- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

CFP Learning@Scale 2016: Full papers deadline extended (Nov 1, 2015)
by Vitomir Kovanovic 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

** apologies for cross-posting ** After discussions with the organizers of LAK2016, we have agreed on a consistent paper deadline for both our co-located conferences. So you now have a little more time to really polish your L@S papers! Important Dates -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nov 1, 2015 : Full papers due Dec 14, 2015: Notifications of acceptance of Full Papers: Dec 14, 2015 The conference is at the intersection of computer science and the learning sciences, seeking to improve practice and theories of learning at scale. Strong submissions typically build on relevant research and frameworks beyond a single home discipline. The program committee is multidisciplinary and will expect that contributions expand on the state of the art of several relevant source literature is considered. Topics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We solicit paper submissions reporting on rigorous research on methodologies, studies, analyses, tools, or technologies for learning at scale. Learning at Scale includes MOOCs, games (including massively multiplayer online games), citizen science communities, and other types of learning environments which (a) provide learning experiences to large number of learners and/or (b) produce detailed, high volume data about the learning process. Papers that tackle specific aspects of scale are particularly encouraged, for example, papers that deal with learning or educational phenomena that can only occur, be supported, or be observed with very large numbers of students, or in which the system improves after being exposed to data from previous use by many students. Example topics include but are not limited to: * Usability studies and effectiveness studies of design elements for students or instructors, including: * Status indicators of student progress * Status indicators of instructor effectiveness * Tools and pedagogy to promote community, support learning, or increase retention in at-scale environments * Log analysis of student behavior, e.g.: * Assessing reasons for student outcome as determined by modifying tool design * Modeling students based on responses to variations in tool design * Evaluation strategies such as quiz or discussion forum design * Instrumenting systems and data representation to capture relevant indicators of learning. * Personalization and adaptation, based on log data, user modeling, or choice. * Studies of applications of existing learning theories to the MOOC context (peer learning, project based learning, etc.). * Informing theories of learning at scale. * Large online learning in the developing world * New tools and techniques for learning at scale, including: * Games for learning at scale * Automated feedback tools (for essay writing, programming, etc) * Automated grading tools * Tools for interactive tutoring * Tools for learner modeling * Interfaces for harnessing learning data at scale * Innovations in platforms for supporting learning at scale * Tools to support for capturing, managing learning data * Tools and techniques for managing privacy of learning data * Investigation of observable student behaviors and their correlation if any with learning, e.g.: * What do more successful learners do more of? * What do more successful instructors do more of? * Self- and co-regulation of learning at scale * Collaborative learning in courses that have scale * Depth and retention of learning and understanding * Improvements to learning, community, and pedagogy in large-scale in-person and blended online and in-person courses * Instructional principles for learning at scale * Facilitation of informal subcommunities Paper Submissions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We invite full paper, shorter papers reporting on work-in-progress, and demonstrations. ### Full Papers Full papers must not exceed 10 pages (shorter is fine) and must use the ACM CHI Archive Format, available in latex[1] and Word[2]. Submissions must be in PDF format, written in English, contain original work and not be under review for any other venue while under review for this conference. All papers should be submitted through the EasyChair. In order to increase high quality papers and independent merit, the evaluation process will be double blind. The papers submitted for review MUST NOT contain the authors' names, affiliations, or any information that may disclose the authors' identity (this information is to be restored in the camera-ready version upon acceptance). Please replace author names and affiliations with Xs on submitted papers. In particular, in the version submitted for review please avoid explicit auto-references, such as "in [1] we show" -- consider "in [1] it is shown". I.e., you should cite your own relevant previous work, so that a reviewer can access it and see the new contributions, but yet the text should be written so that it does not state that the cited work belongs to the authors. ### Work-in-Progress A Work-in-Progress (WiP) is a concise report of recent findings or other types of innovative or thought-provoking work that has not yet reached a level of completion