Should all information be freely available to everyone?

[Dan123456]

I was just watching YouTube and was recommended an instructional video on how to make P2NP (a drug precursor).

While this isn’t completely out of the norm as I watch a lot of chemistry related content and do get recommended stuff like that from time to time, it did get me to thinking, do you guys think that all information should be freely available to everyone?

I personally think yes, with the exception being if it puts people’s lives in immediate danger (I.e. national security matters, under cover police cases or military information etc. that could easily result in people instantly loosing their lives - although I do think even that should be released the second it the information can no longer be used to cause immediate harm).

I figure some of the professional EE guys might have some experience working on things that maybe they think the general public shouldn’t have full schematics for etc. (say a nuclear reactor or critical infrastructure or what not) or that you all might just have some interesting points of view 

Please play nice with each other on this one though guys I feel like this could devolve rapidly if people start attacking each others views but like to think that won’t happen and am genuinely super curious to get a feel on what the community thinks about this and why

[mendip_discovery]

In a near-perfect world, it would be great. Just think of the amount of time saved as we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time we go to do a task. If someone works out a better way to do something, that way gets adopted.

This is kinda the way I view Open Source stuff. It's why when I have stuff I try to share it with others.

The problem is that all information to be freely available isn't good for business. Governments dislike working together as a rule, so it will not happen on that front either. Then you have those who will take that information and do bad things with it because they enjoy the chaos it can cause.

[DimitriP]

I was just watching YouTube and was recommended an instructional video on how to make P2NP (a drug precursor).

While this isn’t completely out of the norm as I watch a lot of chemistry related content and do get recommended stuff like that from time to time, it did get me to thinking, do you guys think that all information should be freely available to everyone?

I personally think yes, with the exception being if it puts people’s lives in immediate danger (I.e. national security matters, under cover police cases or military information etc. that could easily result in people instantly loosing their lives - although I do think even that should be released the second it the information can no longer be used to cause immediate harm).

I figure some of the professional EE guys might have some experience working on things that maybe they think the general public shouldn’t have full schematics for etc. (say a nuclear reactor or critical infrastructure or what not) or that you all might just have some interesting points of view 

Please play nice with each other on this one though guys I feel like this could devolve rapidly if people start attacking each others views but like to think that won’t happen and am genuinely super curious to get a feel on what the community thinks about this and why

That's a "No" wrapped in too many words.

Your question and issues it raises are similar to Mirosoft's mission statement:   ( https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/about )

Empowering others
Our mission is to empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more.

The short answer is No.
(Unless you are involved in international weapons smuggling - I'll spell it out: You sell weapons to all the "sides" - paid in advance )

[Bud]

Just start with publishing your credit cards numbers and PINs and see how that goes.

[Buriedcode]

Long answer:

a) Personal info - and how do you determine what is personal info and what isn't. Why should I have the right to know your passwords?

b) Trade secrets, patents were meant to allow people of "reasonable education" to recreate stuff but in reality are designed to prevent that. But providing access to all trade secrets will destabilise many economies.

c) We all ready have access to more "information" than any generation, but people still need protecting form themselves.  Whilst libertarians want complete freedom, they conveniently forget that regulations and restrictions (including on certain information) exists on a pile of bodies.  The balance between people claiming they have a "right to know" and the dangers of bad actors using sensitive information - or people doing stupid stuff and putting themsleves and others in danger should be struck, and, at least here in the UK seems about right. For now. But like all regulations they should evolve and adapt.

One could argue that, "where there's a will, there's a way" and that if someone really wanted to find something out, they could eventually, and so trying to restrict access to information on say, certain chemical reactions could be seen as fruitless.  But it will had another hurdle and raise the bar a bit.

Short answer: no.

[SiliconWizard]

The short answer is: we already largely have that, and for the information you really can't access freely these days, it's either stuff you have no business knowing (like personal information / confidential information / etc), or stuff that you wouldn't be able to even understand without proper teaching. There are exceptions to this of course, but really the amount of information we now have freely at our disposal is so huge that a lifetime wouldn't be enough to digest a tiny fraction of it all.

What's also maybe interesting is what we consider as "freely available". Is that free as in beer or free as in speech?

[DimitriP]

What's also maybe interesting is what we consider as "freely available". Is that free as in beer or free as in speech?

free·ly
/ˈfrēlē/
adverb
adverb: freely

    not under the control of another; as one wishes.
    "I roamed freely"
        without restriction or interference.
        "air can freely circulate"
        in copious or generous amounts.
        "she drank freely to keep up her courage"

Without attaching a list of limitations,exclusions, exceptions, conditions, delivery charges , fees and "dealer installed options -extra"   the only possible sane answer is no

If all of us could see all of the dots all of the time....the world would be different. Not guaranteed better or worse.
The only two things I can think of that are "freely" availble are browsing in stores  (during business hours -so bordeline "freely" )  and breathing.

[Dan123456]

That's a "No" wrapped in too many words.

Your question and issues it raises are similar to Mirosoft's mission statement:   ( https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/about )

Empowering others
Our mission is to empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more.

The short answer is No.
(Unless you are involved in international weapons smuggling - I'll spell it out: You sell weapons to all the "sides" - paid in advance )

You forgot the part where I said:

….although I do think even that should be released the second it the information can no longer be used to cause immediate harm…

Sure, you don’t want to release the exact coordinates of your front line troops in the middle of a war or tell criminal organisations they have an undercovers in their ranks while that person is still there.

However, I think that information should still be released once they have moved on 

You could say I believe that all information should be public, just that I understand some information shouldn’t be public in real time 

[richnormand]

"Should all information be freely available to everyone?"

