Jed, I think you and Steve miss the main issue here. The discussions
held on CMNS are not secret, but are private. Suppose I invite a
group to my house to discuss cold fusion with the understanding that
the discussion would not be made public. Would it be right for an
uninvited person to learn what was said and print this in the
newspaper? Privacy is valued and respected in this country as much as
freedom of the press. How does a person protect privacy on the
internet? The kind of secrecy that Steve objects to as a journalist
is that which leads to policy or decisions that affect the general
public. I agree with Steve when this is the issue. A private
discussion between random colleagues does not have this
characteristic. We are not setting or implementing policy. Our intent
is to discuss science that is still poorly understood and perhaps
wrong without having the ideas taken out of context, as would be the
case if the information were made public. Is not this effort worth
protecting?
Ed
On Oct 3, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I think this dispute is overblown, and kind of silly on both sides.
I see no harm in Krivit discussing leaked messages. The messages do
not seem particularly important and I can't imagine why they are
secret in the first place.
On the other hand, the CMNS people can set any rules they want, and
their rules do not interfere with Krivit's freedom or anyone else's.
Steven Krivit wrote:
It is true that the CMNS list has a rule about secrecy. However,
this rule is unjust and ill-founded.
I think it is ill-founded, but I see nothing unjust about it. They
can have any rules they like.
The CMNS list secrecy rule is a constraint on my personal civil
liberties as well as an obstruction of free press.
Nonsense. It is does not constrain your liberties. You don't have to
be a member.
As you can tell, the people (not just one) who are leaking list
messages to me . . .
In that case, McKubre should be upset with those people, not with
Krivit.
. . . do not believe that it is in the best interests of this
scientific society to be secretive. I, and perhaps they too, do
not believe it is in the best interests for people who are
providing information to this community via the CMNS list be
shielded from the media spotlight.
I agree that secrecy is not in the best interests of the scientific
society. That's why I quit CMNS. But it is for them to decide.
People are allowed to act contrary to their own interests.
Free speech and the freedom of the press are fundamental values in
a democratic society. Even people in the U.S. government are
subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
That is because it is the government. That has nothing to do with
private conversations.
- Jed
