White House Petition: Require free access over the Internet to scientific journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.

EquanimousMind · 2012-05-25T08:13:21.913781+00:00

From Info Justice

Petition: http://wh.gov/6TH

Website: http://access2research.org

Facebook: http://facebook.com/access2research

Twitter: @access2research

Here’s a round-up of responses from around the web:

Articles and Blog Posts

The Guardian: US Petition Could Tip the Scales in Favor of Open Access Publishing
Medeley Blog: Support free access to scientific journals arising from taxpayer-funded research. #OAMonday
Library Journal: ACRL Urges Librarians to Sign Research Access Petition
InTechWebBlog: To know the importance of providing free access to taxpayer-funded research
PLoS Blog: Tell the White House to Expand Open Access to Federally Funded Research
Scientific American: Take a stand for public access to taxpayer funded research
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC): Sign the White House Petition on Open Access to Research Today!
John Wilbanks’s Tumblr: ACCESS2RESEARCH
Open Knowledge Foundation Blog: Petition the White House to Open Up Publicly Funded Research
Open Science Foundation Google+:
Boing Boing: Petition to require free access over the internet to scientific journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research
Wired.com: A Petition for Free Online Access of Taxpayer-Funded Research
Discourse.net: Petition White House for Open Access to Taxpayer-Funded Research
Confessions of A Science Librarian: Sign the petition to require open access to US taxpayer-funded research
Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Insider: Sign the White House Petition on Open Access to Research Today
Open Access Week Sign the White House Petition on Open Access to Research Today
Scholarly Communication Program (Columbia University Libraries): Support open access to publicly funded research!
ASU Libraries: Increasing Public Access to Federally Funded Research
Etc. by Micah Vandegrift: Advocacy in the Form of Sabotaging a Facebook Post
Alt1040: Open Data e investigación: acceso público y gratuito a los artículos científicos (Spanish)
Alliance for Taxpayer @ccess: Sign the White House Petition on Open Access to Research Today!
Biosharing Blog: Open Access Petition – White House’s “We The People”
Creative Commons: Sign the U.S. Petition to Support Public Access to Publicly Funded Scientific Research
Figshare: #OAMonday – A call to action
Stuart M. Shieber – The Occasional Pamphlet on Scholarly Communication: Open letter on the Access2Research White House petition
Center for Scholarly Communication & Digital Curation Northwestern University Library: White House Petition on Open Access
Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week #AcademicSpring: Help the USA into the 21st century (even if you’re not American)
3 Quarks Daily: Public Access to Publicly Funded Research: it’s only fair
UCL Discovery Blog: access2research campaign and petition
Research Remix: Dear Colleague, Please Sign The Petition. #Openaccess

Online Discussions and Videos

RECENT/RELATED OPEN ACCESS ARTICLES

EquanimousMind · 2012-05-25T04:17:57.691528+00:00

First off, nice little perk for the Inspector General

$300,000 may be used for certain confidential operational expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended at the direction of the Inspector General.

Heh the whole thing is like that.

Would love to just have DHS completely dismantled; but for the time being smaller steps might be more efficient.

Just on a quick squim; there isn't any indication that there will be any cost-benefit analysis of project funding to be submitted to Congress. There is some mention of submitting earned value management; but these are more to keep budgets in line with pre-approved projects. Not a tool to measure the value of the project in the first place.

The DHS failure to operate on a cost-benefit analysis method to project funding is a key reason why there is such a massive blowout in homeland security costs, with little justification as to their expense. Instead they operate on a worst case scenario planning method; meaning probabilities of threats don't come into it. In the search for the counter productive goal of zero vulnerability we spend whatever it takes, even if those threats are mostly imagined by homeland security contractors.

The budget is only the most concrete example; but the problem is a systematic one that justifies the War on Terror's expense in precious blood, treasure and our core values as a society. It is why the DHS has no problem organizing the TSA into a machine that will frisk down a child in a wheelchair. Probabilities don't matter. It is security as the highest principle above all others.