that would warrant submission of a full paper. Topics are the same as those listed for full papers. At the conference, all accepted WiP submissions will be presented in poster form. Selected WiPs may be invited for oral presentation during the conference. Rejected full-papers can be resubmitted as WiP and will be evaluated accordingly. Formatting: Work-in-Progress submissions 4 pages or fewer in length in the Extended Abstracts Format[3] and submitted as a PDF file. Due to the very rapid selection process we cannot offer any extensions to the deadline. WiP submissions are not anonymous and should therefore include all author names, affiliations and contact information. If accepted, you should expect to prepare a poster to present at the conference venue. WiP submissions should be submitted through the EasyChair. ### Demonstrations Demonstrations show aspects of learning at scale in an interactive hands-on form. A live demonstration is a great opportunity to communicate ideas and concepts in a powerful way that a regular presentation cannot. We invite demonstrations of learning and analytical environments and other systems that have direct relevance to learning at scale. We especially encourage authors of accepted papers and industrial partners to showcase their technologies using this format. Demonstration submissions are 2 pages or fewer in length in the Extended Abstracts Format[3] and submitted as a PDF file. A demonstration proposal should address two components: * The merit and nature of the demonstrated technology. If the proposed demonstration is associated with a Full Paper or a WiP submission, please point to the title of the submission instead of repeating the information here. * Details of how the demo will be executed in practice, and how visitors will interact with it during the conference. Proposals for demonstrations should be submitted through the EasyChair. ### Archival Proceedings Full papers will appear in the conference proceedings published by the ACM Press in the ACM Digital Library. Work-in-Progress and Demonstration papers will appear in a separate part of the conference proceedings. The status of Work-in-Progress paper will be akin to what CHI describes as "semi-archival", meaning the results reported in the WIP must be original, but copyright is retained by the authors and the material can be used as the basis for future publications in ACM venues as long as there are significant revisions from the original. Proceedings from prior years can be accessed here: * L@S 2014 Proceedings (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2556325) * L@S 2015 Proceedings (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2724660) ### Submission Instructions Full Papers and Work in Progress should be submitted at EasyChair (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=las2016) Inquiries -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please direct all inquiries to: pc-chairs(a)learningatscale.acm.org Organization -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conference Chair: Jeff Haywood, the University of Edinburgh, UK Program Co-Chairs: Vincent Aleven, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Judy Kay, University of Sydney, Australia Ido Roll, University of British Columbia, Canada Local Organization Chair: Dragan Gasevic, the University of Edinburgh, UK Program Committee: Tiffany Barnes, North Carolina State University, USA Marie Bienkowski, SRI International, USA Gautam Biswas, Vanderbilt University, USA Ulrike Cress, Knowledge Media Research Center, Germany Pierre Dillenbourg, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland Douglas Fisher Vanderbilt University, USA Armando Fox, University of California at Berkeley, USA Dragan Gasevic, University of Edinburgh, UK Art Graesser, University of Memphis, USA Philip Guo, University of Rochester, USA Marti Hearst, University of California at Berkeley, USA Daniel Hickey, Indiana University, USA Ulrich Hoppe, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany Juho Kim, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA Kenneth Koedinger, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Chinmay Kulkarni, Stanford University, USA Marcia Linn, University of California at Berkeley, USA Marsha Lovett, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Rose Luckin, The London Knowledge Lab, UK Robert Miller, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA John Mitchell, Stanford University, USA Antonija Mitrović, University of Canterbury, New Zealand Zachary Pardos, University of California at Berkeley, USA Beverly Park Woolf, University of Massachusetts, USA Jeremy Roschelle, SRI International, USA Carolyn Rose, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Daniel Russell, Google, USA Mehran Sahami, Stanford University, USA Eileen Scanlon, Open University, UK Daniel Seaton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA Karen Swan, Univ of Illinois, Springfield, USA Candace Thille, Stanford University, USA Astrid Wichmann, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany [1] https://github.com/sigchi/Document-Formats [2] http://www.sigchi.org/publications/chipubform/sigchi-paper-format-2016/view [3] http://chi2015.acm.org/authors/format/#extendedformat -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

