U.S. Tighening Rules of Keeping Scientific Secrets

MobyTurbo writes: "In this article The New York Times (free registration, blah blah blah) reports that the Bush Administration is removing over 6,000 declassified documents from the public domain as part of the war on terrorism. Many scientists quoted in the article think that this will impead the development of science, especially the development of new vaccines."

whatever

[pedro]

It's 'impede', not 'impead'.
Wow.. am I anal or what?

Re:whatever

[MobyTurbo]

It's 'impede', not 'impead'.

Sorry about that, maybe /. needs a spell checker. :-)

Odd, how you caught that but not Timothy's goof.

[Kasreyn]

Tighening^H^H^H^H^Htening

=P

-Kasreyn

Re:Odd, how you caught that but not Timothy's goof

[Eccles]

Tighening^H^H^H^H^Htening

No, it is Tighening. Reclassifying documents was an idea suggested by actor Kevin Tighe, who (among other roles) played paramedic Roy DeSoto on "Emergency!" So they named the process after him.

Conspiracy nut : Creationists strike back!

[Jeppe Salvesen]

This is really far-fetched, but could it be that some of the christian fundamentalists in the current administration wish to limit the effectiveness of non-military science?

Before, they've established means for limiting insight into and influence over what they do.

Now, they wish to further strangle information so that the people able to systematically pull their schemes apart will not be able to publish their work if they do so.

Long live big brother!

Re:Conspiracy nut : Creationists strike back!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet. You're really intelligent... make your point by being religiously bigoted. Gee, you must be right.

This is a typical response...

[gartogg]

of an administration that has demonstrated a penchant for glitz over substance, and stupid vote-mongering over intelligrent decisions.

As long as Bush really beleives that he needs public support, he can not make decisions. The real problem I see is that Bush can't make unpopular decisions, ever. He will never do anything right as long as he tries to cater to everyone. In my book, the hallmark of a sucessful president is that he can make unpopular decisions and LEAD the populace, instead of following it. Bush has done nothing but invest in knee jerk responses to events: He labels the axis of evil so he can fufill the latent desire for revenge he has been unable to provide through the wholly half-assed, unsuccessful response to Osama Bin Laden.

Re:This is a typical response...

[Moridineas]

Wait, are you describing Clinton or Bush?? Hell, Dick Morris and other ex-clintonites will straight out admit EVERY decision that came out of the Clinton presidency was made by following poles. I don't see this nearly as true for Bush.

Public domain

[sydb]

How can you remove stuff from the public domain? Does no-one have any copies? If not, it was probably useless information anyway.

Re:Public domain

[Mdog]

Especially in light of the google cache :)

Re:Public domain

[kishi]

Anyone with enough willpower, money, or net.savvyness can gain access to such information.

The only people who are being denied access to this information are student researchers and the general public. Which is just as well, seeing as how students and the general public comprise the largest group of terrorists: MP3 pirates! Arr!

Re:Public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

A number of months ago I read that the GPO (General Printing Office) had ordered all of the authorized federal document repositories (mainly larger libraries) to destroy thousands of documents in light of Sept. 11th and their increased concern over homeland security.

Re:Public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. That was an initiative to destroy or classify public records having to do with possible terrorist targets (ie. blueprints of resivior dams, detailed information about how to operate a nuclear reactor, etc. and i'm probably using bad examples). The point was to eliminate the facilitation by the government of information to possible terrorists of these targets' weaknesses. For example, a blueprint of a resivior dam would help a terrorist plan where the explosives should be placed. While this doesn't really stop any terrorists from blowing up anything, it does keep responsibility of facilitation of that dangerous information away from the American government. Mod parent reply up, it's informative.

Re:Public domain

[Tackhead]

> How can you remove stuff from the public domain? Does no-one have any copies? If not, it was probably useless information anyway.

