From Ars Technica: Researchers boycott publisher; will they embrace instant publishing?

Interesting…

=====================================================

Many scientists were miffed by the introduction of the Research Works Act, which would roll back the US government’s open access policy for research it funds. Some of that annoyance was directed toward the commercial publishers that were supporting the bill. That, combined with a series of grievances about the pricing policies of one publisher, Elsevier, has now led a number of scientists to start a boycott—they won’t publish in or review for journals from that publisher.

At the moment, the site where the academics are organizing the boycott is down, but the signatories were heavily biased towards math and the physical sciences.

This wasn’t the only news from the publishing world, however. The Faculty of 1000 is a site that organizes what’s been termed “post-publication peer review.” Instead of reviewing publications prior to their being published, the Faculty of 1000 comments on papers in their areas of research after they’ve been published, adding an additional layer of quality and sanity checking (something that, unfortunately, is often needed).

Read the rest of this article...

 

from Ars Technica

From Engadget: Hawaii’s proposed online tracking law comes under fire from ISPs, civil libertarians

There may be some trouble brewing in paradise, thanks to a seemingly draconian law currently under consideration in Hawaii’s state legislature. If passed, H.B. 2288 would require all ISPs within the state to track and store information on their customers, including details on every website they visit, as well as their own names and addresses. The measure, introduced on Friday, also calls for this information to be recorded on each customer’s digital file and stored for a full two years. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the bill includes virtually no restrictions on how ISPs can use (read: “sell”) this information, nor does it specify whether law enforcement authorities would need a court order to obtain a user’s dossier from an ISP. And, because it applies to any firm that “provides access to the Internet,” the law could conceivably be expanded to include not just service providers, but internet cafes, hotels or other businesses.Democratic Representative John Mizuno is the lead sponsor of the bill, though his support already seems to be waning. Not long after H.B. 2288 was introduced, Republican Representative Kymberly Pine told CNET that she would be withdrawing her support for it, adding that her intent was not to track Hawaiian web surfing, but to simply protect “victims of crime.” “We do not want to know where everyone goes on the Internet,” Pine explained. “That’s not our interest. We just want the ability for law enforcement to be able to capture the activities of crime.” Pine went on to acknowledge that the proposal has come under fire from many civil libertarians and internet companies within the state, and that the measure will likely be revised. In retrospect, she said, the concept of storing personal information “was a little broad,” and Hawaii’s lawmakers “deserved” the criticism they received during today’s hearing.

from Engadget

From Popular Science – New Technology, Science News, The Future Now: The Moon Should Be the 51st State, and Other Space Dreams From Newt Gingrich

As crazy as Gingrich is (not to mention how much I dislike him as a person and as a politician), this is one thing he has right… too bad I can’t vote for him even if this big issue is what I share in vision…
========================================================================================

Newt Gingrich Gage Skidmore via Flickr

At the sunset of Newt Gingrich’s putative presidency, the moon would be the 51st state, colonized by permanent American settlers. Tourists would honeymoon in low-Earth orbit, space factories would manufacture goods in microgravity, and America would have a rocket powerful enough to send us to Mars.

This is all according to a discussion Gingrich hosted Wednesday in Florida, which holds its presidential primary next Tuesday and which lost thousands of jobs as the space shuttle program drew to a close last year. But this is Gingrich talking, so it’s safe to say this isn’t all politics. A self-professed space nut and fan of science, Gingrich has dreamt of a lunar colony for decades. Even if this dream is inherently irrational:

“The reason you have to have a bold and large vision is you don’t arouse the American nation with trivial, bureaucratically rational objectives,” Gingrich said.

It’s odd for a politician to trump his own ideas as grandiose and not rational. But hey, going back to the moon sure fires up the patriots! So America’s space goals are once again a political football – one, incidentally, that seems to rev up Republicans more than it does Democrats. Gingrich has a long list of space dreams, which we’ll get to in a minute. But this debate brings to light an interesting volley since the Reagan administration, between Democratic presidents who seem not to really dwell on America’s space ambitions and Republican presidents (and would-be presidents) who just love the idea of Americans on the moon.