1 0

Research on the Democratic Divide Online? Do we need it to prompt better solutions?
by Steven Clift 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

Hey all, while this is pretty raw, I am looking for feedback on whether we need more/better research to frame what needs to be done to bridge what I call the "democratic data divide online." See: http://po.st/communitydatasurgeLists This is my submission to the current Knight News Challenge. These submissions are highly unlikely to make it through their process, but I find them very very useful to float trial balloons. If you like the idea, please add a _comment_ on the News Challenge site to increase the chance that it will be noticed. If you want collaborate on ideas like this or if you know folks in the funding world who might like to see this, drop me a note: clift(a)e-democracy.org clift (at) e-democracy.org Thanks, Steven Clift E-Democracy.org

1 0

The Radical Media Forum presents: Friday, 6th Nov - We can do it! Gender, activism and technology – Bridging theory and practice
by Elinor Carmi 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

Hi everybody, If you are around the UK/London area while doing explosive experiments on Guy Fawkes day, come the day after to our event! 6th November - We can do it! Gender, activism and technology – Bridging theory and practice Organised by Elinor Carmi As the artificial boundaries between theory and practice dissolve, more opportunities to integrate one into the other emerge. Whether it is the growing practice-based degrees, academic jobs becoming more and more precarious, an urge to utilise theory in the ‘real world’, or political and economical events pushing for response - the time for action is now. Feminism, media, culture, computing, art, anthropology, sociology, and other disciplines have a lot to offer to activist projects outside or complementary to academia, such as NGOs, think tanks and other collective who seek to make a change. How can skills acquired in academia assist in working for activist organisations? How to start your own organisation? This event is meant to bring together women who conduct research and other initiatives in what can broadly be defined as activist projects. The Radical Media Forum aims to provide a platform to discuss the options, challenges and questions that arise while working in such organisations and how to start your own with a special consideration to feminist issues. When? Friday, 6th November 2015 at 17:00. Where? Stuart Hall Building, Room LG01, Goldsmiths, University of London. THE EVENT IS FREE FOR ALL. Connect with us on our Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/RadicalMediaForum Link to the event on Facebook-> https://www.facebook.com/events/1135865936441984/ Panel speakers: Zara Rahman Zara Rahman is an information activist and researcher, currently working with the engine room, where she is looking into the role of citizen-generated data among civil society, and looking at how technology can support human rights defenders. Previously she worked with School of Data, supporting data literacy for journalists and civil society, and before that, with OpenOil, where she focused on governance and transparency in the extractive industries, especially in the MENA region. Zara is fascinated by the relationship between technology and societal power structures, and runs a regular podcast, Collusion, on this topic. Zara is a fellow at the Centre for Internet and Human Rights, and is based in Berlin, Germany. Twitter: https://twitter.com/zararah Website: http://zararah.net/ Becky Kazansky Becky Kazansky is a researcher and facilitator working on privacy, digital security, and human rights issues with practitioner groups and within academia. She is a PhD researcher at the University of Amsterdam working within the ERC-funded DATACTIVE project to understand how civil society can engage with and respond to massive data collection processes. Previously she worked with the Tactical Technology Collective supporting human rights defenders in addressing their digital security concerns. Twitter: https://twitter.com/pondswimmer Janet Gunter Janet Gunter is an American/British activist and novice anthropologist, an ex-“aid worker” who works on transformational projects involving communication, technology and new economies. She co-founded The Restart Project, a London social enterprise/charity that encourages and empowers people to use their electronics longer in order to prevent waste. She spent the end of 2011 in Maputo working with @Verdade, Mozambique’s innovative, largest circulation newspaper and continued to collaborate with them from afar.In 2012-13 she worked as a part-time consultant with the International Land Coalition on a project designed to help decentralize collection of data on large-scale land acquisition, sometimes called “land grabbing”. Twitter: https://twitter.com/JanetGunter Website: http://www.rizominha.net/ Join the debate in our live tweet (@RMF_Goldsmiths), the event's Hashtag is: #RMF_WeCanDoIt There will be reception after the event. This event is kindly sponsored by Goldsmiths media and communication department and the Graduate School. Looking forward to seeing you all! Elinor Carmi, PhD Candidate, Department of Media & Communications, Goldsmiths, University of London. www.pinkeee.com Twitter: @Elinor_Carmi

1 0

IR16 - informal spousal activities
by Tony Ratcliffe 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

While I am at the conference, my wife will be taking advantage of the opportunity to explore the community. Her sister will be there from Mexico to keep her company. I wonder if anyone else is seeking or planning any spousal activities. Some of the tours require minimum numbers. Please let me know if you have any input on this. Thanks, Tony (Edmonton, Canada)

1 0

Gamergate teaching resources
by Mike Zajko 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

Hi all, I'm currently teaching a large introductory sociology class (a lot of first-year university students from different backgrounds) and covering gender and feminism as topics this week. I'd love to discuss some element of the gamergate mess as a current case/example, and am looking for any materials to use - particularly shorter readings and videos on the phenomenon. Much appreciated, Mike Zajko

4 3

Call for papers - CaTaC'16 - June 16-18, 2016 - University of West London
by Charles Ess 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

