bruce@haddock.UUCP (05/22/85)
/* Written 2:44 pm Apr 85, 19783 by larry@anasazi in haddock:net.research */ > The problem is apparently that people do not want to expend the effort > that it would take to fight the encroaching bureaucracy. By letting > bullies push one around, one just makes it worse in the future. > > Expect the day when you can't say "2+2=4" for fear that some foreign > power may be able to use that knowledge. The IEEE has also had papers removed from conferences by the DoD. In these cases it was because some or all of the funding for the research was from the DoD, and the authors of the papers hadnot gone through the proper channels to get there paper cleared. I believe that this is also the case in the other examples. If anybody has heard of the DoD supressing a research paper when the author received no funding from the DoD please post this story to the net. -- Larry Rodis UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!larry ucbvax!asuvax!anasazi!larry PHONE: +1 (602)275-0302 /* End of text from haddock:net.research */
mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz) (05/24/85)
In article <20100001@haddock.UUCP> bruce@haddock.UUCP writes: > >If anybody has heard of the DoD supressing a research paper when the author >received no funding from the DoD please post this story to the net. > It was my impression that the papers pulled from the recent Optics meeting were not DoD sponsored. Does anyone know for certain? -- Mike Lutz Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY UUCP: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjl CSNET: mjl%rit@csnet-relay.ARPA
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (05/24/85)
In article <20100001@haddock.UUCP> bruce@haddock.UUCP writes: >If anybody has heard of the DoD supressing a research paper when the author >received no funding from the DoD please post this story to the net. There are many famous stories involving cryptographic papers and NSA - but it is arguable whether NSA is part of DoD. FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems UUCP: {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd!cae780!gordon {nsc, resonex, qubix, hplabs, leadsv, teklds}!cae780!gordon
earlw@pesnta.UUCP (Earl Wallace ) (05/24/85)
Dod and NSA are like the police and they have a job to do, they get paid to prevent dissemination of research information. They have a tough life trying to keep us all in the dark, maybe someday they will achieve the goal of making most of us "dummies" and then we can spend our time walking the streets like zommies and drinking lots of booze. The few people who are allowed to view (and use) the research material will have a heavy burden on their shoulders; they alone will have to solve the all problems of the World. The rest of us will have nothing to do.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (05/26/85)
> There are many famous stories involving cryptographic papers and NSA - but > it is arguable whether NSA is part of DoD. As I recall it, if you look at the official organization chart, there is not much doubt. The head of NSA reports to one of the people near the top of DoD. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
sra@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson) (05/27/85)
In article <89@ritcv.UUCP> mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz) writes: >It was my impression that the papers pulled from the recent Optics >meeting were not DoD sponsored. Does anyone know for certain? According to Science April 26 p. 471, "Virtially all of the 43 contested papers were produced by Defense Department scientists or researchers working for defense contractors. All were required to submit their papers for clearance before presentation." Also, "only one of the papers had academic authors and none was derived from basic research." It does not appear that DoD has done anything here that was not specifically written into the funding contracts, although the magnitude of this incident has many people worried about just how far DoD can go to suppress scientific information and get away with it. The Administration line is that research will not be subject to restrictions if it is basic research, or on-campus applied research unless "there is a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems, or of manufacturing technologies unique and critical to defense." In any case, I think that everything the military does should be watched like a hawk (:-). Scott Anderson ihnp4!oddjob!sra
dar@telesoft.UUCP (David Reisner @shine) (05/28/85)
> In article <20100001@haddock.UUCP> bruce@haddock.UUCP writes: > >If anybody has heard of the DoD supressing a research paper when the author > >received no funding from the DoD please post this story to the net. The most recent edition of the IEEE 'newspaper' has a story about a conference where the DoD prevented publication of a number of papers, and also required some type of 'nondisclosure agreement' for a conference session. Unfortunately, the details are at home with my copy of the newsletter. -David sdcsvax!telesoft!dar
wilde@apollo.uucp (Scott Wilde) (05/29/85)
>> There are many famous stories involving cryptographic papers and NSA - but >> it is arguable whether NSA is part of DoD. > >As I recall it, if you look at the official organization chart, there is >not much doubt. The head of NSA reports to one of the people near the >top of DoD. As best as I can recall, although the NSA may be nominally responsible to the DoD, they pretty much do as they please ( Sort of like the IRS :-) ). Not that it affects the end result, since the NSA is more paranoid than the DoD ever thought of being. Scott Wilde ...!decvax!wanginst!apollo!wilde
dar@telesoft.UUCP (David Reisner @shine) (05/30/85)
In article <20100001@haddock.UUCP> bruce@haddock.UUCP writes: >If anybody has heard of the DoD supressing a research paper when the author >received no funding from the DoD please post this story to the net. I have more data on the IEEE incident. In "The Institute", Volume 9, Number 6, June 1985, there is a front page story titled 'DOD uses new rules to control optics group'. The first 'half' of this articles follows: U.S. Department of Defense restrictions on the presentation of unclassified papers at an optics conference in April has raised concern among IEEE members that new DOD regulations will hamper IEEE technical activities. The last-minute restrictions were placed on the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Technical Symposium East '85, held April 8-12 in Arlington, Va. It was the first time that the DOD used new powers it was granted under the Defense Authority Act, signed into law Nov. 6, 1984, to control a technical conference rather than internal DOD activities, according to a DOD spokesman. Under the DOD orders, 16 SPIE papers were deleted from the program and 23 papers could be presented only in closed sessions, according to R. Barry Johnson, chairman of the SPIE Symposia Planning Committee. He said that attendees of closed sessions had to sign a certificate stating that they understand that public disclosure of the information is prohibited and its export may be prosecuted under export-control laws. Johnson said the two major closed sessions were on synthetic- aperture optical systems and adaptive optics, which are both related to space-based technology proposed for the Strategic Defense Initiative. -David sdcsvax!telesoft!dar
bhaskar@fluke.UUCP (K.S. Bhaskar) (05/31/85)
Well, no doubt DoD has the right, like any sponsor, to have a say in how the research is published, as long as the conditions are agreed to beforehand. The REAL problem is that the overall funding for reasarch is increasingly channeled through DoD. Considering that the money is taken from the taxpayers in the first place, this practice is tantamount to censorship and coercion through legal channels. In the long run, clamping down on open communication in research will hurt us more than it hurts anyone else.
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (05/31/85)
With respect to the discussion of the Dod suppression of the optics conference (SPIE) papers: Lutz@ritcv replies to bruce@haddock: > It was my impression that the papers pulled from the recent Optics > meeting were not DoD sponsored. Does anyone know for certain? There is a fairly long article in the June 85 IEEE "Institute", which does not indicate whether the papers were DoD funded, but according to the article, it makes no difference under current law (the Defense Authority Act of 1984). The DOD can either classify papers which prevents them from being published at all, or it can require all present to sign non-disclosure agreements for non-classified papers deemed (by it) to be export-controlled. Evidently in the latter case, non citizens may hear the papers if the DoD grants permission. I suggest tracking down the article for further details.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/03/85)
> Johnson said the two major closed sessions were on synthetic- > aperture optical systems and adaptive optics, which are both > related to space-based technology proposed for the Strategic > Defense Initiative. Actually, this is subtly biased reporting, of the type "make DoD look bad by associating its actions in this case with a project that many people oppose". Synthetic-aperture optical systems and adaptive optics are of interest to DoD for many things, and SDI is only one of them. For example, it is said that adaptive optics are already flying on spy satellites, which even the most rabid space-militarization critics agree are a good thing. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry