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.

[LaserSteve]

I work in Academia. I have access to vast amounts of interesting publications most can't afford. Depending on which of my colleagues you speak to, 30 to 60% percent of
academic papers in science are irreproducable.

 I'm hitting about 50% in biomedical and organic chemistry myself.

You sure you want to dump that on the world?

Steve

[Rick Law]

How about "good for public to know" information collected for profit?

At least a few reporters lost their life while collecting information that is good for public to know.  They were doing their job, taking a risk to collect information, but that roll of the dice sadly didn't work out for them that time.  I can still recall the images I saw on TV, an ABC news reporter named Bill Stewart was reporting in Nicaragua during a revolution in 1979.  He was executed while lying face down.  His camera man was secretly filming (from inside the car) when they were stopped at the road block, expecting no danger.  The reporter was ordered to get down on the ground, but mere moments later, he was shot in the back of the head.  The camera man in this case survived, turned in the video to ABC.  That was Bill Stewart's last report on ABC new.

I know from the news that many crime reporters in Mexico lost their lives.  Some were just months ago.  In their case, they were mostly taking the known huge risk to inform the public and not for profit.  Therefore, while I am more sympathetic to their situation, the information collected by them is not part of the free/not-free discussion.  They deserved a "shout out" for their courage and their contribution to the information world.

Lesser than life is profit.  How about educational videos/information developed explicitly for profit?  If profit is zero, reason dictates that none of those would exist.

For profit or otherwise, running a server is NOT free.  Someone has to make some money along the pipeline to support the infrastructure to collect and to deliver the information.

Therefore, reason dictates that not all information should be free.  It is up to the developer of the information to decide how much that information is worth.  Datasheet for an IC and specs for a machine as examples: it is worth more to the manufacturer to give that away so users can evaluate and may be buy their products.

Let the free market decide.  If the developer of the information feel that their hard work and risk is done as philanthropy, so it is.  If they want to make a buck, they should be able to do so.

[thm_w]

I work in Academia. I have access to vast amounts of interesting publications most can't afford. Depending on which of my colleagues you speak to, 30 to 60% percent of
academic papers in science are irreproducable.

I'm hitting about 50% in biomedical and organic chemistry myself.

You sure you want to dump that on the world?

Steve

Not many people are interested in reading publications. But a good percentage of them can be found for free on sci-hub.

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.

What are you thinking the benefit would be though?
If I produce a patent while working and being paid at a company, who would own it?

[lezginka_kabardinka]

YES.

Now if you’d kindly email me your PayPal login, I’ll pay myself 😆

[jonovid]

The problem is that all information to be freely available isn't good for all of us.
your log in ID or other personal information.   the US ICBM launch codes for an example. 

[RJSV]

   A couple of seconds, into reading this, I realize you mean info available, whereas I'd be thinking in terms of costing cash money, vs 'free' in the literature available, when subject matter might get dicey.
So the two separate out, but have similarities;
   In your example, a government could 'weigh' the good (or any), of keeping such chemistry under a lid, vs the loss of such science detail.
   My case, example could be Elvis Presley estate wanting to charge royalties for movie viewing.  I think there the government (U.S.) determines a set amount of years, before an Elvis movie rights expire (copyrights and Patents).

[MarkS]

You really need to clarify what you mean by "all". Do you really want or need to know the last time, date, duration and consistency of my bowl movements? 

[EEVblog]

I work in Academia. I have access to vast amounts of interesting publications most can't afford. Depending on which of my colleagues you speak to, 30 to 60% percent of
academic papers in science are irreproducable.

 I'm hitting about 50% in biomedical and organic chemistry myself.

A handy rule of thumb is that half of all published scientific research is wrong.
And peer review adds nothing to that.

[EEVblog]

Let the free market decide.  [/b]If the developer of the information feel that their hard work and risk is done as philanthropy, so it is.  If they want to make a buck, they should be able to do so.

Not accoridng to the open source hardware purists.

[vk6zgo]

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.

Often things made with alternate components are better performing & more reliable than using the original parts, so the exact suppliers etc., aren't a vital part of building a device of equivalent specifications.

