May 2004 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: Data
by Justin Rosenthal 26 May '04

26 May '04

Elijah, As I get deeper into this problem, I am slowly coming to terms with the fact that the data I am after could only be generated at a great expense. Primetrica comes the closest, but as I say, their datasets don't provide all data points necessary for network analysis i.e. square-matrix of the form ABCD A -yyy B y-yy C yy-y D yyy- where y is a measure of data flow from city in row i to city in column j. Too bad, because data like this could really open up some interesting problems. Thanks for your observations, Justin Message: 15 Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:29:28 -0500 (CDT) From: elijah wright <elw(a)stderr.org> To: air-l(a)aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Data Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org > I am interested in hearing any thoughts you have on a data problem that > I have, that I am sure many of you have approached, and which is, of > course, a result of the structure of the Internet itself. In my ideal > world, I would be able to build a relational database of data traffic > between the largest cities worldwide. Social problem the first - the information you'd most like to have is closely guarded by the involved companies. They keep it secret so that other companies can't deduce all of their peering agreements and thereby figure out how best to 'take advantage' of network position for profit. This is a pretty common problem for a decentralized network, in my experience. > The data I have found shows gross data traffic between nodes, which > includes traffic originated in third-party cities and destined for > fourth-party cities, for example, and which does not provide an estimate > of the traffic originated in 3 and destined for 4. This means that the > data doesn't relate every node in the city system to every other in > terms of network traffic inbound and outbound. right - the nodes which are most easily measured/evaluated (the network hubs) don't actually act as termination points for a whole lot of traffic. they're just points in the system as a whole, with peers that serve endpoints but are not backbone nodes themselves. > Have you approached this problem? Do you have any thoughts on how > currently available data can be patched for network analysis, or how > such a relational database could be built in the future? a graph-like structure is good for this, IMHO. something like this: sourcenode destnode measurement eval.date sourcenode destnode measurement eval.date sourcenode destnode measurement eval.date ad nauseum. you may need some more values, depending on what it is that you're wanting to do. but that general form (spreadsheet-like) is one of the simpler structures to store in a database, and reformatting those tables into something that tools like UCINet or Pajek can display is not such a terrible task. elijah _____________________________________ Justin Rosenthal MA Candidate - Social Science University of Chicago jrr(a)uchicago.edu

4 3

Talking Race and Cyberspace
by Art McGee 26 May '04

26 May '04

NetTime May 25, 2004 Talking Race and Cyberspace: Interview with Lisa Nakamura By Geert Lovink I met Internet scholar Lisa Nakamura at a conference in Oslo, late 2001, where she showed how techno-utopian dreams reproduced racist patterns. Her analysis was of a shocking normality because it, once again, proved how 'the old' got teleported into the new in such a friction-free manner. Nakamura's material shows how the Internet, despite all its alternative claims, is part of dominant visual culture. "No one on the Internet knows you are a dog." It is this flirt with fluid identities, so common in the roaring nineties, that distracted Internet advocates from futher investigations. That, of course, changed over the past years. A number of conferences were held and studies done, and Lisa Nakamura's work stands out within this context. The following email interview was done after we both got involved in a debate about the merits of 'Internet research'. Full Interview: http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0405/msg00057.html -end- Art McGee Principal Consultant Virtual Identity Communications+Media+Technology 1-510-967-9381 artmcgee(a)cyberspace.org

1 0

Re: [Air-l] re:Response to Thomas Koenig - Part I
by Dan L Burk 26 May '04

26 May '04

On 25 May 2004, ET wrote: > You jest, surely :-) > > I go to the library, pick up a book off the shelf and browse - taking > mental notes. > I go to USENET, open a ng and browse - taking mental notes. > I have achieved the same result. Yes, but when you opened the newsgroup and began browsing, you created dozens of copies -- on intermediate servers, possibly in your ISP's cache, probably in your own buffer or cache, certainly in your desktop RAM. Also additional copies if you are using a modem. This is not the case for the book. > I go to the library, pick up a book off the shelf and write down some notes. > I go to USENET, open an ng and write down some notes. > I have achieved the same result. While creating dozens of electronic copies in one case, and not in the other. > I go to the library, pick up a book off the shelf and photocopy some pages. > I go to USENET, open an ng and save a few pages. > I have achieved the same result. Creating dozens of electronic copies in one case, and some paper copies in the other. > It is exactly the same thing - but if you dont want to see that, > then its fine by me. You appear to have a very unusual definition of "exactly the same." You may want to think more carefully about the operational differences of the technologies you are using. Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA *************************************** Voice: 612-626-8726 Fax: 612-625-2011