Dear AoIRists, With the usual apologies for cross-postings and duplications, please pass along to potentially interested colleagues, including graduate students. Many thanks, - charles ess *CaTaC’16: Culture, Technology, Communication:* *Common world, different futures?* *Save the Dates: First Call for Papers * *Venue*: University of West London *Dates*: June 16-18, 2016 *Conference Co-organizers:* · José Abdelnour-Nocera, *Local host *(School of Computing and Technology, University of West London) · Charles Ess, *CaTaC Co-chair* (Department of Media and Communication, University of Oslo) · Maja van der Velden, *CaTaC Co-chair* (Department of Informatics, University of Oslo) *Programme Committee* · Herbert Hrachovec, (Philosophy Department, University of Vienna) · Michele M. Strano, *Program Chair* (Communication Studies, Bridgewater College) The tenth biennial conference on “Culture, Technology, Communication” – (CaTaC)’16 – will take place on June 15-17, 2016, at the Brentford site of the University of West London. The Brentford site and nearby Ealing Campus (including hotels and restaurants) are very conveniently located for arrival via Heathrow as well as from London by tube. (For initial orientation, please see: < http://www.uwl.ac.uk/about-us/our-location/ealing-site>) CaTaC'16 will be open for papers located within culture, technology, and communication, applying different theoretical and methodological perspectives, genres, and styles. In addition, CaTaC'16 will have three themes: *Culture, Technology, and Communication: Is Another Design Possible?* Design is complicit in the creation and sustainment of our unjust, unsafe, and unsustainable world. The technologies, products, and services we design today will shape the lives of generations to come, human as well as nonhuman. For this theme we invite papers that critically explore technologies used today and alternative technology designs and design perspectives that make other futures possible. *Culture, Technology, and Communication in Design for Development* For this theme we invite papers that report on and address the main challenges for design and innovation in the Global South. We would also like to see good examples of design for community development in the Global North to understand points of convergence and divergence with experiences in the Global South. *Culture, Technology, and Communication in Practice?* We invite papers that have the *practice* of information and communication technologies in specific cultural contexts as their main focus. Examples include: · *Cultural diversity and global ICTs*, e.g., global health information systems, Wikipedia, social media, surveillance and sousveillance, Big Data collection and analysis, etc. · *Global and local cultures of computing*, e.g. outsourcing, global development teams; the identity of migrants and the experience of migration; appropriation, creolization, hybridization between cultures and also between technologies; · *The construction of identity* using online social media, gaming, and blogging platforms; · *Political activism through social media* vis-à-vis governmental and corporate censorship, control of access, etc.; · *Privacy issues* in media environments that encourage public identities; · *Additional ethical issues* evoked in the design, implementation, usages, and (counter-) responses to ICTs across diverse cultural contexts, especially vis-à-vis efforts to sustain and enhance local cultural identities, practices, norms, etc. Please see our website, <http://philo.at/ocs2/index.php/london16/> <http://philo.at/ocs2/index.php/london16/>. Additional conference details, including registration fees, and keynote speakers, will be announced soon on the conference website. Both short (3-5 pages) and long (10-15 pages) original papers are sought for presentation. Panel proposals addressing a specific theme or topic are also encouraged: please include names of committed participants and (provisional) presentation titles. *Important Dates:* Paper submission for peer-review: February 15, 2016 Notification of acceptance: April 1, 2016 Final papers and panel descriptions due for *Conference Proceedings*: May 1, 2016 The *Conference Proceedings* will be published on the conference website with an ISBN number. Authors retain copyright to their papers and are welcome to attach a Creative Commons license indication on their work. Additional conference details, including registration fees, and keynote speakers, will be announced soon on the conference website. We look forward to welcoming you to London next June! Jose, Michele, Herbert, Charles, and Maja

1 0

CFP: Different Games Conference 2016
by Brian McKernan 09 Oct '15

09 Oct '15

Different Games invites participants for its 2016 edition at NYU's Polytechnic School of Engineering, located in Brooklyn, NY, on Friday April 8 and Saturday April 9. Over three years of presenting New York City’s first conference on diversity and inclusivity in games culture, Different Games has drawn more than 700 attendees to NYU’s Downtown Brooklyn campus, in addition to more than 100 arcade games and 150 presenters and speakers! We are thrilled to invite submissions for our fourth annual event which welcomes proposals from all members of the games community — whether designers, students, activists, researchers, journalists and others — to present as part of our two-day program. *Introducing our 2016 Track Chairs* This year, Different Games is thrilled to welcome 8 respected colleagues on board as our first ever DG Track Chairs. This group of artists, game designers and academics have proposed calls for content in areas of interest to the DG community and will join us in reviewing the 2016 submissions. We’re humbled to have them join us by volunteering their vision and expertise to shape the content of this year’s event. While submissions are welcome on all topics related to inclusivity, diversity and other themes of interest to the DG community, we’re pleased to announce the following DG Conference tracks and the chairs who will be presenting them: - Affective Play - Kara Stone - Video Games in Latin America - Edgar Serrano - Video Games & Indigenous Culture- Edgar Serrano - Accessible Game Design - Rees Shad - Participatory Game Design - Margarida Romero - Race and Culture in Games - Chris Algoo - Player Agency, Mods, and Glitches - Yifat Shaik For more information about these tracks, please visit our conference website 2016.differentgames.org *Submission Formats* Submissions of Paper Presentations and Talks as well as Workshops and Breakout Groups open on 10/16/15 and will be accepted until 12/15/15. *Paper Presentations and Talks* We invite designers, academics and other creative minds to share recent projects as speakers on our conference panels. Possible topics may include, but are not limited to: post mortems, design methodology, reflections on playtesting, analysis/commentary on games content (theme, gender, sexuality, etc.), game reception, and game culture/communities. If your talk will be presented collaboratively, please include bios and links for both presenters. *Workshop or Breakout Groups* We invite topic-specific or exploratory discussions on challenges and solutions for promoting diversity and inclusion in the broader game community/communities and other pertinent subjects. Hands-on workshop sessions geared towards learning design, development or other creative and professional skills are also invited. Proposals for both workshops and breakout groups include an overview addressing the question of what participants can expect to learn or take away from the session and an explanation of what (if any) equipment participants will need to in order to participate. If your session will be facilitated collaboratively, please include bios and links for all co-facilitators. *Arcade Submissions open on 10/16/15 and will be accepted until 1/22/16.* *Arcade Games* Designers interested in showcasing their game in the Different Games arcade should submit a brief project overview (no more than 500 words) that presents their design vision and the concept for the game and explains any special hardware requirements for presenting their game. In addition, please submit the cover art and two screenshots of gameplay. We welcome students’ work and and pieces that will be in (beta) or playtesting phase as well as those further along in the development process. Analog games, non screen-based digital games and other types of media such as short films, installations or interactive art related to the themes of the conference are welcome as well. Please include an explanation of any space and hardware requirements along with your project overview. For more information or to submit to Different Games 2016, please visit our conference website 2016.differentgames.org. If you’d like to view last year’s conference sessions and arcade titles, visit 2015.differentgames.org <http://www.2015.differentgames.org/>. For more information about Different Games Collective, please visit differentgames.org <http://www.differentgames.org/>. Send questions to DifferentGamesConference(a)gmail.com.