Just knowing what a complete device is supposed to do is often enough.

[vk6zgo]

Back in the early days of electronics, large companies tried to enforce patents rigidly, but with the explosion of hobby activity in radio, magazines showing "the latest circuits" sprung up around the world, so anything new wasn't secret for long.
They managed to get agreements with other big firms who would "Swap patents with them", but the plethora of hobbyists & small businesses ensured that the lid was definitely off "Pandora's Box".

[T3sl4co1l]

   A couple of seconds, into reading this, I realize you mean info available, whereas I'd be thinking in terms of costing cash money, vs 'free' in the literature available, when subject matter might get dicey.

It's a Libertarian trope, just open up The Marketplace Of Ideas and let everything figure itself out.

What they so often and gladly forget is that ideas are worthless.

...The converse, along these lines, would be interesting I suppose, if impossible to pull off for obvious reasons; what if every idea, every packet of info, carried a cost, a mandatory transaction no matter how small? There were some proverbial, universal app store that you had to commit to buying something off of?  The mere existence of a fee, no matter how trivial, would seriously recontextualize information for a lot of people.

Mind, that's what information is, ultimately; you can't have information without entropy, and we're all constantly paying in terms of that.  But it's an indirect cost, and we so often and gladly ignore apparent fixed costs.

Tim

[Psi]

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.

What are you thinking the benefit would be though?
If I produce a patent while working and being paid at a company, who would own it?

The company would get a license to use it forever, but you, or all the RnD team, or all employees at the company at the time would technically own it.
I know this idea has issues, I just like thinking about it sometimes.
I really don't like that companies can buy and sell patents. People come up with ideas and make discoveries, companies don't

[ebastler]

Back in the early days of electronics, large companies tried to enforce patents rigidly, but with the explosion of hobby activity in radio, magazines showing "the latest circuits" sprung up around the world, so anything new wasn't secret for long.

You seem to be mixing up "patents" and "secrets". They are not the same; in fact they are opposites. It is a core part of the "patent" concept that, in exchange for a limited period of protection, your idea will be published -- such that others can learn from it, come up with alternatives or improvements upon it.

(Having said that, modern patent-writers are often trying to undermine that idea by being as hazy about technical content  as they can get away with...)

[ebastler]

What are you thinking the benefit would be though?
If I produce a patent while working and being paid at a company, who would own it?

The company would get a license to use it forever, but you, or all the RnD team, or all employees at the company at the time would technically own it.
I know this idea has issues, I just like thinking about it sometimes.
I really don't like that companies can buy and sell patents. People come up with ideas and make discoveries, companies don't

Would that be an exclusive license to the company which employs the inventors? Royalty-free too? Then what would be the difference to the company actually owning the patent?

Or would the inventors be free to license their invention to competitors of their employer? Would that be fair, given that their employer paid for the inventors' time, and for a lot of extra effort to turn the patented idea into a marketable product?

In Germany, the "Employee Inventors Act" stipulates that

• the employing company has first right of refusal to claim exclusive ownership of the patent -- in which case they pay the examination fees etc.;
  
• if they make money from the invention during the term of the patent, they have to pay a royalty to the inventor -- but at a rate which is significantly lower than what an independent inventor would get, taking into account that the inventor was already paid for doing his job;
  
• if the company decides that they do not want to claim the invention (maybe business plans have changed, or it does not look like such a great technical solution upon second thought), the inventor is free to take it through the patenting process and look for other licensees independently.
  

Not a bad approach in principle, although implementation has its challenges in the details.

[Psi]

What are you thinking the benefit would be though?
If I produce a patent while working and being paid at a company, who would own it?

The company would get a license to use it forever, but you, or all the RnD team, or all employees at the company at the time would technically own it.
I know this idea has issues, I just like thinking about it sometimes.
I really don't like that companies can buy and sell patents. People come up with ideas and make discoveries, companies don't

Would that be an exclusive license to the company which employs the inventors? Royalty-free too? Then what would be the difference to the company actually owning the patent?

