看到一则 有趣的新闻 ，剑桥学生Omar Choudary在其硕士论文中提到了[[Chip-and-PIN]]支付系统的一个安全漏洞，尽管该漏洞在专业领域已广为人知，但Omar将论文上传到 剑桥网站 的行为还是引起了英国银行业的担忧，于是UK Cards Association主席[[Melanie Johnson]]给Omar所在的剑桥计算机实验室写信要求从网站撤下文章，结果，他得到的是实验室[[Ross J. Anderson]]教授 牛逼哄哄的答复 ： Second, you seem to think that we might censor a student's thesis, which is lawful and already in the public domain, simply because a powerful interest finds it inconvenient. This shows a deep misconception of what universities are and how we work. Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin; censoring writings that offend the powerful is offensive to our deepest values. Thus even though the decision to put the thesis online was Omar's, we have no choice but to back him. That would hold even if we did not agree with the material! Accordingly I have authorised the thesis to be issued as a Computer Laboratory Technical Report. This will make it easier for people to find and to cite, and will ensure that its presence on our web site is permanent.... ...... You complain that our work may undermine public confidence in the payments system. What will support public confidence in the payments system is evidence that the banks are frank and honest in admitting its weaknesses when they are exposed, and diligent in effecting the necessary remedies. Your letter shows that, instead, your member banks do their lamentable best to deprecate the work of those outside their cosy club, and indeed to censor it. 不难想象，这一举动会被许多人视为剑桥言论自由和学术独立精神的一次响亮展示而获得欢呼和羡慕（中文报道在Google Reader上获得了25个喜欢），不过，我怎么看都觉得这位Anderson的火气有点莫名其妙。

我甚至没弄明白他究竟要表达什么意思，剑桥对其学生/学者公布任何研究内容都没有限制？即便不予限制，连指导意见或准则都没有？而一旦他们公布了就no choice but to back him？否则便辱没了Newton和Darwin？

举个例子，假如这个Omar研究的是性生理学，而他公布了临床志愿者的姓名和临床资料，剑桥管理部门真的没意见？或者他是人类学家，不小心泄露了田野调查对象的敏感隐私，人家来投诉要求做匿名化处理，你也会这么火大？

我不信剑桥在此类问题上完全没有准则，当然Omar的行为可能没有逾越这些准则，但在信用卡安全这么敏感的事情上，外人指望一下存在相关准则，也不为过吧？犯得着为此发飙？

我猜，答案或许隐藏在“a powerful interest finds it inconvenient”这句话里，假如finds it inconvenient的不是银行业协会，而是妇女保护组织，儿童关怀组织，绿色环保组织，回答大概会温柔的多，果若如此，那到底是谁更powerful呢？……