find paper. click button. read paper. have paper. auto-update .bib-liographies. share annotations. talk. build knowledge together. remember this is the floor of what's possible, constantly crushed by information monopolies. wonder why it has to be so hard, how we become complicit
the amount of money being spent to try and cram our collective imagination into a box where we somehow actually want to be able to log in with a federated graph identity and be tracked across the web just for some peace is way more than you think.
and this publisher effort to lobby university libraries to adopt multifactor authentication to kill sci-hub, in the process becoming identity vendors snsi.info/faqs/
f you are wondering why your university got mandatory 2FA recently, it might be wise to keep an eye on the tight business relationships between the organizations pushing for federated identities in the academic system from multiple lobbying angles including librarians and CISOs.
we need to realize the ground has completely shifted underneath the feet of the framing discourse from the last reproducibility crisis. it's still the journal system, but it's doing something different now.
presentation given to an academic security officer group by the company that sells the technology to detect paper piracy to 3|sev|er web.archive.org/web/2021102909…
idk risky thing to call attention to but I do not want to be where science is going to be if it keeps going in this direction.
NIH STRIDES is predicated on short-term, multi-million dollar contracts with to AWS, Google Cloud, and MS Azure to teach scientists how to lock themselves into cloud storage and compute. We're paying money for classes on how to pay money so we can pay them more money later.
every time a well-resourced lab says "we're busy with science and throwing it on AWS is cheap," we take another step towards slicing off another publishing-industry sized dead weight loss off all our (public) grant funding.
I haven't gotten much more info, but I have gotten some marketing and it is bleak: take the "discount" now and get more funding as we lobby for additional grant requirements for our services in the name of security and openness, or fall behind later.
More fun publisher surveillance:
Elsevier embeds a hash in the PDF metadata that is *unique for each time a PDF is downloaded*, this is a diff between metadata from two of the same paper. Combined with access timestamps, they can uniquely identify the source of any shared PDFs.
You can see for yourself using exiftool.
To remove all of the top-level metadata, you can use exiftool and qpdf:
To remove *all* metadata, you can use dangerzone or mat2
Also present in the metadata are NISO tags for document status indicating the "final published version" (VoR), and limits on what domains it should be present on. Elsevier scans for PDFs with this metadata, so good idea to strip it any time you're sharing a copy.
Of course Elsevier's "enhanced pdf viewer" tracks where you click, view, if you hide the page, etc. and then transmits a big base64 blob of events along with ID from University proxy when you leave. I'm sure straight to SciVal for sale.
Is this the way we want science to work?
genuinely sad that avoiding/gaming surveillance to keep your Bench Performance Rankings in the fundable range might have to become part of basic scientific training.
it's that proclaimin' hour: the more I learn about the lineage of each, the more I think a blending of the open science, semweb/linked data, and piracy communities would be an extremely healthy thing for the human knowledge ecosystem. but I still don't know much much they talk rn
the semweb/ld people are maybe a decade ahead of the open science people on the cultural burnout from purity/overpromising vs. tooling to make it real problem. the piracy people are maybe 15y ahead on incentive systems for uploading data and decentralized curation of metadata
if academia was as nimble as infosec, it would pick off the admins, sysops, and moderators of private BitTorrent trackers: they built what we're trying to build a decade ago and did it at the scale of the entirety of human culture, not just one scientific subdiscipline.
"practicality" might have been the worst choice of word possible here. I meant as compared to maybe "ineffability," favoring embracing folk knowledge. In this context it means vs. idealism, academic impossibility. humbling how the meaning flips over such a small cultural divide
I was using linked data here as if it were a near-synonym for semantic web, a subconcept of the broader idea: that's how I've heard it used. but to some people in these communities it is an opposing idea, a reaction against semweb. so close and yet so far
the variation in reaction is instructive: some hear semweb as the totalizing ontology part (it's impossible, it failed), some as the technology and its effects (thriving under different names!) some hear it as the syntax and standards of triplets and beyond (still don't know!!)