Or would the inventors be free to license their invention to competitors of their employer? Would that be fair, given that their employer paid for the inventors' time, and for a lot of extra effort to turn the patented idea into a marketable product?

In Germany, the "Employee Inventors Act" stipulates that

• the employing company has first right of refusal to claim exclusive ownership of the patent -- in which case they pay the examination fees etc.;
  
• if they make money from the invention during the term of the patent, they have to pay a royalty to the inventor -- but at a rate which is significantly lower than what an independent inventor would get, taking into account that the inventor was already paid for doing his job;
  
• if the company decides that they do not want to claim the invention (maybe business plans have changed, or it does not look like such a great technical solution upon second thought), the inventor is free to take it through the patenting process and look for other licensees independently.
  

Not a bad approach in principle, although implementation has its challenges in the details.

All fair questions.

I was thinking that the company would have the same rights they have now with patents,  except that...

- There would be a small fee paid by the company to everyone written on the patient paid every year.
Not a huge amount in most cases, but it would be tied to company profits and split between all people named on the patient.
- The company could never sell the patent, since they never own it.
- The patient is always owned by the people/team who created it, or maybe to keep things simple by all employees of the company at the time of patent creation who've been with the company for more than a 1,2 or 5 year etc..
- If the company was ever sold the new company would take over paying that yearly fee to all the people on the patent.
- If the company ever went under or was dissolved and no one had the license to use that patent any more the patent would become available to use by anyone. They would still have to pay the yearly fee to the people on the patent, but it would be a smaller fee in this case. 
- The company can, at any time, decide they don't want the patent any more. They stop paying the yearly fee and it changes to being available to use by anyone, same as above.  This means if they want to pay less to use it they can, they just have to let other use it too and then they get the cheaper rate.
- The patent would automatically becomes available to everyone after n years or after n sales of the company, or after n amount of total money has been paid out to the people on the patient.

[Marco]

Humans should be isolated and/or moral enough for all information to be free, unfortunately humans are just the result of a random walk with some selective pressure and capable and willing of hurting each other.

Making RNA printers and viral genomes easily available is dangerous. WMD research has never been this affordable. AGI would present a similar problem, but I'm not optimistic we will make it that far.

[hans]

I work in Academia. I have access to vast amounts of interesting publications most can't afford. Depending on which of my colleagues you speak to, 30 to 60% percent of
academic papers in science are irreproducable.

 I'm hitting about 50% in biomedical and organic chemistry myself.

A handy rule of thumb is that half of all published scientific research is wrong.
And peer review adds nothing to that.

Nobody has time to fully scrutinize someone else's work. And in other cases, it can become an ego game of "hey, I think this section is missing these and these references" -- oh sure, you happen to be author on all suggested references.. What happens if I refuse? Ah right.. my manuscript gets rejected, and is now at risk of being duplicated by reviewers' team as they "got inspiration" (even though that is forbidden) and there is little I can do about it. In theory, the peer review system is perfect. But that assumes no bad actors.

IMO this is similar to having all information available to anyone. Virtually all technology developed today is marketed for some unicorn application/story of how it will save the planet. People will work on these devices for years to make them more efficient, more sensitive, more bandwidth, etcetera.
A social company will market it with you can use it for calling family, doing fun things with friends, etc. But almost all of the same tech can be overturned for spying, military and destruction.

Just look at happens to the Flipper Zero. The hardware is nothing exotic. Anyone thats used some radio chipsets in-depth (sub-GHz, WiFi, bluetooth) knows you can mess with other signals. Many "wireless keys" are simply "remote controls" that people mistake for keys. But suddenly people are afraid  of this "superpower" being available in an accessible package.

In reality its nothing new. Its simply a case of bad actors, again, and the level of education these actors have to jump over "to perform". A good actor would use a Flipper Zero to uncover (security) flaws and use it for whistleblowing. Security through obscurity [ultimately] never works, and at best it hides weaknesses in technologies/platforms for a period of time whilst they are subject to being exploited.

[lezginka_kabardinka]

I work in Academia. I have access to vast amounts of interesting publications most can't afford. Depending on which of my colleagues you speak to, 30 to 60% percent of
academic papers in science are irreproducable.