1 0

Emergent Media Tenure Track Position Temple University
by Hector Postigo 09 Oct '15

09 Oct '15

Emergent Media Tenure Track Position Temple University Media Studies and Production Description: The Department of Media Studies and Production at Temple University invites applications for a tenure-track assistant professor whose research and teaching focuses on emergent media, broadly defined. Research areas may include, but are not limited to, the following: big data and society, interaction design, locative media, mapping, platform studies, gaming studies, mobile media, virtual/augmented reality, and disability studies in information communication technology and human computer interaction. Theoretical and methodological approaches to research should be commensurate with applicants’ teaching and fields of expertise. Qualifications: Candidates will have a Ph.D. or equivalent (completed by August 2016) in communication or a related media and technology studies discipline. An active program of scholarship and publication is essential. Areas of research are open, but the applicant’s research agenda should complement the department’s existing approaches to media, technology, and production. Candidates should have demonstrated potential for outstanding research, teaching, and service. The ideal candidate will work well in multicultural communities and be able to teach national and international students at the undergraduate and graduate level. Demonstrated evidence of pursuing and securing externally funded grants is desirable. About the Department: The Department of Media Studies and Production (http://smc.temple.edu/msp) is one of four departments in the School of Media and Communication (SMC). The department has more than 1,000 undergraduate majors in four tracks: Media Production, Media Business & Entrepreneurship, Media Analysis, and Emergent Media. The MSP Department also offers a minor in Digital Media Technologies. On the graduate level, the department offers an M.A. in in Media Studies and Production, and faculty members contribute to an interdisciplinary M.S. in Globalization and Development Communication and a Ph.D. program in Media and Communication. About the School: Temple University’s School of Media and Communication (SMC) is located in Philadelphia, the nation's fourth-largest media market. In addition to Media Studies and Production, departments in the SMC include Journalism, Advertising, and Strategic Communication, along with a shared bachelor’s degree in Communication Studies (http://smc.temple.edu) More than 3,000 undergraduate and graduate students are enrolled in the School of Media and Communication, including more than 100 students pursuing graduate degrees. Across its departments, the school has a unified focus on the role of communication in urban life. Temple University has more than 35,000 students in the region and at several international campuses. For more information about Temple University, please visit http://www.temple.edu. Temple University is an equal opportunity, equal access affirmative action employer, committed to achieving a diverse community. Application Instructions: To ensure full consideration, application materials should be received no later than October 31, 2016. Review of applications will continue until the position is filled. Interested candidates should send cover letter, CV, statement of research and teaching agendas, up to three reprints of articles and/or other evidence of scholarly activity, as well as evidence of teaching effectiveness. Names, titles and email addresses of three professional references are also required with the application. All materials should be submitted via email to emergeTU(a)temple.edu. Questions can be directed to Dr. Hector Postigo, search committee chair, at hector.postigo(a)temple.edu ---- Hector Postigo, PhD. Associate Professor Media Studies and Production School of Media and Communication Temple University Yale School of Law Internet and Society Project Visiting Fellow : http://isp.yale.edu/ Research blog: www.culturedigitally.org

