6 ms·

Scholarship, Security and ‘Spillage’ on Campus

54 points by chmaynard 11y ago

mindslight 11y ago
Some thoughts: 1. This kind of government thug behavior on a college campus is immediately counterintuitive, but makes complete sense after you think about it. All that DARPA money goes somewhere. It's a bit like being shocked that Ma Bell would be an integral arm of state security. 2. This story should be shouted far and wide so that people attending these type of talks will record them on their phones. Make this corruption of our institutions openly apparent, rather than isolated rare incidents easily written off. Make it known that the surveillance-collaborators are not appreciated in the least. These moles won't even return phone calls because they know what they did is indefensible with anything other than "policy". 3. I wonder about running a DoS attack on universities with such agreements, either to make NSA etc have to issue formal declassification of the public documents (unlikely), or to force the colleges to reconsider their agreements (and therefore their research foci). Imagine "I guess we have to destroy every computer in this lab too. And the network switches. And the Internet router, again".
- rubidium 11y ago
  " I wonder about running a DoS attack on universities with such agreements" No. Just stop. You'd be messing up the lives of grad students and network admins by taking such actions. Get off your keister and out from script-kiddie land and do some direct action protests against the administration if you care so much. They're the one's making/enforcing policy.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    I'd think the people who actually destroyed perfectly good systems would be the ones doing the interfering. If it wasn't clear (as you're calling me a "script-kiddie"), I'm talking about people physically going to these computers, viewing the voyeurs' precious trove, and then attesting "I read this on this machine" to the university administration. This sure seems like a direct action protest to me. As for [marching] protests - yeah I went to one of those once. It doesn't make much sense to merely volunteer to be kicking fodder for police horses. (edit: apparently people really don't understand that "denial of service" is a generically applicable term. sheesh)
    - cinquemb 11y ago
      >As for [marching] protests - yeah I went to one of those once. It doesn't make much sense to merely volunteer to be kicking fodder for police horses. I find it some what comical when people have a knee jerk reaction and advocate to others that the best™ way to protest is to do it in a way that that an institution/state is best prepared to deal with and puts the individual against forces that are completely asymmetrical in such domain…
- ahomescu1 11y ago
  1. and 2. are OK points, but your point 3. is atrocious. In my opinion, destructive behavior isn't really a legitimate form of protest, and as rubidium wrote, you'd be hurting people who are innocent in all this.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    The scenario I alluded to: 1. A student views leaked documents on a university computer. 2. They inform an SCI wanker of their recent academic pursuit. 3. University knuckleheads decide to destroy the equipment and do so. At which step does harm occur, and who's behavior is destructive?
secabeen 11y ago
This is why the University of California has a prohibition on classified research at the ten UC campuses. All classified UC research is undertaken at one of the National Laboratories administered by UC or Scripps, and even then only at the Secret Level, not Top Secret. I think that's a good policy, as it protects researchers and staff from impacts of this nature: http://www.ucop.edu/research-policy-analysis-coordination/resources-tools/contract-and-grant-manual/chapter20/index.html http://www.ucop.edu/research-policy-analysis-coordination/re...
- OopsCriticality 11y ago
  That's hardly a portable solution considering that California has 4 National Labs when most states are lucky if they have even one.
  - secabeen 11y ago
    The solution of just not performing research on classified subjects is. Any of these institutions could not compete for those contracts. UC chooses to do that with Top Secret contracts.
zeveb 11y ago
The university did exactly what it should do. The fault lies entirely with the author: he had absolutely no right to disclose information whose disclosure will cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States (he has not, apparently, signed an NDA, so his behaviour may not be illegal; that it is legal does not make it right). Top Secret information is not something to be used to make one seem wittier than one is; it's not something to display as a gag. It's a deadly serious matter. Yes, I'm aware that a lot of folks are concerned about over-classification (that's a legitimate concern, but perhaps overblown; few in the public are aware that over-classification is as contrary to policy as under-classification). That's not really relevant, though: over-classified or not, that information is…still classified. And I'm aware that many folks are concerned about the legality of certain programmes. They have every right to be concerned, but absolutely no right to examine those programmes for themselves, nor to disclose information about those programmes to unauthorised parties. A few seconds' thought will indicate why: sure, you may be a patriotic American justly concerned for your Constitutional rights, and if you examined a programme's details and found it to be legal, you'd never reveal it; but some other person may be an agent of a foreign state, and not care one but about whether something is legal or not, and immediately disclose it regardless. In the real world, secrets are necessary, and the essential thing about secrets is that they be…secret. One has to trust those who are authorised to examine the legality of such programmes. And of course, one must hold accountable those who abuse that trust. And of course one must also be humble enough to admit that one might be wrong about issues of legality, constitutionality and morality. Speaking of humility: > By way of example, I mentioned that the NSA, CIA, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence “have steadfastly refused to give me a secure channel to communicate with them” about the Snowden leaks. Who does this guy think he is?!? The Queen of England has steadfastly refused to send a courier to exchange secret keys with me so that she and I can discuss Battlestar Galactica—or at least, I imagine she would if I were so full of myself that I importuned her to do so. It's simply, literally, none of his business. This guy disclosed information he literally had no right to disclose; he expects that people should be glad to discuss with him things which are literally none of his business; and he finds it remarkable that people who do have the right to work with that kind of information are doing what they are required to do?
- 11y ago
epberry 11y ago
People were discussing this in the ECE labs and in student government today. I think the consensus is that the administration overreacted but that they were kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place with academic free speech vs. compliance. In general Purdue does seem to have more of a government and conservative bend to it than other colleges so I'm not surprised that the speaker was called out about the currently classified material on his slides. Also whoever was saying they were considering DoSing schools.. please don't. My compiler is not going to turn itself in :).
devit 11y ago
Imagine if the same security practices involving the government's classified information were applied to the citizens' classified (aka private) information.

