[open-science] open access perils? (#RIP @aaronscwarz)

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Thomas Kluyver <takowl at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 January 2013 15:25, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> i'd say if we do not keep count of how many people are marginalised
>> for doing REAL work in the front line
>> we are definitely not being scientific nor seeking truth about what is
>> happening in reality in relation to OA....
>
>
> I can see where you're going with it, but I feel that making this sort of
> 'martyrs list' almost canonizes the people on it. That's a dangerous game to
> play.
>
> Also, not everyone agrees about what should be open - this list is about
> openness in science, and of the three names you give, only Swartz was
> handling scientific knowledge. That I support open access to scientific
> research doesn't automatically imply that I support disclosure of political
> information through Wikileaks.
>
> Finally, we are usually careful to work within the law, trying to get it
> changed where we think it is unjust. Civil disobedience has its place in
> changing the law, but we may not all agree on what actions are justifiable.
>
>>
>> SIDENOTE I do not want to go into specifics here
>> however please note that there was no rape charge raised in the case
>> of Assange before the wikileaks case was made against him. this could
>> possibly mean that the entire international legal system can be
>> manipulated ...
>
>
> That's a very big conclusion to draw from very little evidence. The publicly
> available facts are simply insufficient to say whether the charges against
> him in Sweden are genuine.

A friend of mine used to be a butcher.   He and a rancher would drive
out to the cows, and separate one off to be shot.  The other cows did
not seem very interested, they just kept chewing.  It is not us today.

I don't think you'd have to look too hard to see this reaction to a
wide variety of past state injustice or persecution.   I'd encourage
you to watch 'The most dangerous man in America' if you have not
already, but I am sure you can think of some events yourself.

Of course, the various state departments would much rather we discuss
and despair of the details of the Assange rape case than step back and
look in overview at the various weapons used against Wikileaks prior
to that.    Likewise, I am sure that those motivated to prosecute
Aaron Swartz would rather we express suitable sorrow at a 'troubled
young man' or some other such slander.

The problem with the implication that it always goes well, is that it
is so astonishing and then invisible to others, when it goes badly.
I think Paola is right - these things may take courage. If we give the
naive belief that we'll be treated fairly by opposing interests, it
weakens rather than strengthens the - sorry I will use this word -
cause.

Best,

Matthew