And this is all aside from whether the DHS has been competent at all in the projects it has undertaken. The TSA is a failure by many accounts and ICE's incompetent handling of MegaUpload saw many basic court procedural mistakes. I'm getting at a more fundamental problem with how we frame the fight against terror. One that focuses on strategic victories, instead of wastage and abuse by contractors. Our institutions need to evolve, be smarter, more efficient and ... more honorable.

Its a little dry, so I suspect this is less a petition the hivemind push. But we could hit up activist organizations or friendly Congressmen to push for an amendment to include the reporting of cost/benefit analysis of operations and project funding. Its a simple thing, but the information would be useful to us in our fight to reform DHS.

This would be the supporting arguments for any congressional staffers who need more information.

TERROR, SECURITY, AND MONEY: BALANCING THE RISKS, BENEFITS, AND COSTS OF HOMELAND SECURITY

/rant

b0anerges · 2012-05-25T03:19:32.481605+00:00

You can find the petition here, surprisingly interesting read:

Constitutional Rights Attorneys, Media Challenge Secrecy of Manning Court Martial
PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The issue here isn't just about the charges against Bradley Manning. T

There are questions about the treatment of Manning under custody.

There is disturbing evidence that the government subjected Pfc. Manning to conditions of confinement and treatment reminiscent of the worst abuses of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, including prolonged isolation and sensory deprivation, and other torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading practices.

This is as of interest to the public as much as the charges against Manning.

Also, the government can only block public access if they can provide a national security reason and a court must agree with that reasoning. It is unsettling that no reason has been given by the government. There seems to be a cavalier disregard for the First Amendment.

In United States v. Manning, the press and public have not had access to any of the government’s motions, responses to defense briefs, or filings in the case beyond the initial charges – even in redacted form. No transcripts of any proceedings in the case have been published – even for proceedings that occurred in open court. Nor have any orders of the Court been published. The government has not provided – and cannot provide – any legal basis for withholding these documents from the public. Nor does it appear that the Court made any of the requisite findings that could support closing these proceedings or denying access to the documents at issue, or provided notice of such envisioned closures and opportunity to object to the press and public.

These violations are particularly egregious in light of the First Amendment’s mandate that even temporary deprivations of the right of public access constitute irreparable harm, and given the Supreme Court’s frequent pronouncements that openness promotes not just public confidence in the criminal process but also accuracy in factfinding and ultimate outcomes. The First Amendment thus demands contemporaneous access to documents and proceedings in cases like Manning while the proceedings are taking place. The trial Court’s denial of the public’s First Amendment rights is clearly erroneous and amounts to an usurpation of authority.

EquanimousMind · 2012-05-25T03:18:35.581988+00:00

You can find the petition here, surprisingly interesting read:

Constitutional Rights Attorneys, Media Challenge Secrecy of Manning Court Martial
PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The issue here isn't just about the charges against Bradley Manning.

There are questions about the treatment of Manning under custody.

There is disturbing evidence that the government subjected Pfc. Manning to conditions of confinement and treatment reminiscent of the worst abuses of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, including prolonged isolation and sensory deprivation, and other torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading practices.

This is as of interest to the public as much as the charges against Manning.

Also, the government can only block public access if they can provide a national security reason and a court must agree with that reasoning. It is unsettling that no reason has been given by the government. There seems to be a cavalier disregard for the First Amendment.

In United States v. Manning, the press and public have not had access to any of the government’s motions, responses to defense briefs, or filings in the case beyond the initial charges – even in redacted form. No transcripts of any proceedings in the case have been published – even for proceedings that occurred in open court. Nor have any orders of the Court been published. The government has not provided – and cannot provide – any legal basis for withholding these documents from the public. Nor does it appear that the Court made any of the requisite findings that could support closing these proceedings or denying access to the documents at issue, or provided notice of such envisioned closures and opportunity to object to the press and public.

These violations are particularly egregious in light of the First Amendment’s mandate that even temporary deprivations of the right of public access constitute irreparable harm, and given the Supreme Court’s frequent pronouncements that openness promotes not just public confidence in the criminal process but also accuracy in factfinding and ultimate outcomes. The First Amendment thus demands contemporaneous access to documents and proceedings in cases like Manning while the proceedings are taking place. The trial Court’s denial of the public’s First Amendment rights is clearly erroneous and amounts to an usurpation of authority.