Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Published online 20 August 2008 | Nature 454, 929 (2008) | doi:10.1038/454929c
News in Brief
Computer experts blast ruling to gag students
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Is there really an urgent need to restrict the freedom of healthy academic deliberation? What is there to be afraid of if someone were to reveal glitches in an existing system (safety or otherwise), with the intention to improve? Perhaps, nowadays many of us are suffering from an acute form of security phobia, so much so that any information that has got to do with security will have to be classified inevitably. To bring in court judges to decide on the matter of autonomy of academic pursuit is least desirable. The quest of knowledge ought to remain beyond man-made rules and regulations. Hopefully, there will be a favorable outcome. Let wisdom and freedom prevail. (Tan Boon Tee)
No where else would you find such opposition towards research done by students with the intent to educate and improve an obviously flawed system than in North America. I am willing to guess that the undergraduates had previously attempted to contact people within the transit department to inform them of the flaws they found, only to be set adrift by the beurocracy that is innate to such a large government run service. Kudos to them for coming out publicly with the intention to inform, instead of induce havoc.
I'm retired from 36 years in the computer field. Surely the students can apply their intelligence to studies that would benefit society rather than put the Boston transit system in danger of being the victim of hackers. The transit fees in the Boston area are reasonable and fair. If I were the judge I would say they could give their talk if and only if they also provided an inexpensive and easy to implement solution, in advance, to prevent illegal subway access. What next? Papers on how to illegally transfer money from one bank account to another? This is not an issue of freedom of speech. This is an issue of whether society is stupid enough to allow or encourage the use of computers for illegal activities. I doubt even 2600 would touch this one.