 I'm hitting about 50% in biomedical and organic chemistry myself.

A handy rule of thumb is that half of all published scientific research is wrong.
And peer review adds nothing to that.

Yes, of particular note are any fairy stories which begin "Milllllll-yuns of years ago, this life form first evolved..." - that junk is spread far and wide, poisoning and deluding many people.

[EPAIII]

Re: personal information

You are not going to like my thoughts on personal information. It is my contention that any and all information collected by anyone or any company or agency about a person should be 100% the personal property of that individual. And any use of it should be totally illegal without PAYING that person's price for it.

In other words, we all should have title to the part of Google's database that is about ourselves. And they can't use it without our permission. And that applies to all the others who collect information about us. And especially to government agencies.

That's my position and I am sticking to it.

[BrianHG]

Are you sure you want everyone to have access to a crisper genetic code alterations for a common cold virus making it a 99% accurate hereditary seeking, 99% lethal virus?

Once that sequence is published, the DNA can be easily printed today as you find those in home basement labs already making DNA additions/changes to yeast to make it glow in the dark.

Just based on human nature, I don't think any such knowledge should be publicly (or even privately) available anywhere.

[Dan123456]

Are you sure you want everyone to have access to a crisper genetic code alterations for a common cold virus making it a 99% accurate hereditary seeking, 99% lethal virus?

Once that sequence is published, the DNA can be easily printed today as you find those in home basement labs already making DNA additions/changes to yeast to make it glow in the dark.

Just based on human nature, I don't think any such knowledge should be publicly (or even privately) available anywhere.

I’m pretty sure anyone can get access to CRISPR already!

Google search is saying it is this video (will watch now to verify  ) but regardless am almost certain I have seen the thought emporium messing with it before 



Edit: Na, no mention of CRISPR that I heard in that one  Maybe I am mistaken but I’m almost sure I’ve seen him use it before!

Regardless, the video is a good example of biohacking / home brew genetic modification being done “at home” 

[BrianHG]

I’m pretty sure anyone can get access to CRISPR already!

CRISPR isn't the problem.  It's just the DNA sequence cut/insert/paste editing tool for DNA.  It's when we start screwing around with deliberately harmful man-made sequences.

[hans]

Orchestration of ideas and mechanisms is rarely the problem.

Its similar to explaining how WiFi works. Here is how the connection process works. We're now explicitly asking you to not take the next (evil) step.
Similarly, privacy laws also forbid certain processing steps of data. E.g. if you put a motion detector to turn on a street lamp, that's fine. But if you then log that activity data and reduce (targeted) activity patterns, it may not be fine.

[SiliconWizard]

One big problem to solve here is that the more *unexplained* information we get, and the dumber we are likely to get as well. Not smarter.
Of course, the tools are not the problem, the information itself is not a problem.
The lack of any effort to gain information is, OTOH, a problem, as raw information is relatively useless and cutting off the 'effort' part of learning is counterproductive.

[Buriedcode]

Are you sure you want everyone to have access to a crisper genetic code alterations for a common cold virus making it a 99% accurate hereditary seeking, 99% lethal virus?

Once that sequence is published, the DNA can be easily printed today as you find those in home basement labs already making DNA additions/changes to yeast to make it glow in the dark.

Just based on human nature, I don't think any such knowledge should be publicly (or even privately) available anywhere.

Well, you're assuming we have the capability to modify viruses for that intent - and that those with the facilities and equipment that could possibly do such a thing don't already have access to what is essentially freely available? (albeit stored in Excel spreadsheets riddled with errors because excel changed some of them to dates )

CRISPR and gene editing techniques aren't that precise, and the idea that "anyone" can simple "print" DNA to make working viruses/bacteria with whatever properties they want is a conspiracy theorists fantasy.  If we assume that there are labs with that capability, I'm sure accessing pubmed won't be much of an issue 

[BrianHG]

CRISPR and gene editing techniques aren't that precise, and the idea that "anyone" can simple "print" DNA to make working viruses/bacteria with whatever properties they want is a conspiracy theorists fantasy.  If we assume that there are labs with that capability, I'm sure accessing pubmed won't be much of an issue 

No, we cannot yet create a complete cell's DNA.  But, we can already assemble/print small strings of DNA and use CRISPR to insert our man made string into existing cell's DNA.  This has already been done for making insulin via modifying bacteria cells, though that manually assembled snipped of DNA was copied letter base-pair by letter base-pair from our existing human genome.

