So, if I understand you correctly, privacy has no rights in the US nor
on the internet. I'm not talking about secrets. This is a false
issue, a straw-man Steve created. I'm talking about being able to
discuss science without having to worry about whether parts of the
discussion will be extracted and used to make public pronouncements
that are not correct and not intended.
I agree, journalists are valuable when they reveal information that is
important for the public to know. Discussions on CMNS are not that
important. What is important is an expectation of not having to worry
about statements taken out of context or used for other purposes.
Steve wants the right to publish excerpts from these discussions.
Normally, a good journalist will honor a request that information not
be published or at least clarify what is to be published to be sure it
is complete and correct. I did not get the impression from Steve he is
willing to do this.
The issue is with Steve, not with people sending Steve copies of the
discussions. Steve would be welcome to join the list if he agreed not
to publish the information without permission. Instead, he resigns
from the list and then has someone else send the information to him.
This contrived arrangement does not change Steve's obligation to honor
the rules. In fact, such an arrangement is a more serious breach of
trust. Now the action becomes a conspiracy to avoid rules that Steve
finds inconvenient.
The basic issue is trust. Do we trust Steve or do we not trust him?
If not, as you say, such people are eventually frozen out.
Ed
On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
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?
It would be impolite, or ungentlemanly, as McKubre puts it. But not
morally wrong.
As long as the "uninvited" person is not trespassing, or wiretapping
your house, he has done nothing wrong. If you don't want uninvited
people to eavesdrop on your conversations, you should throw them out
of the house. In this case, you should expel people from the CMNS
list if you feel that strongly about it. I don't know how you would
track them down, but that's your problem. The classic method in
intelligence work (and Washington politics) is to spread different
versions of the story and see which one surfaces.
If one of your guests discusses the conversation with Krivit and he
publishes it, Krivit is annoying but less at fault. Your guest is
the main culprit. If I read what Krivit wrote, I discuss it with yet
another person I am several times removed and not at fault.
Privacy is valued and respected in this country as much as freedom
of the press. How does a person protect privacy on the internet?
You can't. Don't put things on the Internet that you want to keep
private. It is like posting them on a billboard in Times Square.
Never tell dozens of people something that you want to keep
confidential. Don't tell anyone! As they say in the Mafia, two
people can keep a secret if one of them is dead.
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?
I see absolutely no reason to protect it -- no benefit whatever.
Keeping it secret runs counter to the traditions of academic
science. On the contrary it seems to me that the more people you
bring into the conversation, the better. However if you want to
protect it that is certainly your right. It is also your right to
expel whoever it was that leaked the info to Krivit, if you can find
them. I think that would be a big fat waste of time, and a tempest
in a teacup, but it is your right to do it.
- Jed
