside once you've duct taped the house shut

and

2) Who's the lucky family member who gets to do it?

That's not even taking into consideration things like suffocation and duct taping AFTER a bioterrorist strike... ;-)

--=Maj