data sharing/security

[Stuart G. Poss]

Michael wrote:
>
> At 08:48 PM 12/4/98 -0600, Stuart G. Poss wrote:
> >
> >I am unconvinced that the risk facing species that may result from the
> >inappropriate use of our data ranks high among the primary threats posed
> >to these species, so I would advocate full disclosure, warts and all.
>

To which Michael Chamberland responded:

> The University of Wisconsin Botany Department maintains a very nice web
> information page indexing the Orchids of Wisconsin, with habitat data and
> photos provided.  This page is linked to herbarium records which can offer
> locality data, but for certain rarer species this information is withheld
> with the disclaimer:
> "This is a Wisconsin Endangered species. Therefore precise location
> information is available only through a password gotten by contacting the
> WIS herbarium (608)262-2792".
> I think this is an appropriate measure, especially if no positive use has
> been identified for disseminating localities for endangered plants which
> face collecting/harvesting pressure.  The situation may be less critical
> for (motile) vertebrates, but is more sensitive for botanical, fossil, and
> archaeological site data I suspect.
>
> Michael Chamberland

Yes, as I indicated in my post there are situations where some similar
approach is probably inevitable.  You may also be correct for species of
abalone, relatively non-mobile species that have been nearly harvested
into oblivion.  However, as a general approach to these kinds of
problems, which probably affect all kinds of species, not just those
that are "on their last legs" at the momment, my concern is that such an
approach may not be proactive enough.

You are correct to identify a particular known threat to these species
and attempt to address it.  Rogue collectors may well be much more of a
problem for certain largely non-motile species.  However, I would argue
that a more appropriate response would seem to call for better law
enforcement, environmental protection legislation, and education of the
public and policy/law makers rather than data withholding.  It is not at
all clear that in the example of the orchids you gave subsequently, that
it was access to website collections records that was clearly shown to
have made the difference.  I would not argue that the potential threat
is certainly real and has been a problem for fossil sites.

However, if scientists are not in a position to quickly acquire and
evaluate collections records, how will such an approach help us in
dealing with serious threats that are not so readily identified, such as
those resulting from introductions on non-indigenous weedy species,
wholesale clearing of areas for development, effects from non-point
source pollution such as acid rain, loss of pollintor species, or
expected changes in perciptitation with topography that will arise from
global warming, etc.?  For the most part, we do not know what the
threats are.  To lock up data so that it can't be instantaenously
accessed and hence readily investigated by scientists greatly limits our
ability to utilize such information in novel ways to address these
problems.  Thus, witholding information may not prove as conservative an
approach as it might seem.  Perhaps if such data could be placed at the
right momment in the hands of a geneticist, molecular biologist,
land-use manager, nature photographer, or developer making a honest
effort to limit destructive effects, these species might have some
lasting chance against these not as easily identified threats.

While admittedly some highly desirable "collector's items" may be spared
a known measure of risk, restricting access to information does not help
when the threats are unknown or where those who could provide
conservation solutions are not within the "traditional" collections
community.  Nor perhaps will it make a difference in the long run,
because of the stochastic nature of the problem.  Even if only a few
irresponsible collectors are active, it is only a matter of time before
they find these locations, even without accessing the web. If we did
restrict such access, couldn't such nefarious individuals turn to other
sources of information?  Should we ban all libary books and journal
publications too?  It really only takes a few folks to really mess up an
ecosystem.  We also need to keep in mind that the Internet is a little
like the atomic bomb, to which it holds its raison d'etre.  Its not
likely to be uninvented and having been invented, we need to alter
behaviors to accommodate the new reality that it brings with it.

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.  Like certain kinds of mischevious hacking, it could be
made a felony to use such access inappropriately or gain access by
unlawful means.  In my mind this would be preferable to taking data "off
the table", each time we perceive that someone might misuse it.
Otherwise, with another few billion people expected to arrive shortly,
it would seem that collections information of a very large fraction of
the worlds biota relatively quickly may be "held in trust" to keep it
from falling into irresponsible hands.  I think that would be a recipe
for the eventual decline and loss of collections and systematics at at
time when they would be most urgently needed.  While our intentions
would be admirable, it is difficult to see how effective such an
approach could be in stemming the decimation of populations or in
informing people about the urgency of addressing these problems.

I think putting some exciting "finds" on the Internet and then in
cooperation with law enforcement using them to conduct "sting"
operations might prove a higly effective means of preventing rouge
collectors from decimating the remaining strands of particular rare
species.  Perhaps the word would quickly get out to folks that such
behavior will not be tolerated and would likely result in their
prosecution, assuming it is illegal in Wisconsin to "take" such
species.  Maybe threatend species everywhere would be better protected
if there was an increased perception that someone might be watching when
such misdeeds are committed.  The "robbing" of natural gene banks is a
serious issue and perhaps we need to become more serious in how the
issue is addressed.  However, like for commercial banks, I don't think
the answer to bank robbery lies in keeping the addresses of the banks a
secret.  Perhaps, just as we don't need to know the combination to the
vault to maintain a deposit, online authentication and cryptography
could provide levels of protection for secure information, without
denying instantaneous access for legitimate investigators.  Some models
for securing certain remote sensing data work this way.  One must obtain
clearance and a password to secure access to the files, not always for
reasons of secrecy but also to restrict tying up servers with excessive
downloads by "frivolous" users.

The problem you describe is an indication that additional environmental
protection legislation and education, and potentially more vigourous
enforcement of laws already on the books to protect rare orchids and
similar species is definitely needed.  It is also an indication that
efforts toward construction of systems to universally disseminate
collections data will require a great deal of attention to security as
well as other design considerations.  Nonetheless, where practical, I
believe we need to put heavier selection pressure on ecologically
destructive behaviors rather than restricting the free flow of
information about the natural world.

Stuart

--
_____________________________________________________________________
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