Re: [Ghm-discuss] The posh talk does not complain with the policy

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   I remember another from an old speech by Richard, explaining what
   technical knowledge is by a comparison:

   * Knowing that some person has a sexual relation with another is
     personal non-technical information;

   * knowing some marvelous sexual technique *is* technical information,
     and educating people about it is good for society.  Preventing people
     from disclosing such information is morally unacceptable.

For the record, this is from a speech by RMS, at the New York
University on May 29th, 2001:

> Now there are other kinds of information, which raise different
> ethical issues.  For instance, there’s personal information.  If you
> wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your
> boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody–I could agree to
> keep that a secret for you, because that’s not generally useful
> technical information.

> At least, it’s probably not generally useful [audience laughs].
> There is a small chance–and it’s a possibility though–that you might
> reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, [audience laughs] and
> I would then feel a moral duty [audience laughs] to pass it on to
> the rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it.
> So, I’d have to put a proviso in that promise.

> If it’s just details about who wants this, and who’s angry at whom,
> and things like that soap opera ... that I can keep private for you;
> but something that humanity could tremendously benefit from knowing,
> I mustn’t withhold.  You see, the purpose of science and technology
> is to develop useful information for humanity to help people live
> their lives better.  If we promise to withhold that information–if
> we keep it secret–then we are betraying the mission of our field.
> And this, I decided, I shouldn’t do.