Hi Michael,
I will try to give you short answers to each of your questions, however much longer
answers are possible.

1. Why do the predictors using your services prefer to keep their predictions private?
To date, most of the predictors using our services have been professional seismologists
or semi-professionals. Public prediction in academic circles is generally frowned on especially
if the press gets ahold of these. Many of these predictors prefer to test a specific hypothesis
and need a private, confidential credible source which can verify these predictions, if
necessary at some future date. When the set of predictions are eventually evaluated,
the predictor then maintains the option of publishing the evaluations and predictions or
not. This give the predictor the ability "cover" if the technique does not show statistical
significance. He/she can forget it and move on without a permanent stain on their
reputation, which unfulfilled predictions often have a way of incurring.

The other reason for privacy is a matter of public safety. In many cases credible
predictors have made predictions (e.g. Brady, or Browning) which were picked up
by the media and made into public "events". If a forecast is based on good science
and the forecaster has a statistically significant record of making credible and
useful forecasts, the public may take such a prediction in a way in which it was
not intended and fear breeds strange behavior. Where the press has picked up on
a prediction, the predictor has generally become ostracized or ridiculed by his/her
peers, whether or not the prediction is accurate or not. Few people who have
spent most of theiry lives studying and working on such problems want to end
their career in this way. Genuine predictors need a place where their forecasts
are treated confidentially without possibility of leakage to the media.

Many countries are very concerned about predictions made by the general public.
There is a little-known law in the U.S. for example, which gives the sole authority
to make a public earthquake prediction to the chief of the USGS. In China it is
a criminal offense to make a public earthquake prediction (known as the "earthquake
law"). When I was in China several years ago, I found many researchers very scared
that private predictions would land them in a Chinese jail.

2. Why are people generally afraid of the government looking at their predictions?
I think many people are generally afraid of government prying into any activity, not
just earthquake predictions. The public safety aspect of earthquake prediction gives
the government a genuine concern in this regard, however, privacy concerns are
a major concern of all government agencies in the U.S. I suppose some misinformed
people who watch X-files too often think there are agents out there just waiting for
someone to make a correct prediction, and expect that if that happens someone will
swoop down and carry them away. Government budgets are such these days that
that just doesn't happen.
But let me give you one example of someone who let his fear of government interference
in his predictions get the best of him (this is a true story). J (not his real initial) had
made predictions for several years - ever since he had been near the Loma Prieta
epicenter when that earthquake hit. He predicted to us and eventually asked for
an evaluation - which we did, finding no statistical significance to his predictions.
He proceeded to talk to several local government agencies. One of the government
officials he talked to felt he was in need of psychological treatment and spoke to
some social workers about him. J had been trying to get funding from the agency
to pursue his prediction techniques, but had been denied at every turn (not surprising).
When the social workers showed up on his doorstep, it was the last straw, J figured
the gov't agency had ratted out on him, and that no one was listening to him any longer.
That night he called my office and left a message on my answering machine that I
would receive no more predictions from him - I did not get it until the next day.
By that time, he had attempted to burn his house down and injured several rescue
personel as they tryed to save him from the inferno. He is currently living in a Federal
penitentiary.
Now I am not saying most predictors are like this, but his experience, first with
one federal agency which said they were recording his forecasts, but could not
produce them when asked, and then with the local government officials might
give people pause in associating with the government in this regard.
By the way, J is up for parole next month and still writes with an occasional
prediction from time to time.

3. What is your general thoughts about the existing prediction boards and their inability to maintain some sort of centralized database as a reference?

