Although the article didn't say anything really bad about nanotechnology, and although it made Our Guys look good, and although it presented a legitimate view of the risks and the possible courses of action, and although the quotes from Ralph and Eric represented good, logically persuasive arguments, I don't think this article is anything to be celebrating about.

Now and probably for the next several months, any article that puts nanotech and terrorism on the same page, except maybe one with a headline like "Nanotech Offers Solution for Terrorism", is Bad Publicity (TM). People aren't in a mood to consider things rationally in the WTC aftermath… they're in a mood to hide from things that scare them.

The subtle arguments about needing to study defense are going to fall on the least fertile possible ground right now, no matter how reasonably they're presented. The way this likely to be read by a lot of people is "Crypto people released crypto, now regret it, nanotech even more dangerous, worry worry, scare scare, make it go away".

Of course, it's completely reasonable to be concerned. The dangers are real, and I am not suggesting that they should be glossed over. However, this article puts nanotech in the emotional context created by (what I suspect is a very exaggerated and/or distorted view of) Hellman's misgivings about openness in the early days of public crypto. It's being printed in a climate where polls are showing support for an outright crypto ban… and the FBI is speculating in public about crypto having been used to murder thousands. It's being read by an audience that's still in, or barely out of, emotional shock. It's going to provoke exactly the sort of knee-jerk "ban nanotech" responses that might get us all killed, rather than the reasoned "how can we guide the inevitable development" thinking that we need.

Obviously, a reporter has to report what she sees as news, and, obviously, an editor is going to give a story as strong a hook as possible, even if it's a negative one. Once you get past that emotional stuff at the beginning, the article positively strains to present a rational, balanced view, and I think the reporter is genuinely sympathetic to Foresight's approach. Nonetheless, the emotions are there, the climate is what it is, and we could hope for a better context for these very important ideas.

I hope that nobody quoted actually steered that article toward nanotech… it would have been a huge tactical error…