That's OK, 99% of the classified information is also probably useless too ;)

The Doctor's Analysis

[Dr. Carl Jung]

According to the article, "The federal reports already withdrawn, once sold freely to the public, include not only declassified ones from the 1940's, 50's and 60's but also modern ones that were previously judged to contain nothing that had to be kept secret." The attempt to restrict both old declassified research and modern unclassified research will prove unsuccessful:

Old Research: Passing legislation in an attempt to restrict the flow of 60 year old information is pretty hopeless. If the information has already been exposed to the public for over half a century, one can assume that terrorists already have a hold of it.

New Research: We shouldn't be worried about terrorists utilizing modern research to develop a super-mega-death bomb. Cold-War era weapons are deadly enough for a terrorist. After all, about 2000 people died on Sept. 11, while 70,000 were decimated over half a century ago by the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Re:The Doctor's Analysis

[Dr. Carl Jung]

Permissive access to some kinds of information leads to temptation to and propensity for its use.

What are you talking about? This information has been available to the general public for over 50 years. It'd be like trying to close the source to Apache or FreeBSD - something impossible and unfeasible.

ramblings of a feeble-minded malcontent who believes that freedom must necessarily discard all protections.

I never mentioned anything about liberty or freedom. I'm just saying that this restriction won't work.

We're living in the 21st fucking century. One can assume that terrorists (a) know how to build weapons capable of inflicting mass death and (b) will use these weapons against us if they get a hold of them. We should be restricting materials needed to build these weapons rather than the knowledge to do so.

Re:Let me guess, you didn't vote Libertarian?

[Sarcazmo]

I think there should be some rule, you shouldn't be able to mod down a message that has not been replied to as "Flamebait". If it was such flamebait, it would have drawn a response.
Maybe the moderator just hates being wrong. Maybe he voted for a Republicrat. This is what you reap people. If you vote for big government, you get big government. Suck it up next time and vote for freedom, vote Libertarian.

Re:Let me guess, you didn't vote Libertarian?

[Sarcazmo]

Voting Libertarian doesn't mean you want a "Libertarian government". Does voting for a Democrat mean you want a "Liberal Government"? I vote for people, not platforms. The Libertarians that are in office are the only ones that have stood up and opposed many Big Brother measures. We refuse corporate and government sponsership in our campaigns. We believe in encouraging competition, not eliminating it. I think you have many misconceptions about Libertarianism. I hope you see the light before it is too late.

Re:Let me guess, you didn't vote Libertarian?

[Lectrik]

wow... so 2 whole people (and 63 disembodied left arms, but don't tell the Florida Supreme Court) voted Libertarian...

When faced with the choice between a robot and an idiot, neither is the lesser of the two evils (63 disembodied left arms can't be completely wrong)

OT:Let me guess, you didn't vote Libertarian?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

We're getting waaaaay OT here, but what the hell, I've got karma to burn...

Libertarians can be their own worst enemies. The following statement is taken from the California Official Voter Information Guide [ca.gov]. It's the statement of the Libertarian candidate for Lt. Governor:

My message to the people of California is "Don't take your freedoms for granted!" For the past ten years I have been working to legalize the domestic ferret in California. During this process I have seen how politics works in California. And it only works for those who have political power. Domestic ferrets are legal in 48 states. Our state constitution recognizes our right to own domestic animals. Yet our state government has blocked efforts for this very simple matter. Our freedom does not come from the government; it is our birthright. Elect people who understand that.

Now, I'm a registered Libertarian. And I'm embarrassed. This guy is running for Lt. Governor, and his campaign platform is FERRETS? Hell, is website is www.ferretsanon.com [ferretsanon.com]!!! Where are the issues that most voters care about? Crime, taxes, schools, etc.? I know the LP is about reducing the size of government, but he certainly doesn't get that across. I'd be very surprised if he even comes in 3rd.

Until Libertarians stop shooting themselves in the foot like this, we will be relegated to minority status...

Take it all off

[inerte]

I will remove the left side of your brain because you can make evil strategies with, and don't think you will be able to use the right side of it either, because I will remove it so you can not make those annoying flower power musics.