1 0

re:Response to Thomas Koenig - Part I
by ET 25 May '04

25 May '04

Dan wrote... "Eero's analogy fails, first, because as far as copyright is concerned, USENET archives are *not* a library in the same way that print materials are. Using print materials does not entail making copies. Accessing USENET archives does -- at a minimum, as I said previously, making RAM copies." ET writes... You jest, surely :-) I go to the library, pick up a book off the shelf and browse - taking mental notes. I go to USENET, open a ng and browse - taking mental notes. I have achieved the same result. I go to the library, pick up a book off the shelf and write down some notes. I go to USENET, open an ng and write down some notes. I have achieved the same result. I go to the library, pick up a book off the shelf and photocopy some pages. I go to USENET, open an ng and save a few pages. I have achieved the same result. It is exactly the same thing - but if you dont want to see that, then its fine by me. But whether a library is the exact same as a newsgroup is not the real point here. The real point is that USENET and www are publicly available and, within the boundaries of the law, must be available for the researcher to acccess freely. This, to me, is beyond doubt. Are there any areas where a researcher is not free, yes. I would suggest that any area where an individual log in is required or where the data is not open to the public without membership means a researcher is not free to do as they please. Direct private communication like email is not available to a researcher to freely access. Thee are some grey areas like chat rooms. But when it comes to a freely available web page or newsgroup there can be no question a researcher is free to access(within the boundaries of the law) *** What I would like to see is some acknowledgement of this difference in the Ethics document. A simple explanation that there are two schools of thought with one group favouring high privacy values whilst the other favours high public access values would go a long way to ending this debate. I imagine that we are very close on most issues regarding access for researchers - except when it comes to www and USENET and similar forums. That would seem a reasonable request, wouldnt it?? regards, Eero Tarik Adelaide

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Google is watching !
by Thomas Koenig 25 May '04