I may have gone off the deep end with my example for now, but that's today.  There will be some nasty creations in our future as we learn how to usefully code DNA ourselves instead of just copying snipet examples from nature.

[Buriedcode]

Yeah, I mean, nothing either of us said precludes the possibility of it happening, or bad actors using such technology in the future - that'll just have to be handled when the bar for such effort is sufficienctly low to increases the number of nutters willing, and able, to do it.

I suppose, in terms of science/engineering information, then its really the specific information - such as using ready-do-obtain chemicals to produce something truely dangerous to a larger population - than the actual principles or science behind it.

If someone was truely dedicated to do mass harm then they will probably find the information they need anyway (that is, they are willing to spend all their resources and not care about consequences).  But limiting certain specifics will raise the bar and greatly reduce the pool of people crazy/mad enough to do it, and have the capability.  So regardless of personal info, or military secrets, I do think there is some "information" which the public does not need to know, and the benefit of knowing is outweighed by the dangers of it being frelly available. These are of course all extreme cases - and the informaiton I am talking about is most likely restricted in most countries anyway.

I'm pretty sure many here are on the same page, with any disagreement being quite specific cases.  Although it does seem that in certain parts of the world, what we consider benign, and useful information is censored because it conflicts with peopels beliefs (historical facts, sex education, evolution, geology etc..).  I suppose that is freely available, in spite of efforts, since in the west, censorship doesn't really work all that well.

[hans]

CRISPR and gene editing techniques aren't that precise, and the idea that "anyone" can simple "print" DNA to make working viruses/bacteria with whatever properties they want is a conspiracy theorists fantasy.  If we assume that there are labs with that capability, I'm sure accessing pubmed won't be much of an issue 

No, we cannot yet create a complete cell's DNA.  But, we can already assemble/print small strings of DNA and use CRISPR to insert our man made string into existing cell's DNA.  This has already been done for making insulin via modifying bacteria cells, though that manually assembled snipped of DNA was copied letter base-pair by letter base-pair from our existing human genome.

I may have gone off the deep end with my example for now, but that's today.  There will be some nasty creations in our future as we learn how to usefully code DNA ourselves instead of just copying snipet examples from nature.

Well, we already have the medicines called monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies. In fact, the other day I started CGRP antagonists (Fremanezumab). It is derived from genetically modified DNA (to produced humanized proteins) that are grown in Chinese hamster ovaries.
I jokingly tell people that my HRT (Hamster Reincarnation Therapy) will make me grow big nose hairs and chubby cheeks in a few months time.

This medication does wonders for some people. Similar -mab's are also used in cancer treatments and whatnot. On the other hand it is kind of scary to read this kind of stuff, even just ignoring that we don't understand long-term biological mechanisms of  these treatments.. but also to how these medications are created. If cutting and pasting DNA strings is akin to soldering components onto a PCB, then misplacing an IC or a polarized cap by 180degrees is inevitably going to happen. Inevitably will create DNA combinations that are incredibly dangerous, and that trialed to see if they pass the "smoke test". A blown electrolytic cap isn't going to set the world on fire, but DNA might just do so.

[SL4P]

I think the answer is yes, but there must be verifiable and traceable registration of the user/downloader.
The consequences for passing on the information should be clearly laid out,
An NDA with clear consequences explained - BEFORE you download the content.

Similarly, the terms of release might require that a certificate of origin travels with the documents or their products.

Sure, this is all tedious, but it seems there are a lot of people that don’t respect IP or laws, yet they want everything free of consequences. 

There are a lot of models to protect IP, and a similar number of ways to punish offenders.
Fixing your toaster is fin, but creating drug precursors may fall into a different category.