54 points by chmaynard 11y ago

Some thoughts: 1. This kind of government thug behavior on a college campus is immediately counterintuitive, but makes complete sense after you think about it. All that DARPA money goes somewhere. It's a bit like being shocked that Ma Bell would be an integral arm of state security. 2. This story should be shouted far and wide so that people attending these type of talks will record them on their phones. Make this corruption of our institutions openly apparent, rather than isolated rare incidents easily written off. Make it known that the surveillance-collaborators are not appreciated in the least. These moles won't even return phone calls because they know what they did is indefensible with anything other than "policy". 3. I wonder about running a DoS attack on universities with such agreements, either to make NSA etc have to issue formal declassification of the public documents (unlikely), or to force the colleges to reconsider their agreements (and therefore their research foci). Imagine "I guess we have to destroy every computer in this lab too. And the network switches. And the Internet router, again".

rubidium 11y ago
" I wonder about running a DoS attack on universities with such agreements" No. Just stop. You'd be messing up the lives of grad students and network admins by taking such actions. Get off your keister and out from script-kiddie land and do some direct action protests against the administration if you care so much. They're the one's making/enforcing policy.
- mindslight 11y ago
  I'd think the people who actually destroyed perfectly good systems would be the ones doing the interfering. If it wasn't clear (as you're calling me a "script-kiddie"), I'm talking about people physically going to these computers, viewing the voyeurs' precious trove, and then attesting "I read this on this machine" to the university administration. This sure seems like a direct action protest to me. As for [marching] protests - yeah I went to one of those once. It doesn't make much sense to merely volunteer to be kicking fodder for police horses. (edit: apparently people really don't understand that "denial of service" is a generically applicable term. sheesh)
  - cinquemb 11y ago
    >As for [marching] protests - yeah I went to one of those once. It doesn't make much sense to merely volunteer to be kicking fodder for police horses. I find it some what comical when people have a knee jerk reaction and advocate to others that the best™ way to protest is to do it in a way that that an institution/state is best prepared to deal with and puts the individual against forces that are completely asymmetrical in such domain…
ahomescu1 11y ago
1. and 2. are OK points, but your point 3. is atrocious. In my opinion, destructive behavior isn't really a legitimate form of protest, and as rubidium wrote, you'd be hurting people who are innocent in all this.
- mindslight 11y ago
  The scenario I alluded to: 1. A student views leaked documents on a university computer. 2. They inform an SCI wanker of their recent academic pursuit. 3. University knuckleheads decide to destroy the equipment and do so. At which step does harm occur, and who's behavior is destructive?