OK, I'll bite:
This is an electronics forum... let's start by cleaning our own room. It's called "right to repair".
Just getting the needed information to do that seems to be hard enough from the companies, never mind all the rest of society .....

 

[Someone]

Sure, you don’t want to release the exact coordinates of your front line troops in the middle of a war or tell criminal organisations they have an undercovers in their ranks while that person is still there.

However, I think that information should still be released once they have moved on 

Who forces the criminal organisation to disclose all their activities? (after statute of limitations?)
Trade secret methods are the value of those organisations, once their methods are know countermeasures are introduced.

[Dan123456]

"Should all information be freely available to everyone?"

OK, I'll bite:
This is an electronics forum... let's start by cleaning our own room. It's called "right to repair".
Just getting the needed information to do that seems to be hard enough from the companies, never mind all the rest of society .....

Exactly! This was one of the reasons why I brought this question up here 

I figured there would be lots of right to repair people along with a bunch of maker/hacker people here who probably think “yes”, along with a bunch of people in other industries who might feel strongly against it and might have some very compelling arguments

While I don’t think we will solve the worlds problems in an EE forum, I figured lots of people here would have good, well thought out arguments for or against 

[Sredni]

No.
The Jurassic Park principle.

[thm_w]

In a near-perfect world, it would be great. Just think of the amount of time saved as we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time we go to do a task. If someone works out a better way to do something, that way gets adopted.

Yes because of this.

Watch some Monroe videos, you'll see for example, 5 very different EV motor designs with one of them being far superior (lighter, more efficient). If all companies could use the superior design, the world would be better off.
The difficult or impossible problem is how to license that information on a global scale, and assign a reasonable cost for its use.

[TimFox]

Long answer:
.....
b) Trade secrets, patents were meant to allow people of "reasonable education" to recreate stuff but in reality are designed to prevent that. But providing access to all trade secrets will destabilise many economies.
.....

In US IP law, "patents" are granted for a limited time, but only if the information "taught" in the patent application is sufficient for "one skilled in the art" to replicate the invention;  they are enforceable by the courts, but the information has already been published since patents are public records.
"Trade secrets" really have no protection past NDAs and similar private contractual provisions, and cannot be enforced in court (although one can sue the leaker for violation of contract).

[mike449]

The answer is easy: all information should be available to good guys, and not available to bad guys. The hard part is to enforce the separation between the two groups. Note that governments are not necessarily always the good guys.

[EEVblog]

In a near-perfect world, it would be great. Just think of the amount of time saved as we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time we go to do a task. If someone works out a better way to do something, that way gets adopted.

This is kinda the way I view Open Source stuff. It's why when I have stuff I try to share it with others.
The problem is that all information to be freely available isn't good for business.

And therein lies the rub.
For example, even the most pure and ardent open source hardware companies aren't going to give you a list of their suppliers, prices, and other business related stuff so you can duplicate them.

[EEVblog]

The answer is easy: all information should be available to good guys, and not available to bad guys. The hard part is to enforce the separation between the two groups. Note that governments are not necessarily always the good guys.

And government ALWAYS think the people are the bad guys.

[EEVblog]

"Should all information be freely available to everyone?"

TEST: Find the most ardent supporter of this and then ask them if that extends to their personal finances, medical information, search history etc, and you'll find out real quick where peoples limits are.

[pickle9000]

So is everyone's internet activities included in this?

[optoisolated]

The libertarian in me says your IP is your IP and if you want to share it, or not, that's up to you and you alone.
This doesn't (shouldn't) apply to government.
If its paid for by my taxes, I have a right to know, and the government must have an obligation to share it ALL (sans the obvious Military Secrets etc).

[Psi]

I think it's probably best to pick ya battles.
Limiting it to standards would be a step in the right direction.

All standards should be available to everyone and 100% free to use royalty free.
There should be maybe 3 "official" standards in each industry for each thing that needs a standard.
There should be negative consequences for any company who builds/selling something that does not support at least 1 of the official standards for that function.

Far to many 'things' in the world today cannot talk to each other because they all use different standards.

[Zero999]

The answer is no, but I woud be in favour of making more information widely available. A good start would be to cut copyright to something more sane such as 20 years after the publication of the work, to make it more inline patents. If someone can't recoup their investment within that period, then their work can't be much good.

[Psi]

The answer is no, but I woud be in favour of making more information widely available. A good start would be to cut copyright to something more sane such as 20 years after the publication of the work, to make it more inline patents. If someone can't recoup their investment within that period, then their work can't be much good.

Agreed.

I also wonder if maybe patents should not be ownable by companies, only by individuals.
I'm not sure how that sort of a system would actually work, but it's interesting to think about.

[T3sl4co1l]

Sure.  It doesn't matter, ain't no one gonna read it anyway.

Tim

[TimFox]

The answer is no, but I woud be in favour of making more information widely available. A good start would be to cut copyright to something more sane such as 20 years after the publication of the work, to make it more inline patents. If someone can't recoup their investment within that period, then their work can't be much good.

Agreed.

I also wonder if maybe patents should not be ownable by companies, only by individuals.
I'm not sure how that sort of a system would actually work, but it's interesting to think about.

In US law, patents are granted only to individual inventors, but the rights can be assigned to companies.
The inventors and assignee are listed on the granted patent.
Normally, when the inventors did the work on company time, and the application used a company-paid attorney, the application and assignment documents are signed before being sent to the Patent Office.
If you do the work not under contract, and pay for the attorney yourself (maybe $10k total?), you own the patent and rights.