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

Re: re:[Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Paul Chenoweth 12 May '04

12 May '04

I believe that Dana has struck a nerve. The concept of "Googling" a name or concept involves at least two aspects of this debate. First of all someone (or some 'thing') IS listening to these debates/conversations on the web as Dana pointed out. Google, the search engine, along with others similar, is spidering these conversations, creating an index, and providing a delivery method for raw data. Although the terminolgy may not be as academic, Google, in effect is already researching this discussion. Is that ethical? Does a software program even have 'ethics'? , one might ask. Secondly, regardless of an individual's perception of posting to the web, unless the site specifically indicates that access to the information is secure (i.e. password protected), the information IS public. If there are problems with the perception, then perhaps the responsibility falls upon the creators/moderators of listserves and discussion boards to include a statement at the top of each page to indicate that this is a published/public document. Until Dana's post, I had not considered the idea that perhaps there is a level of responsibility of the data collector (Google or a discussion board moderator) to protect an individual from the same persectives of IRB's.) You may have read this quote ions ago (in tech years) from Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems, "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." When applied to the Internet (and even email), I concur. What I believe we have created is the need for a term that is not as black and white as 'public' vs 'private' to weigh in on Internet ethics. Interesting discussion. I regress to lurking, Paul Chenoweth, Web Developer Belmont University 615-460-6867 "Experience is the thing you have left when everyting else is gone." Unknown ----- Original Message ----- From: aoir.z3z(a)danah.org Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:11 am Subject: re:[Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions > I would like to take a meta-moment about this discussion of ethics. > > This is a fascinating discussion about ethics. The conversation is > happening in the context of this AOIR mailing list. Each post argues > points from a previous post. Furthermore, there's an expectation of > shared interest in internet research and the language being used > implies a > shared body of knowledge. > > Yet, with every post, this conversation is not just unfolding on a > mailinglist of practitioners. It is going down on the public > record of the > archived web. I Googled a few of the people on this thread and > found that > their posts to AOIR showed up in the top 10. > > Perhaps we should turn the questions we are asking inward for a > moment.Is everyone contributing to this thread constructing an > argument for the > public record? Are your word choices, argument structure and > logic the > kind of thing that you would publish in journals? It appears to > me that, > while you might not object to having a public record of these > conversations, the language being used is far more conversational, > intended for an intimate discussion, not a persistent publication. > There > are spelling errors, grammar problems and linguistic shortcuts. > How would > you feel if your peers quoted your words here in publication? > Presumably,we are having a debate. In theory, some people might > change their minds. > Might this challenge your authority in a classroom setting if you > try to > argue an alternate viewpoint in the future? What about to a tenure > committee? What if a journalist quotes your post here as-is as > the stance > on ethics? > > Might asking yourself these questions help explain the reasons why the > Internet cannot be easily compared to offline scenarios? It's not a > matter of being "not in this world" but of the fact that people have > different understandings of public/private and that none of us > have gotten > wholely accustomed to the concept of persistent, searchable data > that was > constructed under a situation that felt far more like ephemeral > conversation. > > How do you feel about the fact that, in my qualitative methods > class, we > printed out a series of posts from this discussion for analysis and > situated these arguments in the qual methods literature? Was that an > audience you were expecting when you crafted your rant? Was it > ethical of > me to do this? > > It is easy to dismiss what i'm saying because you probably will never > experience any consequences of your posts here. But, i'd urge > everyone to > be reflexive for a moment. We're all exhibiting the kinds of > behaviorsthat we're studying. Many know it's public and don't > care. Some probably > didn't realize that this list was publicly archived and searchable by > Google. There are hundreds of lurkers on this list whose lack of > participation might be connected with this issue. [Personally, > i'm in > this camp. I have no desire to pretend like i'm in an intimate > discussionwith my peers knowing that my research struggles and > reflections are going > down on public, searchable record. There is value to ephemerality.] > > The whole point of consent is to make certain that no one gets > hurt in the > making of our research; there are guidelines to reach that goal. The > debate that is unfolding is split between reading the letter of > the ethics > guidelines or the intentions behind it. If we solve that problem, we > should all consult judges. In part, people's take on this issue is > aboutjustifying their own research decisions. > > Frankly, this thread is a fascinating example of conversation on the > Internet. There are different desired outcomes, different > approaches to > articulating the ideas, different social norms about addressing > others'posts. Go meta for a moment; it's fascinating. > > danah > > _______________________________________________ > Air-l mailing list > Air-l(a)aoir.org > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l >