25 May '04

OK, here's my serial answer: At 01:26 21/05/2004, Charles Ess wrote: >Um, all due respect, but that wasn't quite the point - i.e., to draw an >analogy between behaviors/choices advocated on the list and robbery, etc. >It was rather to simply provide hopefully obvious examples of why going from >what is to what ought to be (without further ado) is ethically problematic. I know that that was not the point. But nobody here was advocating the kind of standpoint your example refutes, namely "that 'what _is_ the case' does not automatically define what _ought_ to be the case." That's why I found your example misleading. And that's why I think, that an argument that starts out with "by the same token", is misleading as well. Some issue have become confused, I think. Let's dissect the argument made by me (and I believe others here, too): 1. Through Google and other means the www/Usenet is publicly accessible. That is an empirical observation, *not* an ethical statement. 2. Communication that is publicly accessible is public (and can under some circumstances become part of the public sphere). That is a definitional statement. This ad-hoc definition appears to be pretty straightforward, but, if someone more suitable or more sophisticated definition, I am all ears. 3.a. Therefore, it is entirely legal for any citizen or journalist to quote (within copyright boundaries) anything that has been published on the www/Usenet. 3.b. Therefore, it is *infeasible* to have a private communication on the Usenet and most parts of the www. These are also merely empirically falsifiable statements. 4. Any academic researcher should have the same rights as "ordinary" citizens or at least as journalists (whose impact on the public sphere is far greater), when conducting his or her research. This *is* an *ethical* statement. I can see of no reason, why we should curtail the rights of academics more than the rights of journalists. In fact, many people would argue for special "academic freedom" rights that extend over the ordinary freedom rights for every citizen. I am asking here merely to be granted the *same* freedom rights as every other citizen should have. Now, you *could* argue to take Google and other web crawlers offline, forbid hypertext linking, in fact, forbid the htt-protocol altogether to insure "privacy" on the net. That is not an ethical standpoint I would share, but it would target the appropriate bodies. >All that was claimed, I think, >is that _if_ rights to privacy can be established for good reason(s) - then >those rights need to be respected, all other things being equal (including >exceptions for various forms of deceptive research, etc.). And what would be a "good reason" to establish "privacy rights" on the Usenet? It is a protocol entirely *unsuitable* for privacy. In a few select cases I have already mentioned several times (young minors, mentally ill people, etc.) I can see, why we should not compound a "breach" of privacy that has been brought about by the posters/bloggers themselves. By and large, however, Usenet discussions are conducted by people and in topic areas that do not warrant special protection. > > I myself cannot see, how the Internet "erodes" privacy, at least not in the > > ways it was discussed here (Google searches, "concealed" ethnography). > > Nobody is forced to publish anything on the net. What could, e.g., be a > > privacy concern is the analysis of IP logs to check on surfing behavior, > > but that was not a point in the discussion here. >Um, I think this overlooks a central point - and another one. >1. A central point is what people's expectations are - whether justified or >not. It seems clear that people frequently expect privacy, both in (a) >contexts in which such expectations are, from an informed perspective, >unrealistic and (b) contexts which even if originally comparatively private, >become in various ways more public (e.g., USENET postings that were later >published, etc.) I may not be long enough on the Usenet, but when I first entered it (in 1996), all Usenet postings were actually published the second you sent them, granted that some newsservers had a delay of up to a day or so. There also was deja-news, which functioned pretty much like Google does today. So, there was no privacy back then and looking at the technique, I doubt it ever was differently. Next, why should an expectation for privacy entitle you to privacy? If I am doing 120mph on an Arizona freeway, should I be exempt from the speeding ticket, as my "expectation" for speed limits was formed on the Autobahn and I did not bother to inform myself about the Arizona highway code? If you are doing something in public, it has public repercussions. If one puts forth a racist argument on the Usenet, some racists, who come across that posting, might get encouraged. Why should this encouragement be fair game, while its analysis (not even its criticism!) should not be? It works the other way, too: If someone publishes his or her anti-homophobic views on the Usenet, why would you want to relegate these views into the "private sphere", not treating him or her as a full -- may I say "autonomous" -- actor in the public sphere? >More precisely: the technologies affiliated with the Internet and >computer-mediated communication provide affordances which render privacy >more and more fragile. In what sense? If I make public statements on the Internet or anywhere else, how does it "erode" my privacy? Would my privacy become "eroded" through a TV interview? No, it would not, it would offer me the opportunity to share my views with a larger public. Ubiquitous CCTV erodes your privacy, "anti-terrorist laws" erode your privacy, but your *choice* to make some your thoughts *public* on the Internet does not erode your privacy, it creates opportunities for your public persona. In fact, CMC frequently enhances your privacy: Why are there so many porn sites on the web? Because it is *more* private to order such material over the web than to walk into your local smut store. If you take the appropriate precautions, you can even publish fairly anonymously on the Internet, create multiple fictional personae. What more privacy do you want? >2. The "nobody is forced" argument is only partially correct. >Nobody is forced to buy an automobile in the United States. But unless one >lives in one of the few metropolitan areas such as Manhattan, etc. - there >is no real choice but to buy an automobile if one wants to participate in >social networks, etc. >By the same token, as the Internet interpenetrates our lives in the >so-called developed world more and more - as well as in developing countries >- there is increasingly little "choice" as to whether or not one makes use >of the technology. You may be prompted to publish something professional on the Internet, but that was the case before, too, it just happened differently (in hardcopy journals, etc.). With respect to publishing anything privately on the web, that pressure might exist in some very small circles (Internet researchers below the age of 25), but you are certainly not "forced" to publish anything private that you do not *choose* to publish. Even, if we were to become "forced" to publish something privately, I cannot see, why that necessarily would be a bad thing, after all we all do things both in private and in public anyways. But I just don't see that happen in the foreseeable future. [to be continued]