Dubbing himself a “visionary” for his space plans, the former House speaker and GOP presidential hopeful compared himself to John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and the Wright brothers. But he didn’t compare himself to another conservative Republican, George W. Bush, who also wanted the U.S. to go back to the moon as a launch pad for Mars. His new vision was gestated in the wake of the Columbia disaster, and centered on the retirement of the aging shuttles, but it also sought a more ambitious future for the space agency. The Constellation program never really got off the ground, however, and critics found plenty of faults.

But contrast this with Bill Clinton’s presidency. While he was in the Oval Office, the U.S. partnered with Russia to build the International Space Station – certainly a major achievement, but it was arguably more impressive for its geopolitics than its science scope. Both countries already had space stations before, and the ISS took way more time and money to build than anyone had anticipated. Otherwise, Clinton apparently didn’t have much to say about the space program, even in his autobiography “My Life.”

Then, a while after taking office and organizing a blue-ribbon NASA review commission, President Obama harrumphed at the idea of returning to the moon – “we’ve been there before,” he famously said – and charted a bumpy course for a future NASA that will eventually visit an asteroid and someday Mars.

Now Gingrich has set his sights back on our natural satellite, with a much tighter timeline. But there is one catch – he favors private development, not necessarily NASA leadership.

As Charles Houmans notes in Foreign Policy, the space program presents a conundrum for dedicated conservatives. It’s the most unassailably awesome achievement in American history, and as such it’s fertile ground for jingoists. But it’s also plagued by huge federal spending overruns, a risk-averse bureaucracy and – let us not forget – scientists, whose findings do not always comport with the conservative worldview. Gingrich seems able to toe this boundary carefully, coupling his love of science and space with his free-market beliefs.

In a debate earlier this week, he said privately funded prizes spurred Charles Lindbergh and Burt Rutan to reach new milestones, and private incentives could do the same for lunar settlement and Mars exploration.

For his part, his rival Mitt Romney has been a little more vague and a little more NASA-centric, discussing a space agency with more partnerships with universities and commercial enterprises.

Wednesday’s talk is just the latest in a long list of Gingrich’s space ideas, some of which are wackier than others. In 1981 he sponsored an unsuccessful bill called the National Space and Aeronautics Policy Act, which set forth “provisions for the government of space territories, including constitutional protections, the right to self-government and admission to statehood,” the New York Times reported in 1995. He proposed a lunar mirror network that would illuminate highways and dark alleyways. He envisions space factories creating new opportunities for the unemployed.

“If we’d spent as much on space as we’ve spent on farm programs, we could have taken all the extra farmers and put them on space stations working for a living … in orbiting factories,” he told a science fiction convention in 1986.

But other predictions and desires have borne out. A quarter-century ago he said “space tourism is coming,” predicting Hiltons and Marriotts of the solar system. There are no space hotels yet, but space tourism is likely just around the corner.

So does anyone really think a president Gingrich would set up a successful moon base? Not really, especially given this country’s economic situation and (depending on whose hyperbole you believe) debt crisis. Gingrich has given no indications of how he’d pay for it, incentives or otherwise, and the details are sparse. And most of the reaction from space observers has been tepid at best.

Space policy expert John Logsdon, professor emeritus at George Washington University, called it a “fantasy,” according to Space.com. “It would be much better to set realistic goals, but that is not Mr. Gingrich’s strong suit,” he said.

But you can hand Gingrich one thing: At least he’s talking about American leadership in space, something that’s been sorely lacking of late. Maybe his grandiose visions will start a real conversation.

from Popular Science – New Technology, Science News, The Future Now

From Popular Science – New Technology, Science News, The Future Now: Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Decrypt Personal Data – What Does That Mean For You?

Bringing a Laptop Into the Light Uwe Hermann via Flickr

In the data age, pretty much nobody stores sensitive information under physical lock and key. Whether it’s in Dropbox, Megaupload, a hard drive or an SD card, our confidential records are stored in ones and zeroes protected by encryption software.