1 0

re:[Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Rod Carveth 12 May '04

12 May '04

Eero, It just means that some of us disagree. In a couple years, as the number of Internet users in the U.S. approaches 80%, I think the cultural expectations of postings to a newsgroup being anything but public will generally reach universal acceptance. Until then, I am inclined to agree with Jenny and err on the cautious side. However, it was only about a month ago that the number of Internet users in African reached 1%. Even those 1% don't share the depth of experience about the nuances of the Internet as we do. What would be considered private v. public on the Internet in Africa is far less cut-and-dried. Among my many favorite parts of the movie "Broadcast News" is when the character played by William Hurt is read the riot act by the Holly Hunter for faking a reaction shot during a one-camera interview of a rape victim. "You crossed the line," she screams. He replies, "Well, they keep moving the line." Once upon a time, social scientists could bring in subjects to participate in an experiment where they were duped into believing they had shocked their partner (in reality, a confederate) into submission. We can't conduct studies like that anymore because of concerns over potential emotional harm to subjects. While you can take an absolutist position on ethics and treat those guidelines as non-negotiable, the fact is that what is called ethical -- like what the cultural expectations of public v. private communication -- are constantly up for renegotiation. The line does keep on moving. So, I think it would be unfair to consider you immoral or unethical. The most important thing is to have reasoned discussion about these complex issues. Rod Carveth, Associate Professor Department of Communication Rochester Institute of Technology 100 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623 585-429-6127 docrod(a)rit.edu "On the Internet, no one knows if you are a dog, but they do know if you are an ass." >From: ET <et(a)tarik.com.au> >Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org >To: air-l(a)aoir.org >Subject: re:[Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions >Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:08:58 +0930 > >Rod Carveth wrote... > >"Jenny, I agree with you about the public nature of writing to a newspaper >and the ambiguity of whether or not posting to a newsgroup is public." > >Wow - this is the part that I do not get at all. > >There seems to be an obsession with treating the internet as though it is >some kind of "not in this world" experience. > >The internet is merely another communications form, all it does is remove >the middle man. >To suggest that there is somehow a different process going on with >different moralities and rules is absurd. > >Instead of writing a Letter to the Editor and being at the mercy of the >editors whims a citizen can now chop out the editor and post their views to >the world direct via a newsgroup, or website. >If an individual is stupid enough, or naive(inexperienced) enough to >believe that posting in an open newsgroup forum is somehow a private >communication, then I feel sorry for them but its not my responsibility! > >There is no doubt in my mind that regardless of whether you are published >in the paper, or you self publish in a newsgroup or website, you are indeed >shouting to the world from the rooftops for all to hear. >The number of people listening or the number of people able to listen means >nothing. >You shout - the world is free to listen, and observe and record ! > >Its obvious some do not agree with this, but does this make my viewpoint >immoral or unethical, or does it simply mean that some of us disagree? > > >regards, >Eero Tarik >Adelaide > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Air-l mailing list >Air-l(a)aoir.org >http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

1 0

re:[Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by ET 12 May '04

12 May '04

Rod Carveth wrote... "Jenny, I agree with you about the public nature of writing to a newspaper and the ambiguity of whether or not posting to a newsgroup is public." Wow - this is the part that I do not get at all. There seems to be an obsession with treating the internet as though it is some kind of "not in this world" experience. The internet is merely another communications form, all it does is remove the middle man. To suggest that there is somehow a different process going on with different moralities and rules is absurd. Instead of writing a Letter to the Editor and being at the mercy of the editors whims a citizen can now chop out the editor and post their views to the world direct via a newsgroup, or website. If an individual is stupid enough, or naive(inexperienced) enough to believe that posting in an open newsgroup forum is somehow a private communication, then I feel sorry for them but its not my responsibility! There is no doubt in my mind that regardless of whether you are published in the paper, or you self publish in a newsgroup or website, you are indeed shouting to the world from the rooftops for all to hear. The number of people listening or the number of people able to listen means nothing. You shout - the world is free to listen, and observe and record ! Its obvious some do not agree with this, but does this make my viewpoint immoral or unethical, or does it simply mean that some of us disagree? regards, Eero Tarik Adelaide