3 3

Educational System and Information Society
by Julio Meneses Naranjo 25 May '04

25 May '04

Dear all, I'm looking for some literature about the evolution of Educational Systems at the Network or Information Society. All the bibliography usually available on Education and Information Age is concerning about how multimedia and new ICTs are modifying the learning process at online environments (for example Distance Universities). However, I need to find some references about the evolution of the whole Educational System when it gets into the Information Age, maybe seen from a systemic point of view. Any hints? Any reference or place to start looking for are very welcome. Thank you very much in advance! _________________________________________________________ Julio Meneses Naranjo Investigador del IN3 Doctorando del Programa de Sociedad de la Información del IN3 Universitat Oberta de Catalunya Estudis de Psicologia i Ciències de l'Educació Avinguda Tibidabo 39-43 08035 Barcelona (Spain) jmenesesn(a)uoc.edu

3 2

Re: [Air-l] re:Response to Thomas Koenig - Part I
by Dan L Burk 25 May '04

25 May '04

On 25 May 2004, Charles Ess wrote: > > Charles, you wrote... > > "2. The central question then becomes - what counts as a recording or > > registration of publicly observable behavior? > > Part of the difficulty here is making an analogy between offline recordings > > (via cameras, video and audio tape recorders, etc.) and what is now a > > publicly available archive of USENET postings. > > It seems to me that there is a strong analogy. Recordings/registrations > give > > us an enduring and publicly accessible source of information for subsequent > > analysis - and certainly the publicly accessible archive of USENET postings > > does the same thing." > > > > Now I am confused. > > > > I see the publicly available archive of USENET and the information > available > > on websites > > as a library. > > One doesnt ask permission from every source of information used in a > library > > when conducting > > a study, does one? > > As Dan Burk's post made clear, I thought - the situation depends on the > "fair use" or equivalent guidelines for the use of copyrighted material. I > don't know what the situation in Australia is - but then we have the further > interesting question of what to do with a resource that is almost by > definition international. The Berne convention should apply, as Dan makes > clear - but whose "local" rules for fair use (if any) apply? > > cheers, > charles ess Charles is generally correct here, although Berne (and/or WTO TRIPs) does not apply of itself -- it mandates certain standards for national laws. Application of national law will depend on conflict of law principles, considering 1) where the user is located, 2) where the author of the materials was located when the materials were created, 3) the nationality of the author, and possibly 4) where the server housing the materials is located. Eero's analogy fails, first, because as far as copyright is concerned, USENET archives are *not* a library in the same way that print materials are. Using print materials does not entail making copies. Accessing USENET archives does -- at a minimum, as I said previously, making RAM copies. As Charles suggested, in the US, the creation of such copies may be fair, and/or allowed by implied license, for certain purposes. Other countries have reached different results. And even if you believe some uses are fair and/or licensed, those priveleges will not extend to all possible uses of the materials. Some further background is available at http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/intprop/98_2burk/default.htm -- getting a bit dated, but the general analysis still applies. DLB Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA *************************************** Voice: 612-626-8726 Fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006(a)umn.edu

1 0

re:Response to Thomas Koenig - Part I
by ET 25 May '04

25 May '04

Charles, you wrote... "2. The central question then becomes - what counts as a recording or registration of publicly observable behavior? Part of the difficulty here is making an analogy between offline recordings (via cameras, video and audio tape recorders, etc.) and what is now a publicly available archive of USENET postings. It seems to me that there is a strong analogy. Recordings/registrations give us an enduring and publicly accessible source of information for subsequent analysis - and certainly the publicly accessible archive of USENET postings does the same thing." Now I am confused. I see the publicly available archive of USENET and the information available on websites as a library. One doesnt ask permission from every source of information used in a library when conducting a study, does one? just a few snippets... Gregory Woodward, early USENET pioneer quoted in http://groups.google.com/groups?q=research+usenet&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=t… "For other reasons, the use of the term "operational anarchy" in relation to netnews serves to remind those involved that we are involved in a co-operative situation, where the ultimate responsibility for the contents rests squarely on the poster of an article. Much of the arguments about netnews goverance are attempts to avoid this basic fact. :-)" Also , from USENET RULES OF CONDUCT http://www.uea.ac.uk/menu/acad_depts/cpc/services/comms/newsrule.shtml " Posting of information on Usenet is to be viewed as similar to to publication." The responses to this post by Alex Black in news.admin.policy were interesting as again it supports the view that usenet postings are researchable by the academic http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=1993Dec7.202319.… /groups%3Fq%3Dresearch%2Busenet%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D1993Dec7.202319.16208%2540dgbt.doc.ca%26rnum%3D2 and finally, this newsgroup item is most interesting because it takes the problem into another area. Its ok for academics to sit around and decide what is ethical or not, yet the participants in the actual newsgroup may see an off topic post in their group as spam - and they have a point. http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=research+usenet&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=… news.bellsouth.net&rnum=25 and if these people have a perception that an off topic post is spam, should academics be engaging in this intrusive practice that some might construe as being against USENET rules? regards, Eero Tarik Adelaide

