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

[Paola Di Maio]

Thomas

following my post

here is the link to an example of sometimes it is necessary to break
the law, if the cause
justifies it http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/nyregion/03life.html?_r=0

According to the law, Mr Autrey should have been fined for jumping
into the railway but , on this occasion, the transport authorities
seemed to be intelligent about interpreting the law.

P


On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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