[iwar] [fc:U.S..Tightening.Rules.on.Keeping.Scientific.Secrets]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-02-16 23:09:31


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4494-1013929765-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 30217 invoked by uid 510); 17 Feb 2002 07:09:36 -0000
Received: from n23.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.73) by all.net with SMTP; 17 Feb 2002 07:09:36 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4494-1013929765-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [216.115.97.166] by n23.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Feb 2002 07:09:25 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 17 Feb 2002 07:09:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 29069 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2002 07:09:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Feb 2002 07:09:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.72.152) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Feb 2002 07:09:24 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1H79WJ03391 for iwar@onelist.com; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:09:32 -0800
Message-Id: <200202170709.g1H79WJ03391@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:09:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:U.S..Tightening.Rules.on.Keeping.Scientific.Secrets]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

U.S. Tightening Rules on Keeping Scientific Secrets U.S. Tightening Rules on Keeping Scientific Secrets
Sat Feb 16, 2:59 PM ET

By WILLIAM J. BROAD The New York Times

The Bush administration is taking wide measures to tighten scientific
secrecy in the hope of keeping weapons of mass destruction out of unfriendly
hands. 

    Last month, it began quietly withdrawing from public release more than
6,600 technical documents that deal mainly with the production of germ and
chemical weapons. It is also drafting a new information security policy, to
be released in the next few weeks, that officials say will result in more
documents' being withdrawn. It is asking scientific societies to limit what
they publish in research reports.

"We're working hard for a set of guidelines so terrorists can't use
information that this country produces against us," Tom Ridge, the director
of homeland security, said in an interview. "This will have to be a dynamic
process." He added that scientists were being closely consulted on any new
guidelines. 

But critics say the most extreme steps proposed could make it impossible for
scientists to assess and replicate the work of their colleagues, eroding the
foundations of American science. They fear that government officials eager
for the protections of secrecy will overlook how open research on dangerous
substances can produce a wealth of cures, disease antidotes and surprise
discoveries.

"It comes down to a risk-benefit ratio," said Robert R. Rich, president of
the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. "I think the
risk of forgone advances is much greater than the information getting into
the wrong hands." 

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. Experts say the sweeping withdrawal has few if any precedents.

R. Paul Ryan, deputy administrator of the federal Defense Technical
Information Center, the Pentagon agency that has custody of the reports,
said panels of scientific experts would be assembled to see whether the
documents should once again be made available to the public or perhaps
reclassified as state secrets.

The expert panels, he said, will determine "if we need major, minor or no
revisions" to security guidelines.

Mr. Ryan added that he did not know when such deliberations might be
completed or decisions made over the fate of the 6,600 withdrawn documents.

Since Sept. 11, the administration has sought to clamp down on the flow of
information on several fronts. In October, for example, Attorney General
John Ashcroft told federal officials that the Justice Department would
support them if they resisted freedom-of-information requests. But science
has now become the leading edge of the crackdown.

For instance, the White House has asked the American Society of
Microbiology, the world's largest group of germ professionals, based in
Washington, to limit potentially dangerous information in the 11 journals it
publishes, including Infection and Immunity, The Journal of Bacteriology and
The Journal of Virology.

One White House proposal is to eliminate the sections of articles that give
experimental details researchers from other laboratories would need to
replicate the claimed results, helping to prove their validity.

"That takes apart the whole foundation of science," Ronald M. Atlas,
president-elect of the society, said of omitting methods. "I've made it
reasonably clear that we would object to anything that smacked of
censorship. They're discussing it, and I wouldn't rule out them doing
something."

He added that he was surprised by the number of his colleagues in academia
who seemed willing to discuss publishing limits. "I think it undermines
science," he said. 

Abigail Salyers, the society's president, offered a more pointed rebuff.
"Terrorism feeds on fear, and fear feeds on ignorance," she said in a
statement to appear in the March issue of the group's magazine. The best
defense against anthrax or any infectious disease, Dr. Salyers added, is
information that can bolster public safety.

Experts say such issues are being debated at the National Academy of
Sciences, which advises the federal government.

Mr. Ridge said the critics were overreacting. "I can understand their
concern, but I'm not sure the alarm bells should be rung just yet," he said.

"Let's first do the work" of producing the new guidelines, Mr. Ridge said.
He added that the scientists "have to remember what we're up against":
terrorism with exotic weapons that could maim or kill millions of people.

Scientists and the White House have clashed before over the flow of
scientific information. In 1982, the Reagan administration, eager to thwart
Soviet spies, blocked the presentation of about 100 unclassified scientific
papers at an international symposium on optical engineering in San Diego.
The move was loudly protested, and the administration soon dropped such
restraints. 

Last fall, after five people died from anthrax spores contained in letters,
a new debate arose over the need for curbs on information and materials that
terrorists could use to make weapons that are especially deadly. The main
worries centered on lethal germs, chemicals and radioactivity.

The Bush administration, already a strong advocate of federal secrecy,
quickly pulled much information on arms and national vulnerabilities from
government Web sites. But to the astonishment of many experts, it continued
to permit the sale of old federal documents that detailed the government's
research on and production of biological weapons. The work was done between
1943 and 1969 and was later renounced as Washington pressed for a global ban
on such weapons. 

This year, critics called with new urgency for such reports to be locked up.
"It's just plain stupid to be making this kind of sensitive information so
readily available," The Sun-Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., editorialized
last month.

Late last month the administration began withdrawing the documents from
sale, officials said. Researchers stumbled upon the gaps while trying to
obtain reports from the National Technical Information Service, an arm of
the Commerce Department in Springfield, Va., that sells military and other
kinds of federal documents.

"It's amazing," said Matthew Lesko, the author of more than 100 books based
on federal information. "Everything that's being asked for is classified."
He added that the government might be overreacting. "If it's been out there
for 40 and 50 years," he asked, "how are they going to stop it?"

Cheryl Mendonsa, a spokeswoman for the Commerce Department, said that 6,619
documents had been pulled from circulation as of Thursday and that the
figure would rise as new candidates were identified for security review.
"The process is ongoing," she said.

After requesting a withdrawn document, visitors to the service's Web site
see the message: "Selected product is not available for online ordering."

Current federal policy generally bars the reclassification of formerly
secret documents, but the Bush administration is considering an executive
order that would permit it.

Steven Garfinkel, who recently stepped down as director of the government's
Information Security Oversight Office, said the scale of the withdrawal was
large by historical standards and unusual because all the documents were
already in the public domain. He added that attempts to obtain the reports
would still be possible under the Freedom of Information Act, but that
"purposeful delays" would be likely until federal officials decided on the
new classification levels.

Dr. Atlas of the American Society of Microbiology, who is a dean at the
University of Louisville, said he was skeptical of the recall's merit.
"Either the reports crossed a line they shouldn't have," he said, "or
they've just removed information that would help the advancement of
science."

Dr. Rich of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
who is a dean at the medical school of Emory University, was more
supportive. Papers about making weapons of mass destruction, he said, should
be promptly removed from public circulation.

But Dr. Rich cautioned that the benefits of basic research far outweighed
any risks. He cited an example. Publishing an article on the bioengineering
of viruses related to smallpox might look dangerous, he said. But such open
research could greatly advance work on vaccines meant to battle a variety of
ills.

"There is very little that comes out of university labs that could
conceivably be considered sensitive," he said.

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-12-31 02:15:03 PST