secabeen 11y ago

This is why the University of California has a prohibition on classified research at the ten UC campuses. All classified UC research is undertaken at one of the National Laboratories administered by UC or Scripps, and even then only at the Secret Level, not Top Secret. I think that's a good policy, as it protects researchers and staff from impacts of this nature: http://www.ucop.edu/research-policy-analysis-coordination/resources-tools/contract-and-grant-manual/chapter20/index.html http://www.ucop.edu/research-policy-analysis-coordination/re...

OopsCriticality 11y ago
That's hardly a portable solution considering that California has 4 National Labs when most states are lucky if they have even one.
- secabeen 11y ago
  The solution of just not performing research on classified subjects is. Any of these institutions could not compete for those contracts. UC chooses to do that with Top Secret contracts.

zeveb 11y ago

The university did exactly what it should do. The fault lies entirely with the author: he had absolutely no right to disclose information whose disclosure will cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States (he has not, apparently, signed an NDA, so his behaviour may not be illegal; that it is legal does not make it right). Top Secret information is not something to be used to make one seem wittier than one is; it's not something to display as a gag. It's a deadly serious matter. Yes, I'm aware that a lot of folks are concerned about over-classification (that's a legitimate concern, but perhaps overblown; few in the public are aware that over-classification is as contrary to policy as under-classification). That's not really relevant, though: over-classified or not, that information is…still classified. And I'm aware that many folks are concerned about the legality of certain programmes. They have every right to be concerned, but absolutely no right to examine those programmes for themselves, nor to disclose information about those programmes to unauthorised parties. A few seconds' thought will indicate why: sure, you may be a patriotic American justly concerned for your Constitutional rights, and if you examined a programme's details and found it to be legal, you'd never reveal it; but some other person may be an agent of a foreign state, and not care one but about whether something is legal or not, and immediately disclose it regardless. In the real world, secrets are necessary, and the essential thing about secrets is that they be…secret. One has to trust those who are authorised to examine the legality of such programmes. And of course, one must hold accountable those who abuse that trust. And of course one must also be humble enough to admit that one might be wrong about issues of legality, constitutionality and morality. Speaking of humility: > By way of example, I mentioned that the NSA, CIA, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence “have steadfastly refused to give me a secure channel to communicate with them” about the Snowden leaks. Who does this guy think he is?!? The Queen of England has steadfastly refused to send a courier to exchange secret keys with me so that she and I can discuss Battlestar Galactica—or at least, I imagine she would if I were so full of myself that I importuned her to do so. It's simply, literally, none of his business. This guy disclosed information he literally had no right to disclose; he expects that people should be glad to discuss with him things which are literally none of his business; and he finds it remarkable that people who do have the right to work with that kind of information are doing what they are required to do?

11y ago

epberry 11y ago

People were discussing this in the ECE labs and in student government today. I think the consensus is that the administration overreacted but that they were kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place with academic free speech vs. compliance. In general Purdue does seem to have more of a government and conservative bend to it than other colleges so I'm not surprised that the speaker was called out about the currently classified material on his slides. Also whoever was saying they were considering DoSing schools.. please don't. My compiler is not going to turn itself in :).

devit 11y ago

Imagine if the same security practices involving the government's classified information were applied to the citizens' classified (aka private) information.