1 0

Job announcement (UNT Media Arts)
by Jacqueline Vickery 09 Oct '15

09 Oct '15

The Department of Media Arts at the University of North Texas is hiring a media law/ethics professor at either the Assistant or Associate level. We are particularly interested in someone who can teach and/or does research related to new media ethics/law or intellectual property law. As such, I thought the posting might be of interest to some in this group. http://rtvf.unt.edu/people/faculty-position-media-law-ethics Happy weekend, - jacqueline *Dr. Jacqueline Vickery, Ph.D.* Assistant Professor Department of Media Arts | http://rtvf.unt.edu/ University of North Texas Personal website | http://jrvickery.com/ On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:55 AM, <air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.org> wrote: > Send Air-L mailing list submissions to > air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > air-l-owner(a)listserv.aoir.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Air-L digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Ethics of using hacked data. (Alex Halavais) > 2. Re: Ethics of using hacked data. (Anna Lauren Hoffmann) > 3. Re: Ethics of using hacked data. (Nathaniel Poor) > 4. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology - CFP for > Issue 10, Open Call (Sarah T. Hamid) > 5. Re: Ethics of using hacked data. (Dave Dittrich) > 6. Re: Ethics of using hacked data. (Charles Ess) > 7. social media and research ethics (Tiffany Woelfel) > 8. Re: Ethics of using hacked data. (Fred Fuchs) > 9. out now: first regular issue of gamevironments. games, > religion, and stuff (Xenia Zeiler) > 10. Update & Deadline Extended: CFP for Gender and Games Trilogy > (Gerald Voorhees) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:09:13 -0700 > From: Alex Halavais <alex(a)halavais.net> > To: Alex Leavitt <alexleavitt(a)gmail.com> > Cc: AOIR <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org> > Subject: Re: [Air-L] Ethics of using hacked data. > Message-ID: > <CAKxz= > uA3TpWPqbQdbQuEFjUPpZXQRS4SwzkyU-YRZAfYaGr0Ew(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I think the Enron data is a special case from the legal perspective, > if not the ethical perspective, in that it was made an explicitly > public dataset as part of the FERC investigation. I know the ethical > questions cannot be reduced to legal access issues, but this piece of > it, at least, makes Enron a bit unusual. The same cannot be said of > the Ashley Madison data, nor probably even the AoL search data, which > was made public only to be "unmade" public. > > I agree that both the ways in which the data will be used and the > effect that use might have on those who generated it are essential to > your question. > > Alex > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Alex Leavitt <alexleavitt(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > A similar case study might be the history of the ENRON email data set. It > > went through multiple iterations of availability and takedowns as it was > > slowly edited over time to remove emails. People still use it as a > > canonical dataset, but it is certainly still controversial, and > especially > > was when it was first made available. > > > > > > --- > > > > Alexander Leavitt > > PhD Candidate > > USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism > > http://alexleavitt.com > > Twitter: @alexleavitt <http://twitter.com/alexleavitt> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Peter Timusk <peterotimusk(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> I think one could look a little at the consequences of what you are > doing. > >> Seems you are trying to make money by researching funding data is that > >> right? I find that unethical but I find all kinds of data mining > unethical. > >> There are reasons to use your same skill sets that could benefit > society. > >> May be I don't understand what your end result is about. > >> > >> Peter Timusk > >> peterotimusk(a)gmail.com > >> I do not speak for my employer or charities or political parties or > unions > >> I volunteer with or belong to, unless otherwise noted. > >> > >> > >> > On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Nathaniel Poor <natpoor(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Hello list- > >> > > >> > I recently got into a discussion with a colleague about the ethics of > >> using > >> > hacked data, specifically the Patreon hacked data (see here: > >> > > >> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/10/gigabytes-of-user-data-from-hack-of… > >> > ). > >> > > >> > He and I do crowdfunding work, and had wanted to look at Patreon, but > as > >> > far as I can tell they have no easy hook into all their projects (for > >> > scraping), so, to me this data hack was like a gift! But he said there > >> was > >> > no way we could use it. We aren't doing sentiment analysis or > anything, > >> we > >> > would use aggregated measures like funding levels and then report > things > >> > like means and maybe a regression, so there would be no identifiable > >> > information whatsoever derived from the hacked data in any of our > >> resulting > >> > work (we might go to the site and pull some quotes). > >> > > >> > I looked at the AoIR ethics guidelines ( > >> http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf > >> > ), and didn't see anything specifically about hacked data (I don't > think > >> > "hacked" is the best word, but I don't like "stolen" either, but those > >> are > >> > different discussions). > >> > > >> > One relevant line I noticed was this one: > >> > "If access to an online context is publicly available, do > >> > members/participants/authors > >> > perceive the context to be public?" (p. 8) > >> > So, the problem with the data is that it's the entire website, so some > >> was > >> > private and some was public, but now it's all public and everyone > knows > >> > it's public. > >> > > >> > To me, I agree that a lot of the data in the data-dump had been > intended > >> to > >> > be private -- apparently, direct messages are in there -- but we > wouldn't > >> > use that data (it's not something we're interested in). We'd use data > >> like > >> > number of funders and funding levels and then aggregate everything. I > see > >> > that some of it was meant to be private, but given