Maintaining a database is not as easy as it first seems. Canie has done a great job
with this board the Berkland websites are not too bad either. But database management
requires people who are skilled and trained in this sort of function. Boards are great
places to discuss and parry about various ideas, not so good for maintaining a permanent
database. Several years ago, I was elected the General Secretary of the United Nations
workshop on geomagnetic methods in prediction of natural disasters. We tried to set
up an internal board through NGDC of researchers and predictors where predictions
could be sent and discussion could be accomplished. The problem was that predictions
that came in did not get logged automatically but only when someone was available
to log them. Eventually, the system broke down entirely. Any attempt to maintain
a database must consider several questions:
1) Is it possible for a predictor to make predictions with ease, confidentiality
and the assurance that the prediction will not be lost in the shuffle.
2) What is the archivability of the system. What happens if Canie becomes a
grease spot in the road tomorrow (heaven forbid)? What is the survivability
of the predictions. For example, Roger Hunter collected hundreds of predictions
during his tour of duty with the USGS. What ever happened to those - are
they available or have they been lost. We recently got a letter from the
National Archives in Washington that they had discovered a roomful of
seismograms and other miscellaneous earthquake records from the early
1900's in one of their warehouses. A local bureaucrat decided that records
that old could not have any use and signed a destruction notice. We are
struggling to get those records before they are destroyed since they are
the only one's of their kind in existence. What is the future of any
predictions made to a board. The board needs to consider this very carefully
BEFORE accepting predictions.

4. Do you feel what I'm proposing the Earthquake Prediction Registry would be a benefit to the public?

I have commented on this in the sense of public safety issues above. The public
interest is served IF a prediction is credible, has been reviewed for scientific basis
and IF the public is well informed regarding the ability and inability of the predictor
and agencies to make meaningful earthquake predictions. Credible and useful
earthquake predictions are few and far between in the history of earthquakes.
The public has the right to know if a threat is imminent, but can any predictors
say with assurance that their prediction technique can say a threat is real and
imminent. Let us say that a credible forecast is made for San Francisco +/- 50 km
for tomorrow for a Ms 6.5 earthquake. The public finds out about this somehow -
an earthquake prediction registry or a leak from the basement of the San Jose
City Hall or other. People decide to take a vacation from work that day and relax
on the beaches north of San Francisco. An earthquake happens offshore
triggering a tidal wave which kills the thousands who have spent the day on the
beach. The earthquake prediction was correct, but did it enhance the public
safety? Screaming FIRE in a crowded theater is a felony offense. It alerts the
people to the fire, but does more damage than good.
Where does the right of the people to "know" end and the responsibility of
government to "protect" begin.
Is the predictor of a public prediction liable for the commerce that is lost
if the forecast quake does not happen?
There are a host of questions that any predictor making a public prediction
must and should ask himself before doing so. A public registry of predictions
might serve to compound this public safety issue.
The story of the boy who cried wolf is usually cited at this point. The problems
that have arisen in the tsunami community in this regard is a good case in point.
When tsunami warning centers were first set up, it was thought that a tsunami
warning should be issued for every great earthquake around the Pacific rim. So,
for many years tsunami warnings were routinely issued in Hawaii when large
earthquake occurred in Alaska, for example. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending
on your perspective) the tsunami warning center was set up after the Alaska earthquake
and tsunami in 1964. Since then there have been NO destructive tsunamis in
Hawaii from earthquakes in Alaska (or elsewhere). Tens of warnings have been issued,
but not destructive tsunamis have occurred.
As a citizen of Hawaii who has seen warnings come and go over the past
36 years, should I be concerned tomorrow when a earthquake occurs off the
coast of California and the warning center tells me a tsunami is possible in
Hawaii? I DON'T THINK SO!!
It is difficult to know how to juggle the issues of right of free speech, fairness
to predictors, public safety and false alarms. My inclination is to keep all predictions
private until a statistically significant standard is met by a single predictor. Make
the scientific community aware of this, and proceed to look in detail at the
technique the predictor has used.

5. What suggestions would you have to improve what Roger and I have developed so far with the registry?
I have not read all the discussion on the registry, and will need to look in more
detail on this before responding to this in detail. My general lack of confidence in
public prediction is detailed above, however.