1 0

RE: [Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Rod Carveth 12 May '04

12 May '04

Jenny, I agree with you about the public nature of writing to a newspaper and the ambiguity of whether or not posting to a newsgroup is public. I disagree about the public nature of a loud cell phone conversation. Culturally, it is *polite* to ignore a person being loud on the phone. OTOH, we all know that there is a point in terms of the loudness of our voice where while the intent of the conversation may be private, the effect is public. Once past that point, we lose control over how the communication is used. For all intents and purposes, the part of the conversation is in the public realm. Example. Suppose a few months ago, Bennifer (pick either one) is having a cell phone call with a friend. They're talking and the conversation gets animated. The volume gets loud enough that people can easily hear Bennifer say "It's so over. We'll have to anounce that soon." Among the people that hear the conversation is a gossip columnist. Would we be suprised if an item based on this phone call appeared as a scoop in the gossip column the following day? Would we think the gossip columnist was acting unethically? Same example. If I -- an academic following a "higher standard" of research approaches -- was writing an article about cell phones and how people get so into them they exceed culturally acceptable standards of volume, I would have no problem using actual conversations in the article. Once a person gets too loud, he or she by behavior has waived any right to privacy. OTOH, there's a more practical matter to consider in terms of this kind of data -- you only get part of the conversation, and you only hear one side. So, while I believe such data is fair game, there are few times when such data would be useful. Rod Rod Carveth, Associate Professor Department of Communication Rochester Institute of Technology 100 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623 585-429-6127 docrod(a)rit.edu "On the Internet, no one knows if you are a dog, but they do know if you are an ass." >From: "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer(a)albany.edu> >Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org >To: <air-l(a)aoir.org> >Subject: RE: [Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions >Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:15:24 -0400 > >A letter to the editor in the NYTimes, a post on Newsgroup, and a loud >cell phone conversation are not analogous. > >A person writing a letter to the NYTimes knows that his or her letter, >if it gets printed will be part of the public record, open for public >comment and public scrutiny. Culturally, we understand that a newspaper >is a public document; and, if one writes a letter to be placed in it, we >recognize that it may be read, analyzed, and commented upon privately >and publicly. > >A person posting to a Newsgroup may or may not share the same cultural >understanding of publicness. Some participants in this discussion on >AoIR have assumed that all participants of the Internet understand the >public nature of the Internet, but I challenge that assumption. Late >adopters of the Internet and technologically unsavvy users (just to name >two groups) may not full understand or appreciate how public their posts >are. It's one thing for a techie to declare all communication online >public, and another thing entirely for a user of the Internet to >perceive his or her communication online as public. To compare back to a >letter to the NYTimes. There is a culturally-shared understanding of the >newspaper's publicness. There is not a culturally-shared understanding >that all communcation online is public. > >A person talking loudly on a cellphone on a train may experience his or >her phone conversation as a private act, even though the people in the >immediate vicinity hear one side of the conversation. Unlike a letter to >the NYTimes, there is not a culturally-shared agreement, nor is their an >individual-level perception, that such cell phone talk is public. How >many of you have started a cell phone conversation while walking or >driving (eek!) have ended the conversation and realized that you're >surprised at where you're located? We pay less attention to the external >world when we engage in cell phone conversation than when we're not >having that conversation. Although some cell phone users may be >conscientious to the fact that others can hear their conversation, I >challenge an assumption that they know and feel that their conversations >are public, and therefore open to structiny and public comment. > >So, before we academics start declaring that "those people" should know >that their communication is public because we can hear it need to >recognize the difference between academic "objective" observations of >public communication (i.e. "Newsgroup posts ARE public") and the >observeds own perceptions of publicness. > >As academics, we have a moral obligation to respect the boundaries our >potential research participants establish. As academics, we are held to >a higher standard of research approaches than, say, our journalist >colleagues (although, I wish journalists were held to a higher >standard). We ought not record and analyze for research purposes online >communication unless we are certain that the participants engaged in the >communication recognize the publicness of their communication, or unless >we acquire some level of informed consent from those participants. > >Best wishes, >~Jenny Stromer-Galley > > >_______________________________________________ >Air-l mailing list >Air-l(a)aoir.org >http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

