I must admit to being somewhat nonplussed by this contribution.  I
have been brought up to think that data are the most important
things we deal with, that objects are preserved primarily as
carriers of data and as primary sources to allow corrections or
additions to the data, and that communication and education are
among the prime directives of museums.  Admittedly, we are not a
fine arts museum with items worth millions of dollars and where the
object themselves presumably have intrinsic worth, but, with Robert
Handy, I find it difficult to see how disseminating information is
going to breach security except in limited areas.

Some data obviously should not be public. In our planning to go
public with our biological databases, for example, localities will
be given only to the county level to prevent looting of
archaeological or paleontological sites, or exploitation of possibly
sensitive biological populations or habitats.  Likewise, privileged
donor information and location of objects within the collections
will be withheld.  However, we want researchers to know that we have
X number of specimens of gomphothere teeth from El Paso and Dona Ana
counties, that our herpetological collections include material from
Durango, Mexico, etc., etc.  Until we can disseminate such data
widely and easily, research will remain hampered, and the fruits of
research in the form of informed exhibits and programs will be less
than ideal.



John Scafidi TAL 850/488-5090 wrote:
>
> I am puzzled by Mr. Ryan's request for information. I hasten to point out I
> have no wish to flame him or dis his request.  But I do want to make some talk
> about the topic, and I think listers - including all you students out there -
> should, too.
>
> There seems a tendency among us to consider all data as equal, since to a
> computer all data ARE equal.  Therefore, the line of reasoning seems to go, all
> data are equally share - able.  The only danger, if we are of a suspicious
> frame of mind, is possible corruption of our data by the occasional hacker or
> careless user.  However, I am not a computer.  I am a human, and I work (I
> think) for the public in the present and in a future which will extend far
> beyond my life span.
>
> We attempt to keep our collections data close, allowing little insecure (so far
> as we know) access. When I entered museum work in the seventies, cheap (free
> for employees) xerographic copying was all the rage; opportunities for data
> leakage on paper were considered dangerous, and potential for leakage via the
> new electronic data storage devices were worrisome. Insecure data were viewed
> as potential shopping lists for industrious thieves.  I continue thinking this
> way and acting out my thinking.  However, I have begun to understand that some
> colleagues may consider my point of view as old fashioned or extreme.  Yet our
> greatest sorrow as professionals is that sometimes our friends, with whom we
> are most anxious to exchange data, have proved to be fifth columnists of the
> worst sort.
>
> (I read what I have written and realize it may appear paranoid to many in the
> field, but...) I cannot see any hope for collections physical security unless
> we attempt to ensure collections data security.
>
> Perhaps this is an extreme point of view.  Let's talk.
>
> John A. Scafidi
> Florida State Parks
> Tallahassee, FL
> [log in to unmask]

Art Harris
--
Laboratory for Environmental Biology
Centennial Museum (Natural and Cultural History)
phone (915)747-6985; fax (915)747-5808; [log in to unmask]
http://www.utep.edu/leb     http://www.utep.edu/museum