the entire site was > >> > hacked and exported I don't see how currently anyone could have an > >> > expectation of privacy any more. I'm not trying to torture the > >> definition, > >> > it's just that it was private until it wasn't. > >> > > >> > I can see that some academic researchers -- at least those in computer > >> > security -- would be interested in this data and should be able to > >> publish > >> > in peer reviewed journals about it, in an anonymized manner (probably > as > >> an > >> > example of "here's a data hack like what we are talking about, here's > >> what > >> > hackers released"). > >> > > >> > I also think that probably every script kiddie has downloaded the > data, > >> as > >> > has every grey and black market email list spammer, and probably every > >> > botnet purveyor (for passwords) and maybe even the hacking arm of the > >> > Chinese army and the NSA. My point here is that if we were to use the > >> data > >> > in academic research we wouldn't be publicizing it to nefarious people > >> who > >> > would misuse it since all of those people already have it. We could > maybe > >> > help people who want to use crowdfunding some (hopefully!) if we have > >> some > >> > results. (I guess I don't see that we would be doing any harm by using > >> it.) > >> > > >> > > >> > So, what do people think? Did I miss something in the AoIR > guidelines? I > >> > realize I don't think it's clear either way, or I wouldn't be asking, > so > >> > probably the answers will point to this as a grey area (so why do I > even > >> > ask, I am not sure). > >> > > >> > But I'm not looking for "You can't use it because it's hacked," > because I > >> > don't think that explains anything. I could counter that with "It is > >> > publicly available found data," because it is, although I don't think > >> > that's the best reply either. Both lack nuance. > >> > > >> > -Nat > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D. > >> > http://natpoor.blogspot.com > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > >> > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers > http://aoir.org > >> > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > >> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > >> > > >> > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > >> > http://www.aoir.org/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > >> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > >> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > >> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > >> > >> Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > >> http://www.aoir.org/ > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > > http://www.aoir.org/ > > > > -- > > // Alexander Halavais, Sociologist, Semiologist, and Saboteur > Extraordinaire > // Associate Professor of Social Technologies, Arizona State University > // http://alex.halavais.net/bio @halavais > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:26:49 -0700 > From: Anna Lauren Hoffmann <annalauren(a)berkeley.edu> > To: AOIR <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org> > Subject: Re: [Air-L] Ethics of using hacked data. > Message-ID: > <CAEofLyBGWuHavD= > wpxSgM18MYArCyevEFjq7vO1uvG9Yk5r0_w(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I was just having this discussion with a student after a webinar on Ashley > Madison that we hosted for students here at the Berkeley I School - thought > I'd share some of what I shared with the student in case folks find it > useful. > > The short response is: it's difficult to give an all-or-nothing sort of > answer to the question of using stolen data, as there are a number of > considerations we need to fold in. (I won't speak directly to Patreon, but > a lot of the context below applies, I think.) In particular, it's important > to keep in mind means and ends in a professional context. To illustrate, we > can consider two main groups that have an interest in the contents of the > AM data dump: academic researchers and journalists. > > One of the primary "ends" of journalism, at least ideally, is service to > the public interest. With that in mind, we permit or tolerate - from a > professional ethical perspective, at least - journalists to mine and > explore stolen information so long as it is for reasons that can be > justified in terms of public interest. There are lots of precedents here, > from Watergate to Snowden to Wikileaks cables and so on. > > A good example in this particular case is the Gizmodo reporting on Ashley > Madison <http://gizmodo.com/the-fembots-of-ashley-madison-1726670394>: > exposing the "fembots" (or fake, automated profiles) of Ashley Madison lays > bare a deceptive practice that consumers and the FTC have an legitimate > interest in knowing about. In another example, there are cases of > individuals reporting on public figures that might be included in the > database - in the aftermath of the hack, some outlets have reported on the > private emails of the CEO of AM parent company Avid Life Media (whose > relevance to the hack is obvious) while others broke the news that > conservative "family values" cultural figure Josh Duggar was using the > service. I think the case for investigating the CEO here (by, for example, > exposing his private emails) is ethically justifiable (though I think the > case for exposing Duggar is not as straightforward, but it's a legitimate > open question - by way of a counterargument, Dan Savage, in particular, > really, > really thinks that exposing Duggar is justifiable > <http://www.bioethics.net/2015/09/ashley-madison-using-stolen-data/>.) At > the same time, we would not tolerate journalists targeting and exposing the > details of non-public figures in the dataset. That would be bullying or > harassment - and definitely unethical. > > For academic researchers, our ends aren't *necessarily* public interest > (though there can be clear connections to the public interest in some > cases, like the West Virginia researchers that exposed VW's cheating > software > < > http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/advanced-cars/how-p… > >). > Setting aside romantic notions of progress and "the glory of science"), the > ends of research can be variously ontological, epistemological, political, > etc... > > Over time, we've decided - in part as a response to