1 0

RE: [Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Kevin Tharp 11 May '04

11 May '04

Hello Everyone: When I tossed out the nugget of the public / private phone conversation, I was thinking along the lines of Goffman's stage / backstage and how they are becoming blurred with the increasing use of modern ICT. Ed said, >But this group is most interested in online research (Internet).< While I understand the sentiment that this discussion may be noise from the current perspective of online (Internet) research I would have to disagree. As ICT becomes more ubiquitous in our lives, I think there is going to be a continued blurring of some of the lines that we have drawn. For instance, if the discussion that the person having on the cell phone was instead being conducted using WiFi and Voice over IP, it does then in my mind become clearly related to Internet research. Online (Internet) research is no longer only about text based spaces that comprised the Internet just a few years ago. Picture this scenario: The RFID in our clothes or our PDA alert a digital billboard that we are approaching. The billboard then searches online databases about our consumer habits and presents a personalized advertisement for our eyes and then changes it for the next person travelling behind us. In that scenario, when online and offline lose their distinctions because of ICT ubiquity, any lines drawn to say this is Internet / online research would seem to be moot. I personally believe that this conversation on the ethics related to research where lines used to be clear but are now blurred has become a jewel. I appreciate everyone's contributions. Kevin W. Tharp Community Informatics Officer Senior Research Officer Faculty of Informatics & Communication Central Queensland University Rockhampton, Queensland Australia 07 4923 2566 k.tharp(a)cqu.edu.au http://infocom.cqu.edu.au/Staff/Kevin_Tharp/

1 0

RE:ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Carol Perryman 11 May '04

11 May '04

>They must assume that their communication is being observed by other people >who may comment about it, record it, analyse it etc - and if they do not >wish for this to occur the solution is very simple, dont make such >utterances publicly. >Life is a pretty simple business when we sweep away the bulldust, why must >we complicate it ? Thanks for your comments, Eero. But how is it simple, when the minute we begin to look at the record of even a single human interaction in any form, we are made aware of all the weight of history and custom, the constructs of shared meaning, the potential clashes between private definitions on the part of any two people - even if they live in the same town? My grandfather had a different sense of civility than my own, my colleague from Korea, yet another. I'd say it's simple only when viewed from a great distance. I'd add to that the reality of technological mechanisms for observation and capture constitutes so large and rapid an alteration of our interactions that we're all learning as we go about its impact in every part of our society. We shape and reshape our civility, and ethics rise from that creation. One hundred years ago you might not have been subjected to another's private conversation on the bus, because you might not have had access to such public transportation. If, legally, we should learn to be aware that our privacy is no longer a reasonable expectation, as it once was, how does that affect us - not only our practices, but our expectations of dignity? And can't we differentiate between 3 things (there may be more, I don't know yet): expectation, ethical behavior, and law? The law may sternly claim that each individual carries a responsibility for whatever utterances or behavior he or she enacts, but the individual may blithely proceed with whatever their inclinations might be, feeling (the foolish thing!) safe among a like-minded society. Carol Perryman Graduate School of Library & Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign cp1757(a)hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

1 0

Re: ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Adrian Miles 11 May '04

11 May '04

On 12/05/2004, at 2:01 AM, Eero Tarik wrote: > People carrying on a loud conversation on a train, or speaking into a > mobile phone in a public place, or writing a Letter to the Editor, or > posting to a publily open newsgroup are all accepting the same risk > when > they undertake these activities. They must assume that their > communication is being observed by other people who may comment about > it, record it, analyse it etc - and if they do not wish for this to > occur the solution is very simple, dont make such utterances publicly. may have been pointed out, but this was one of the points made by Cees Hamelink in his keynote at the Maastricht AoIR. He even used examples of where he has participated as the 'included' third party in mobile phone conversations in public places. in addition other things: 1. it is legal to film/photograph people in public places (you do not need clearances) 2. it is legal to film/photograph, in closeup, people at sporting events in the crowd cheers Adrian Miles ................................................................. hypertext.rmit || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/adrian interactive networked video || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog research blog || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog/

1 0

Re: [Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Radhika Gajjala 11 May '04

11 May '04

In-Reply-To: <FA0E750E-A34F-11D8-8518-000393A35E46(a)bradley.edu> References: <000201c4375a$206104f0$6720a8c0@JJLAND> <000201c4375a$206104f0$6720a8c0@JJLAND> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:34 AM 5/11/2004 -0500, you wrote: >I'm not trying to get the last word here. But this group is most >interested in online research (Internet). I get defensive/protective >over/during discussions of field protocol . . . but I think I'll probably >lay off now. My points are made about as well as I can make them and I >think this is something of a tangent for the central (online) thrust of >the group. I think all of us do - because our "subjects" are more likely to talk back and question us in present times than when the ivory tower was really ivory. Radhika Gajjala http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik Associate Professor Dept of IPC/School of Comm Studies 315 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 419-372-0528 fax - 419-372-0202

