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

[Paola Di Maio]

Thank you Thomas

I think part of this thread, however sensitive, are important to open science

Let me just pick on a couple of points


> Many people may well be interested in both, but they are separate ideals.

nooooo, they are not separate. you may see them as separate, and i
respect your view
but that's just the way you are looking at them (or the particular
lens you are using) that makes them separate

> This is not a black and white matter - it's perfectly possible to be in
> favour of open access without thinking that all knowledge everywhere must be
> public.

sure, and the contrary is also true (that it is perfectly possible to
be in favour of open access
AND thinking that knowledge related to public life of a country should
be disclosed to the public)
>
>
> For example, my take on the information released by Bradley Mannings is that
> much (but not all) of it should have been public in the first place, but I'm
> not sure Mannings was justified in breaking the laws of his country to
> release it, but I don't think that the response to it was morally justified.

This is a very important issue, at the heart of a lot of discussions
about ethics.

Let me give an analogous example in relation to disaster management .
To save the life of the guy which has fallen in the undeground
railways, the experienced
war veteran had to break the law that says 'do not cross the railways'
In breaking the law, this man saves a life

Bradley may have broken the law, for a much bigger, higher and important
goal: opening the eyes of the american people and of the world as to
the system that governs them.

You want to judge Bradley?  I dont know any law , written by humans, capable of
judging such an act of courage.


> My point is that I'm here for open science, not open
> everything.

my point is: science CONCERNS everything, nothing excluded, although I accept
scientists like to partition reality in different ways suitable to them


>
>
> To be clear, what I described as a big conclusion was your suggestion that
> the justice systems of multiple countries can be manipulated to serve
> specific interests.

Here's is a timeline that to me shows clearly how the corrupt justice
system in Sweden and the UK are colluding to ruin a whistleblower
using arbitrary arguments, without having to be just nor justified. I
do not have a problem if you interpret the facts in this timelinein
another way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341