[open-science] Sometimes the greater good is in NOT releasing the information

Thu Feb 28 22:54:22 UTC 2013

Forwarding from the civicaccess.ca list. Note that Glen Newton is an  
advocate of open data..

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen Newton <glen.newton at gmail.com>
> Date: February 28, 2013 3:51:20 AM PST (CA)
> To: civicaccess discuss <civicaccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca>
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] The case for context in defining  
> Open Data
> Reply-To: civicaccess discuss <civicaccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca>
>
> A less politicised (and arguable clearer) example than the Weenusk one
> is one from the area of biological conservation: the release of the
> location of populations of new or threatened species can have huge
> negative impacts on the species in question. Depending on the
> "sexiness" of the species (rare orchids, or newly discovered primates,
> for example) to the public (and by extension, poachers), the
> publication of the location of these organisms can lead to their
> reduction or extinction, and have significant negative impact on their
> environment.
>
> Few would disagree with the need to withhold or generalize this data,
> seeing that the cost of releasing it far outweighs the benefit. The
> dominant policy now is to not release the location to the public, but
> researchers will often communicate the information to other
> researchers when it is requested.
> Keeping it out of the public (read: "poachers") hands in this case is
> acceptable.
> _Even_ if the public funded the research. The greater public good is
> in _not_ releasing this information.
>
> See also:
> - "Should the location of newly discovered species be hidden?"
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17386764
> - "Newly discovered slow loris species already threatened"
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/newly-discovered-slow-loris-species-borneo
> - "Rare Species Are Valued Big Time"
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005215
> - "Endangering the endangered: The effects of perceived rarity on
> species exploitation"
> http://129.175.106.17/epc/conservation/PDFs/Endangering.pdf
>
> -Glen
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:11 PM, michael gurstein  
> <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Russell and all,
>>
>> I'm not directly familiar with the Winusk case but I am a bit  
>> familiar with
>> indigenous knowledge issues overall and I think the question there  
>> may be
>> found in different approaches to the matter of what is being made  
>> "open".
>> The simplified definitions are that "data in context" is  
>> "information" and
>> that "information with a purpose" is "knowledge"... For the Winusk  
>> as for
>> many indigenous peoples what others might take as "data" concerning  
>> specific
>> physical features of the land because of their particular intense
>> involvement with specific land areas becomes "information" and what  
>> for
>> others might be generalized and neutral "information" about  
>> particular
>> features of the land, for them would become "knowledge" concerning  
>> for
>> example supportive of hunting/fishing, spiritually related landmarks
>> etc.etc.
>>
>> Many indigenous peoples are extremely protective of their "indigenous
>> knowledge" for precisely those reasons since that knowledge is  
>> their way of
>> living with their land.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: civicaccess-discuss-bounces at civicaccess.ca
>> [mailto:civicaccess-discuss-bounces at civicaccess.ca] On Behalf Of  
>> Russell
>> McOrmond
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:15 PM
>> To: civicaccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] The case for context in defining  
>> Open
>> Data
>>
>>
>> On 13-02-26 01:58 PM, Ted Strauss wrote:
>>> For those who couldn't access the link, the post is up at:
>>> http://blog.trudat.co/the-case-for-context/
>>
>>  I'll suggest this same conversation happened in the Free Software  
>> movement
>> decades ago, even before the term "open source" was coined, and I'm
>> skeptical the "open data" movement is all that different.  It is  
>> good to
>> have these conversations, but hopefully the "open data" movement  
>> will learn
>> from the more senior Free Software movement.
>>
>>
>>
>>  When you move beyond making data or software able to be  
>> collaborated with
>> a greater audience you will always run into political disagreements  
>> about
>> wanting this software/data to only be used for "good" and not "bad"  
>> things.
>> You then quickly find out that we do *NOT* all agree on what "good"  
>> or "bad"
>> means, and that as soon as we engage in these conversations to  
>> limit "bad"
>> uses any ability to collaborate breaks down.
>>
>>  In the FLOSS movement you have people collaborating on the  
>> creation of
>> multi-purpose software who often have strongly opposing ideas of  
>> what a
>> "good" use of software is.  The fact that software could be used  
>> for a "bad"
>> purpose, as personally defined by one of the participants, must be  
>> ignored
>> in order for the collaboration and software to exist in the first  
>> place.
>>
>>  Thus I reject the idea that we should look at opening as being  
>> related "to
>> achieve one's goals in the context of a particular situation" given
>> collaboration will happen between diverse (and sometimes strongly
>> opposing) goals and be used in diverse contexts.  To focus on these  
>> things
>> will only slow down or cease the opening of the software/data,  
>> pushing
>> software/data towards the alternative.
>>
>>  The alternative is that the only software that gets written or  
>> data that
>> is collected is controlled by proprietary suppliers, with the  
>> software/data
>> benefiting the interests of those suppliers and not any larger  
>> public(s).
>> In my mind, no matter what your particular personal goals may be,  
>> this is a
>> bad outcome for anyone who isn't that supplier.
>>
>>
>>  The Weenusk First Nation is worried that if mapping data about their
>> land is made more widely known, then this will harm them.   This  
>> ignores
>> the fact that the data is likely already commercially available to  
>> mining
>> companies, so it isn't like this is going to make the land any more  
>> open to
>> that type of exploitation than it was before.  Even if the government
>> refused to sell to commercial entities (a highly unlikely scenario  
>> in the
>> current political climate), those with the greatest financial  
>> incentives may
>> do their own proprietary mapping which will serve their proprietary
>> interests.
>>
>>
>>  What opening data does is make the data available to *others*.   
>> Those
>> *others* can put the data to what the WFN considers "good" purposes  
>> or "bad"
>> purposes, but given mining is one of the greatest concerns  
>> expressed (and
>> they already have the data) it seems to reason that the potential  
>> new (and
>> as yet possibly unimagined) "good" uses the data can be put to is  
>> likely
>> going to outweigh the "bad".
>>
>>  I've said this already, but I strongly believe WFN's concerns about
>> mapping date being more widely published is misplaced -- if  
>> anything, less
>> access to data for potentially "good" purposes will harm WFN's  
>> ultimate
>> interests.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>   
>> Please help
>> us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property  rights as  
>> owners of
>> Information Technology. Sign the petition!
>> http://l.c11.ca/ict
>>
>> "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
>>  manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
>>  portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> -
> http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/
> -
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss