Maybe there's not too much to get worked up about, but I think history has shown that the "intellectual political dissidents" (usually determined post-facto...or post-mortem) are far greater threats to governments than any warhead or computer processor.
It all comes back to academic and intellectual freedom. These laws could be turned against any one of us, in any discipline, at any time. Is this a good time to be requesting all the subway maps of NYC for a sociological study of American commuting habits? In today’s world, this would appear to be more of breach in "national security" than shipping a PC to China.
This is all just food for serious thought in our “Brave New World," especially since we no longer know where the frontline is. Who's to say what information is dangerous and what is not?
Tom Bodkin
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bailey <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:49:45 -0500
Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] Deemed Export Control???
Before anyone gets too worked up about this issue, I suggest you take a
look at the law which is generally referred to as International Traffic
In Arms Regulations (ITAR).
Here is a link:
http://www.epic.org/crypto/export_controls/itar.html
Ron Bailey
J. Ronald Bailey, Ph.D., P.E.
Guerry Professor and Dean
College of Engineering and Computer Science
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Phone: 423-425-5536
FAX: 423-425-5311
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: UTC Staff E-Mail List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Claire McCullough
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] Deemed Export Control???
Hi! Having worked for the government for several years before I came
here,
I would reassure you that the export restrictions are much more geared
toward technology that, in the wrong hands, could threaten the US than
in
any sort of free speech or political dissent of any kind.
Claire McCullough
____________________________________________
| Dr. Claire L. McCullough, PE
| Professor of Engineering
| University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
| 615 McCallie Ave., Chattanooga TN 37403
| Voice: (423) 425-4352 Fax: (423) 425-5229
| E-mail: [log in to unmask]
| Vis et Virtus
|____________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: UTC Staff E-Mail List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Shela Van Ness
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] Deemed Export Control???
Tom Bodkin brings up an excellent point. As a sociologist about to
present a
paper at a conference in Toronto, where many foreign nationals will be
in
attendance, I too would like to know where the line is being drawn in
the
sand. Much social research could be bent into the national security net
if
it is unreasonably defined. The issue also raises questions about free
speech. If a social scientist critiques policy or describes unpleasant
outcomes of events in the United States will this become seen as
unpatriotic
sedition? These are concerns for all of us in academe.
Shela Van Ness
Sociology
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Bodkin <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:25:17 -0500
Subject: [UTCSTAFF] Deemed Export Control???
I assume everyone received the Grants Office's email reminder about the
protection of research information, especially against "foreign
nationals,"
or even a conference where foreign nationals may be in attendance.
Does this bother anyone in the least bit? (I'm not making any
suggestion
about the Grants Office, I'm talking about the subject matter.) The
email
dealt with what would seem fairly straight-forward topics of national
security, such as the obvious topics of nuclear or military research.
But
what of other topics and where is the line? In today's world where even
knowledge about another culture, e.g., the Taliban or Kurds, is and will
be
used by our federal government to their advantage, it would seem that
there
is no research that could not be construed to fall under "national
security." Even the seemingly innocuous research conducted by cultural
anthropologists or sociologists, and their eventual publication, could
be
construed as "breeching national security." What if a "foreign
national" at
UTC is conducting research on American culture? Would that put them at
risk
for "spying," especially in the wake of the so-called Patriot Act.
Would a
foreign national have to apply for approval for research that an
American
citizen would not? Where is the line between this "deemed export
control"
and "intellectual" or "academic freedom?" When dealing with nuclear
physics
I can understand a little more, but it seems that in today's world, even
someone's research on subways systems (sociology) or urban water
treatment
plants (environmental science) would have to run through the "deemed
export
approval process." These are suspected targets, are they not?
As a forensic anthropologist, I conduct research on methods to identify
the
dead; research that could be used by the American military's Armed
Forces
Institute of Pathology (AFIP) to identify bodies or aid in cause of
death
determinations of war victims (both sides). Although I am adjunct
faculty
and my research is mostly conducted under the rubric of the medical
examiner
system, this "deemed export control" requirement makes me feel like
anything
I present at a conference is something that our military/government
would
potentially use, and therefore potentially lay "national security" claim
to.
And you can bet there are plenty of foreign scientists at the forensic
meetings I attend (all very nice people I might add).
Where is this line? Or do we just have to run everything by the US
gov't
before researching or presenting our findings? In my opinion, this
announcement is disturbing to my intellectual freedom, even though it
may
have been on the books long before this email. My responsibility to
disseminate scientific information for the good of humanity supersedes
any
worldly governmental requirement.
I'm not in the middle of any such research (well, I don't think) but I
would
like to hear other's comments about this, and where the line is between
what
research needs to be protected and what doesn't. This announcement
makes it
sound as if everything we (researchers, in whatever field) do "could be
used
against us."
Tom Bodkin, MA, F-AAFS
Forensic Anthropologist, Hamilton County MEO
Adjunct, Dept. of Sociology, Anthropology, and Geography
|