5 5

Re: [Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by E. Sean Rintel 11 May '04

11 May '04

G'day all, Some replies to points about the privacy of recording online interation: A) To follow up Jennifer Stromer-Galley's point about cell-phones not being public for the participants, which was in reply to arguments about "if it's loud enough for me to hear it then it's public", I am surprised that no-one has discussed--on the pro or con side of those arguments above--the fact that the cell phone is clearly *changing* what "public" and "private" mean. To claim that there is a set "public" and a "private" excludes both how the technological affordances and constraints of any given meaning allow for specialized and in-the-moment-enacted practices of "publicness" and "privateness". This is an extension to Baym's argument, in that not only do 'different media have particular purblic/private configurations and users' but also that we, as individuals and societies, are constantly in the process of negotiating our public/private notions even as we enact them one interaction at a time. B) I disagree that chatrooms, newsgroups etc. are similar to the panopticon in particular. 1) In terms of visibility: While some people may lurk without participating, or even being seen (like the guards in a panopticon), most people who are active can see each other. 2) In terms of power: A chatroom etc. is not carceral. Those who participate are not prisoners held without their consent for crimes--they are free-willed subjects who can come and go as they please. Those who watch are not guards intended to observe prisoners--they are either other participants or lurkers. But that is not to disagree entirely with the point. As Goffman would argue, we are all, at all times, regulated and self-regulating in terms of how we understand others to perceive our public performance--even when we are the only person around. But as Baym (and I think JSG) argues, people's awareness of the extent of public/private visibility in internet media are very different, and that matters as to how we, as researchers, can formulate a plan of data-collection and dissemination. It also matters to the IRBs who have to make decisions about protecting human subjects. Until anon Sean -- E. Sean Rintel Department of Communication University at Albany, State University of New York http://www.albany.edu/~er8430

1 0

ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Carol Perryman 11 May '04

11 May '04

>ed wrote >>>I've always let the test be that I, as researcher, am out in the open in >>>the plain view of the subject. If they are speaking loudly enough that I >>>can hear without any special equipment, or effort, I treat the >>>conversation as public talk freely available for analysis (and >>>recording). In the case of the cell phone, I am not "tapping" the phone >>>call illegally cause I can't hear the other side of the conversation. > On May 10, 2004, at 6:35 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote: >> >>but you'd be amazed at how shocked they would be if they then saw their >>words quoted in a public(ation) text. >> >But you'd be amazed at how shocked I am to have to listen to their talk in >the first place. If the talk IS private, I should not be able to hear it >without special equipment. If I can, it's not private talk, no matter what >"they expect." The subjects set the expectations themselves. If they talk >in a way that others in public can't hear . . . it's private. If they >don't, it's public. Please pardon what is probably a naiive comment, but it appears that the concepts of ethics are here conflated with an expectation of _politeness_ and an understandable annoyance at the intrusiveness of this rude public behavior. I am reminded, reading this very interesting discussion, of Japanese practices wherein one pretends not to hear. In fact, talking with a South Korean friend, she tells me that when two people are speaking, and one other enters the area, it's quite common that this third person would receive no greeting, and nor would one be expected. Space is so limited that this mutual pretense is (or had been) employed as a virtual wall of privacy. There appears to be a similar expectation in some areas of the web. >>What is invaded is the Individual's *sense* of privacy - whatever the >>medium used. >Again. The sense of privacy has already been invaded. Not by the >researcher . . . but by the subjects, themselves who have taken a private >matter into the public domain. I agree that the medium doesn't matter . . . >the fact that they are holding a small plastic device to the side of their >head doesn't mean that I've got to go suddenly deaf and and become unable >to write. But their carrying on their private business loudly in my >knowing presence means that they have included me in the talk, albeit as >audience, but as approved participant nevertheless. I cannot agree with this. That we can hear it is annoying - but that we can record it appears intrusive. Using this argument, if I observed my neighbor telling off his kid - loudly - in the kitchen next door with the windows open, I should feel completely justified in doing what I wished with what I heard. Analysis is another story. All is setting, right? And certainly it would inform our more formal inquiry. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Carol Perryman Graduate School of Library & Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign cp1757(a)hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

2 2