Hi there,
Thanks,
I think the German example is a good one itself to show what really is wrong
in Kai's concept ('secrecy')
he believes in so strongly: remember WW1 and WW2, genocides and beyond (e.g.
the STASI ?).
So one must fully disagree, be ashamed and embarrassed probably about
'secrecy' in such contexts.
Incredible to claim and defend it.
Anyways,
from my side, the main issue in this discussion here on Open Access,
metadata etc is that nations have already fully agreed to share data openly,
e.g. via Rio Convention CBD, Freedom of Information Act FOIA, and NSF
Cyberinfractructure, NIH,
best professional practices in the sciences, Berlin and Budapest
Declarations, ICSU, CODATA and so on...but, in reality, there is no real
buy-in, no award systems and a lot of known and purposeful violations
without consequences all over.
Defending secrecy has no place there; none at all.
That's the core of the discussion here, and 'modern' governments and
institutions essentially 'mis-leading' (I am not using the term 'lie'ing'
for now) the public at large using our own tax money for it even.
It's often plain cynical to talk about Open Access and such metadata.
By now, we see many, many (and I say MANY) of those problems all over.
If nations do not want to share, do not want open access, then why claiming
or pretending it ?
So far, Open Access is just not true for most of the relevant cases and
issues, many science and environmental ones certainly.
One of the easiest ones to see not Open Access are bird records and in bird
research, such as Bird Banding and Bird Telemetry and some Surveys, e.g.
Birdlife and in the EU, or MOVEBANK.
SCIENCE and NATURE journals do nothing about it anyways for a change, nor
most 'Excellence Initiatives' or Royal Academies etc.
All of this is widely known for over a decade, and has real world
implications, and still, nobody does anything about it,
with birds as a public/global property flagship scheme, among many others.
Other very relevant topics have been discussed and mentioned in this
discussion here, and most of you know those ones
first-hand from your own work daily.
So I am really at a loss here, sorry to say.
By now, it seems more like a double-standard culture we all engage in, and
with its facts and the truth gone awful. So that really must change.
Just in case somebody wants to take us serious...as a profession.
My view.
Kind regards
Falk
PS I do agree that many laws and policies on Open Access got bended by now
and loop-holed for not sharing; but what about their initial intent ?
Falk Huettmann PhD, Associate Professor
-EWHALE lab- Biology and Wildlife Dept., Institute of Arctic Biology
419 IRVING I, University of Alaska Fairbanks AK 99775-7000 USA
Email [log in to unmask] Phone 907 474 7882 Fax 907 474 6716
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Data Management discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kai Naumann
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 11:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: AW: RESEARCH-DATAMAN Digest - 19 Mar 2017 to 20 Mar 2017 (#2017-62)
Dear all,
even under the rule of law in a free society, secrecy is a necessity. But
you need transparent rules for what is being withheld and what is open.
In Britain, there is a project on technically assisted sensitivity review:
http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/digital-records-sensitivity-review/
Best regards,
Kai
___
Dr. Kai Naumann | Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg | Staatsarchiv Ludwigsburg
| Ref. 53 Arsenalplatz 3 | 71638 Ludwigsburg | Fax 07141 64854 6311 | E-Mail
[log in to unmask] | Tel. 07141 64854 6331
|
