I think one must differentiate (at least in biological sciences) between data supporting a finished and published research project. I am a systematic entomologist and biographer, and like most of my colleagues require several years to complete complex monographs--sometimes just 3 years, sometimes a decade. Right now many systematists have primary research data written on paper and representing tentative ideas or data acquired by long and tedious observations--raw data not yet interpreted. I certainly would NEVER expect a colleague to be obliged to show me their unpublished data. This is a simple matter of ethics--I have no right to examine data for an unpublished study. Certainly if someone walked into my own office and demanded to examine data for an unpublished study, I would absolutely refuse and might suspect the person of wanting to use my data in their own study. Just because data are in electronic form does not mean they should be public or made available to someone who asks. The situation for data supporting published studies is so different. Once a study is published, colleagues expect to be able to view data--even raw data not listed in the publication--so that they can attempt to verify or repeat experiments or observations used in deriving the published conclusions or hypotheses. I think we must be careful to avoid feeling that electronic data somehow are so different than paper data that everyone should have access. For example, people would be outraged if someone opened and read their regular snail mail. However, I have heard some people state that electronic mail from 1 person to another (as opposed to mail sent to forums) is not to be considered as private. In this age of increasing computer data banks its important to think hard about what data should be private and what should be released. Policies will have to consider the wide variety of data, and (at least for biological data) the potential harm that publication of data might cause.