6. Do you have any other suggestions or ideas that would help to move the art of earthquake prediction forward?

Earthquake prediction is not going to come about overnight. You might be surprised
to know the resources ($1 billion per year in Japan for example) that various countries
are putting into earthquake prediction studies. There is a general feeling among
researchers and government officials in many countries, however, that the United
States should be leading the way on this, but instead, because we do not have
damaging earthquake (at least not very damaging that killed thousands), that
we are selfishly ignoring the problem that is faced throughout the rest of the world.
The funding for earthquake prediction in the U.S. is, indeed quite small in comparison
to our GNP compared with most other earthquake-prone areas. The Nisqually earthquake
(Olympia Washington) shows why this is the case. Several engineering firms have
contacted us recently, worried that the Nisqually quake created a bigger problem
than it solved by making people think that there would be little damage in a big
earthquake. True the earthquake was a Ms 6.8, and this in any other country
would have brought whole cities to the ground. But this is still much smaller than
the maximum earthquake expected in the area, and I have been told by engineers
that a few seconds more of shaking and many buildings would have been totally
destroyed. We have been lucky in the U.S. for nearly 100 years that the large
earthquakes have occurred generally in unpopulated areas (Landers, Hector Mine,
Borah Peak, Hebgen Lake). This will not last for ever, however.

The single most important thing that can be done, in my estimation to advance
earthquake prediction studies in the U.S. is to make them more acceptable in the
scientific community. There is a small cadre of seismologists working on this
problem, and working on this problem and working on this problem .... Unfortunately,
little new has been added for a long time. Modelling (like is being done by
Yehuda Ben Zion) is helping to make this more acceptable. But the paradigm,
as you all know, is that "earthquake prediction is impossible" - how often have
you heard that said on TV or specials. Once we get into the mindset that something
is impossible it becomes impossible because we are not willing to accept
that it is otherwise despite evidence to the contrary.
The true visionaries of the world are those who see that the impossible is possible,
and take steps to make it so. They often are not appreciated (take Wegener for
example) in their own lifetimes, but truth has a way of winning the day eventually
if history (and science books) are not continuously rewritten to reflect the current
paradigms.

7. Can we list your registry info (address, email) as an alternate resource to EPR for those who want to register predictions?

You are welcome to list the information as an alternate resource with the restriction
that predictions made to our center become part of a long-term database. We will
not release predictions to the public, but will verify a prediction was made after
an event has occurred and with the consent or request of the predictor. A complete
record of the prediction will be provided - not just the portion that satisfies the
predictor. If a public verification is required, we will also at our discretion provide
infomation on the predictive history of the predictor, including false alarms and
failed forecasts.
We prefer e-mail predictions since the date on e-mail is automatically
assigned and there is no question of post-diction associated with these.

The e-mail address to send predictions to is:
low@luna.ngdc.noaa.gov

Predictions should be in the approximate form described by this board and
should include at a minimum latitude and longitude of the epicenter, magnitude
(preferably Mw, but any scale is acceptable provided it is stated in the prediction),
time of event (preferably date) - hour minute and second are superfluous. Depth
and/or intensity are optional. The predictor should also provide some measure
of his conviction that this event will occur. For example saying the event has a
0.2 probability means that the forecaster believes that if he makes five such forecasts,
he should be within acceptable parameters at least once. Useage of terms like
very sure, positive, likely etc. should be avoided as they cannot be quantified. If
the predictor wishes to use such terms, he should indicated what they mean
in terms of probability.
In addition to the parameters of the event, the predictor may wish to add comments -
like damaging, tsunami-producing. These are hard to quantify, but would be useful
in a non-qualitative sense in evaluating the full forecast.

If the predictory wishes to mail his forecast the postmark on the letter is
considered the date of the prediction and should be sent to:
Dr. Lowell Whiteside
NOAA/NGDC
Dept. of Commerce
325 Broadway
Boulder, Colorado, 80303