The FTC has promulgated new rules that say bloggers and other online commentators have to disclose "material connections" if those "connections" (broadly defined) could have influenced the opinion or review of a product or service, especially where the audience wouldn't assume that the opinion was otherwise a paid endorsement. These rules become effective 12/1/2009...

Really?

Here is my disclosure from here on out. Mr. James Madison made sure that I received a free copy of The United States Constitution which includes a gratis (but hard won) copy of the Bill of Rights. In it, I find that my opinion of products or services, as well as my absolute right to speak either anonymously or even with ill or deceitful intent (but probably not fraud if someone is paying me to create commercial speech directly) was explained where it says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

As a matter of principle, every reader of this blog or any social media updates of mine should know that my ongoing disclosure is that I refuse to disclose. I will back up that refusal with a good old fashioned Bivens case if pressed.

The NY Times Science Blog, Dot Earth, publishes a reader comment basically claiming that the hacks into the leading climate changes scientists' email was cyberterrorism. It even goes so far as to attempt to downplay the hack on Sarah Palin's account (which is relevant why?)

I don't support illegal activities, but there is a very odd moral equivalence going on. Scientists can lie in public in an attempt to alter global politics and economics and break laws to avoid legally required disclosure of much if not all of these documents, and we should feel sorry for them that their privacy was violated? If they didn't wish to be public figures this way they could easily:

a) not disseminate false and misleading information in an attempt to beggar economic growth as the new malthusians, or

b) practice the simple policy that most scientists do of making their underlying data and methods available to others publicly for debate and analysis.

Transparency does suck when you have something to hide...