So what happens when that data becomes evidence in a criminal trial, but because of your careful data husbandry, the government can’t access it? You may be required to decrypt it for them, handing over access to personal records that might incriminate you. That’s one vision of the future of personal data under a ruling by a federal judge in Colorado. It’s a case that could bring the Fifth Amendment, and its protection against self-incrimination, firmly into the digital age.

Ramona Fricosu, who lives in rural southeastern Colorado, was indicted a year and a half ago on suspicion of mortgage-related bank fraud. Authorities seized several computers from her home, at least two of which were encrypted, according to her lawyer, Phil Dubois. One encrypted machine was already unlocked when it was seized, its records freely accessible, but another was protected with a password.

Federal prosecutors sought a court order to force Fricosu to decrypt that laptop, allowing them access to documents that they argue could be crucial evidence in their case against her. U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn issued that order Monday.

“If the government is permitted to get orders compelling us to decrypt our drives, we are headed down a very bad road.”“If the government is permitted to get orders compelling us to decrypt our drives, not only to investigate but prosecute us, we are headed down a very bad road,” said Dubois, who is filing an appeal.

Prosecutors contend that failing to compel a defendant to provide access is tantamount to letting them get away with crimes, so long as they use tough enough encryption keys to hide their records. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Denver said attorneys couldn’t comment on an ongoing matter, but he referred to pleadings in the case, which outline the DOJ’s argument: “Failing to compel Ms. Fricosu amounts to a concession to her and potential criminals (be it in child exploitation, national security, terrorism, financial crimes or drug trafficking cases) that encrypting all inculpatory digital evidence will serve to defeat the efforts of law enforcement officers to obtain such evidence through judicially authorized search warrants, and thus make their prosecution impossible.”

But civil libertarians and information-freedom advocates say this flouts the Fifth Amendment, which protects Americans against unwillingly incriminating themselves.

“The Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination is not necessarily a right to prevent you from giving bad things over to the government, but you are protected from disclosing your thoughts,” said Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in this case. “We argued that providing access to the contents is the equivalent to her ‘emptying the thoughts of her mind,’ because it would require her password.”

Blackburn’s ruling is pretty limited to the facts of this case, and it also skirts one of the main constitutional questions surrounding cases like this. The order stipulates that if the government finds anything on Fricosu’s computer and uses it against her at trial, they can’t use the act of turning it over against her. That seems to meet the self-incrimination standard in the Fifth Amendment. The ruling compels Fricosu to decrypt the hard drive by Feb. 21, but Dubois said he is seeking a stay of execution on the order while he files a motion with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The computer, a Toshiba laptop, was encrypted with Symantec software called PGP Desktop (for Pretty Good Privacy), Dubois said. (Incidentally, he previously represented PGP’s creator, Phil Zimmermann, several years ago.) Were it protected by the lightweight protection built into Windows, government software and IT workers could have bypassed it and accessed the contents. They must follow certain evidentiary standards, but by and large, the government can do what it needs to do to access records on a seized device. But PGP’s secure whole-disk encryption is another thing entirely, and there’s no way to breach that wall without the key, Dubois said.

He wishes more people would use it, not just to stymie prosecutors, but to protect themselves against fraud and invasion of privacy. “But if we do, the government will more often be confronted with encrypted drives and media in general, and we’re going to see this over and over,” he said. “It’s always the case that the law lags behind technology, and it should … but it still has to recognize technology at some point, that this is the situation we have now, that’s different from what we had 40 years ago or 20.”

Fakhoury said the ruling’s narrow scope means he doesn’t consider it a watershed moment in information-related jurisprudence. But he agreed he expects to see many more cases like this in the future, as encryption becomes easier and more common. Appellate courts and even the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve it, he said.

“It is a case that prosecutors are going to use when arguing you can compel a defendant to do this. I think this is the beginning of a long fight ahead, until it gets resolved,” he said.

from Popular Science – New Technology, Science News, The Future Now