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

From: e.r. (fastflyer28@yahoo.com)
Date: 2002-02-17 22:36:14
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [NewsBits] NewsBits - 02/15/02 (fwd)"
Previous message: e.r.: "[iwar] Re: [iwar)Singers started whining, but software makers loose too"
In reply to: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:U.S..Tightening.Rules.on.Keeping.Scientific.Secrets]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-ID: <20020218063614.80676.qmail@web14504.mail.yahoo.com>
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <200202170709.g1H79WJ03391@red.all.net>
From: "e.r." <fastflyer28@yahoo.com>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:36:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [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

This sounds like Retro-Reagan 1982.  His admin did some of the same
things, but for different reasons- making sure we had no "Moles" in. 
What Bush plans to do will have some similar impact. Next, it appears
Iraq comes after Afghanistan.  The nearly laughing matter was in 1982,
we have several apparently US agents working for the Russians. 1985 was
called the "Year of the Spy".  That is because the FBI finally has
caught up with Walker and Withworth and MI5, Pelton.  Concerning the
increasing drum beat on Iraq, it worries me.  Bush interests seem to
first and foremost,right all of the wrongs of his father administration
and just in running, kick around Bill and Al for not giving "Poppy"
Bush a second term. The guy who was given the Presidency by the
"Supremes" has some strange tenancies.  And, by putting the tightening
scientific secrecy high on the list after the last few presidents
wanted to share news with some nations is a bit odd. Given the
strategic world shifts in the past 10 years alone, it does make one
wonder.  As the saying goes, "if we don't give it to them, the French
will". 

--- Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> wrote:
> 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.
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company - FREE
Guide from industry leader VeriSign gives you all the facts.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pCuuSA/WdiDAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [NewsBits] NewsBits - 02/15/02 (fwd)"
Previous message: e.r.: "[iwar] Re: [iwar)Singers started whining, but software makers loose too"
In reply to: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:U.S..Tightening.Rules.on.Keeping.Scientific.Secrets]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-12-31 02:15:03 PST