data sharing/security

[Stuart G. Poss]

Michael wrote:

> The unfortunate situation for many rare plant species is that their
> protection lies only in their obscurity and remoteness from public
> attention.
>
Given increasing human population and economic pressures, we can't
expect obscurity and remoteness to be properties that will characterize
most species in the future.

> More of a problem may be the pool the
> uneducated people, who on finding a database such as the one for Wisconsin
> orchids, might then find precise site data linked to the pretty picture of
> the plant in bloom. ...

> But I do
> think education is required first, about how even well intended visitation
> and limited collecting can impact fragile species and habitats; also the
> alternative of visiting public collections and managed sites.
>

In this I think we can agree.  Education is critical and it must as
quickly as possible.  Perhaps where we may still disagree is the nature
of the education. I see the education at two levels: 1) of the
scientific community so that it can act to address threats in a
sufficiently timely fashion to be of consequence and 2) the public at
large so that it can come to appreciate the importance of conserving
individual species from extinction.  Perhaps we need a dual track
security system and I like your analogy to the special collections rooms
at libraries.  The instantaneous access I would seek for collections
data for all species would be that needed for scientists and regulatory
and enforcement agencies to be more proactive in their efforts to study
and protect the individual species or systems of species.  I am perhaps
more sanguine than many, who may feel we have plenty of time to identify
and prepare for all factors disruptive to species and ecosystems as a
whole.
>
> >Perhaps an authentication solution that incorporates the notion of
> >requests from certain known "secure" servers or passwords, would permit
> >automatic access to those who could be expected to behave responsibly
> >with such data.

> Yes, I believe this is an agreeable compromise, and not difficult to
> implement.

The question is can we devise a secure yet relatively universal system
that would permit a wide range of scientists with "a need to know"
timely access to the data?  While timely could be measured in months,
weeks, or even days, I would still argue that if it can be essentially
instantaneous, with proper preclearance, it will provide our best
opportunity to be proactive in our studies as well as monitor the
current state of affairs, for particular species.

What other attributes besides "geocoded position" should be placed
behind the firewall?  Could a universal system of authentication be
developed that might work across both Botany and Zoology, broadly
construed?  In my opinion it would be preferrable to obtain access
permission once, even if requiring considerable effort and
justification, than having multiple places one would need to apply with
varying requirements.  Perhaps, discipline wide approaches to "security
authorities" might work, but it would be useful if scientists could gain
access to cross discipline information.
>
> As another Taxacomer pointed out, the matter of data security is of concern
> only for the fraction of taxa which are Endangered, Threatened, or special
> concern species.  Of these, only a fraction are threatened by collection or
> harvesting.  Often these species are members of discreet taxonomic groups
> (families, genera) and are easily recognized.

I would agree, but this is only a reflection of the the current
situation.  From my reading of likely events to come, there will be a
great many more species that will fall into this category and this issue
will become of broader relevance to accessing collections data
generally.  Consquently, we probably don't have unlimited time to put
such a system in place.

> I do not think protecting data security is a large technical problem.  But
> it is an issue of concern.  The community of collections workers and the
> conservation community have shared close ties and these should not be
> jeopardized in exchange for the vague and speculative utility that might be
> obtained by uncontrolled public access to rare organism site locations on
> the web.  Does "the public" want this information? If you polled those who
> are educated and concerned about the environment, I think you may find they
> would not want site data disseminated.

I would hope that you are right, but I suspect that even those among the
public that are "pro-environment" few have even given it a thought.  My
impression is that even if what you say is true, there are many who are
extremely sensitive of inventories and monitoring activities that could
potentially affect their land use rights, whether relating to private or
public property.  We must be careful that the system we do develop does
not restrict access to data where there is no compelling need.  Should
such decisions be solely in the hands of individual data providers?  The
more different rules, the harder it will be to develop a reasonably
universal authentication system.

A flip side of this issue is that for an increasing number of
non-indigenous species, it would be extremely helpful to directly
involve the public in locating and monitoring the exact position of
capture.  This way we can potentially get their help in reducing either
their numbers or their impact on native faunas.

One of the problems I see is that very few "sites" are actually well
studied and for which detailed inventories including geocoding exist.
We have largely "given up the ghost" on the rest.  The problems of range
fragmentation are well known, but their consequences may not have fully
played themselves out yet.  This will limit the amount of time, we in
the collections and conservation communities have to build an
authentication system that will permit the free, and ideally
instantaneous, flow of information among scientists, while mitigating
its potential impacts on species at risk due to unrestricted
dissemination to the public at large.  Building educational resources
directed at the public as part of our efforts must be a priority.
Unless there is strong evidence that the public should not be encouraged
to directly participate, I suggest we strive to keep the process as open
as possible.

>
> Michael Chamberland

--
_____________________________________________________________________
Stuart G. Poss                       E-mail: sgposs at seahorse.ims.usm.edu
Senior Research Scientist & Curator  Tel: (228)872-4238
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory       FAX: (228)872-4204
P.O. Box 7000
Ocean Springs, MS  39566-7000