2 1

re:[Air-l] Google is watching ! - a few replies
by ET 25 May '04

25 May '04

thank you for all that Charles, your lengthy and well thought out replies are appreciated, and I am pleased to advise that many of my fellow students have been watching this debate with great interest - seeing some of the world's leading authorities in the area of online ethics research put forward their views has been an exceptional learning experience. It appears there are an abundance of links on the internet which argue for the High Privacy model in internet research. Perhaps its time for those who strongly support a High Public Access model to get their heads together and flood the market with papers, reports, case studies and policy documents arguing their side of the coin. :-) regards, Eero Tarik Adelaide

2 1

Re: [Air-l] Google is watching ! - a few replies
by ET 25 May '04

25 May '04

just a couple of replies to some of the posts... Hamish - you wrote..."perhaps we should remember where this discussion started - someone advocating complete irresponsibility in social research, then squirming around trying to avoid admitting that any of his (weak and inconsistent) arguments were in any way flawed, even given some very weighty counter arguments." 1. All I have advocated is operating within the law, yet you see this as advocating irresponsibility.. how odd. 2. Perhaps my arguments are weak and inconsistent, but I have seen no example in any of the posts of a list member declaring that they have been so impressed by the strength of argument put forward by X that they have changed their own mind on this subject ! 3. I note that your first entry, Dr Cunningham, into this discussion has been to criticise me for having a weak argument. Yet you, the highly credentialled academic and Senior Research Scientist, actually offer no argument yourself? Is that ethical? 4. You say that my arguments are weak - perhaps this is true. But let us just reflect for a moment on my posting history in here... My first post was in February. The number of posts in the thread(s) that developed was 100, by far the largest thread in the past 12 months in this forum. This wasnt 100 posts saying I was an idiot, although some appeared to take that viewpoint. This was 100 posts made by list members who felt passionate about the subject matter being discussed, a discussion I started. Some members wrote to me pointing out that it was the longest and most interesting thread in here for a long time. This Ethics thread, that I started with my weak arguments is now approx 85 posts long. This is the second longest thread in the past year in this forum. Since my first post, I have been the most prolific poster in this forum, a statistic that I did not aim to achieve, but at least I am having a go ! So it may be true that I put forward weak arguments - but it is also true that this feeble student is exceptionally successful at getting a group of high achieving academics to get down and get dirty in the AoIR discussion list. It appears I know how to start a good conversation, and having everyone talking and thinking is sure as hell better than having everyone sitting around not getting involved. It appears we disagree :-) =================================================================== Charles... you are (20 May) arguing that we should consider the expectations of the person/s being researched, and that we should respect their expectations of privacy regardless of how unjustified that expectation may be. you wrote... "In my mind, this requires us to go back to the expectations of the persons we're dealing with as a starting point for developing our sense of ethical obligation." This is what I am trying to deal with. If, as I stated, I take a look at this argument from a human rights perspective then the solutions are simple. I respect the privacy and rights of others as per the ICOCPR and the laws of the country I am living in. There are no ifs and buts in that equation. Its as clear cut as anything in life can be. I am free to research within those above constraints. And I am free of other individuals or groups trying to load higher burdens upon me as it is an infringement of my human rights to do so. Simple, clear. Others in here have arrived at a similar position to mine from tottally different angles and others disagree. You, for example, see the world differently and wish to apply a higher standard. I respect completely your right to impose a higher standard - upon yourself. I am happy to accept your view of the world for yourself. All I ask is that others accept my right to act lawfully, humanely, and according to my own set of moral values, which may, or may not, be higher than your own standards. Am I asking too much? regards, Eero Tarik Adelaide

7 8