past ethical > transgressions - that, regardless of the ends of our research, there are > certain values we shouldn't compromise in the pursuit of knowledge - chief > among them is the value of respect. As the Belmont Report and other > research documents, the notion of informed consent is one of the main ways > (if not *the* main way) in which we operationalize the value of respect in > practice. The challenge that the Ashley Madison data poses for researchers, > then, is that those included in the dataset never consented to being a part > of research (and, indeed, it could probably be assumed that many of the > affected individuals would definitely not agree to disclose many of these > intimate details to researchers without certain guarantees of privacy). > > So, I'm not sure what the legal status of conducting research on a stolen > database might be (I don't have the legal background to answer that > question) - but from an ethical perspective, concerns with consent and > respect are still absolutely pressing. So, rather than giving a blanket > "yes" or "no" from an ethical perspective, I think it is important to > consider 1) the kinds of research questions you would want to ask and why, > 2) what the relationship of your research might be to your institution's > IRB (if you're at the kind of institution that has one, anyway) given that > the dataset contains human subjects, and 3) what possible further harms > your research might cause if not approached properly. (Plus: even if > consent is out of the picture, we still have other important values to > which we can appeal - such as beneficence, justice, care, etc...). > > -Anna > > ----- > Anna Lauren Hoffmann > Professional Faculty & Postdoctoral Researcher > School of Information > University of California, Berkeley > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Jeremiah Spence <jeremiah.spence(a)gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > I was following the 2600 forums after the Ashley Madison hack. People > were > > wanting to explore that data trove and the consensus after some input > from > > a journalist was that it was legal to obtain the data trove once it was > > released to the public. But it is illegal to disclose sensitive data > such > > as passwords or credit card numbers. > > > > This does not answer the colleague's original question regarding the use > of > > the data in a formal research setting. Perhaps the "grey hat" academic > > solution would be to anonymize the resulting data, in much the similar > way > > we usually treat survey data. That was analysis can be performed and no > > individual is "injured" as a result of the research. > > > > Jeremiah, Ph.D. > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Leavitt <alexleavitt(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > A similar case study might be the history of the ENRON email data set. > It > > > went through multiple iterations of availability and takedowns as it > was > > > slowly edited over time to remove emails. People still use it as a > > > canonical dataset, but it is certainly still controversial, and > > especially > > > was when it was first made available. > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Alexander Leavitt > > > PhD Candidate > > > USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism > > > http://alexleavitt.com > > > Twitter: @alexleavitt <http://twitter.com/alexleavitt> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Peter Timusk <peterotimusk(a)gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think one could look a little at the consequences of what you are > > > doing. > > > > Seems you are trying to make money by researching funding data is > that > > > > right? I find that unethical but I find all kinds of data mining > > > unethical. > > > > There are reasons to use your same skill sets that could benefit > > society. > > > > May be I don't understand what your end result is about. > > > > > > > > Peter Timusk > > > > peterotimusk(a)gmail.com > > > > I do not speak for my employer or charities or political parties or > > > unions > > > > I volunteer with or belong to, unless otherwise noted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Nathaniel Poor <natpoor(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello list- > > > > > > > > > > I recently got into a discussion with a colleague about the ethics > of > > > > using > > > > > hacked data, specifically the Patreon hacked data (see here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/10/gigabytes-of-user-data-from-hack-of… > > > > > ). > > > > > > > > > > He and I do crowdfunding work, and had wanted to look at Patreon, > but > > > as > > > > > far as I can tell they have no easy hook into all their projects > (for > > > > > scraping), so, to me this data hack was like a gift! But he said > > there > > > > was > > > > > no way we could use it. We aren't doing sentiment analysis or > > anything, > > > > we > > > > > would use aggregated measures like funding levels and then report > > > things > > > > > like means and maybe a regression, so there would be no > identifiable > > > > > information whatsoever derived from the hacked data in any of our > > > > resulting > > > > > work (we might go to the site and pull some quotes). > > > > > > > > > > I looked at the AoIR ethics guidelines ( > > > > http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf > > > > > ), and didn't see anything specifically about hacked data (I don't > > > think > > > > > "hacked" is the best word, but I don't like "stolen" either, but > > those > > > > are > > > > > different discussions). > > > > > > > > > > One relevant line I noticed was this one: > > > > > "If access to an online context is publicly available, do > > > > > members/participants/authors > > > > > perceive the context to be public?" (p. 8) > > > > > So, the problem with the data is that it's the entire website, so > > some > > > > was > > > > > private and some was public, but now it's all public and everyone > > knows > > > > > it's public. > > > > > > > > > > To me, I agree that a lot of the data in the data-dump had been > > > intended > > > > to > > > > > be private -- apparently, direct messages are in there -- but we > > > wouldn't > > > > > use that data (it's not something we're interested in). We'd use > data > > > > like > > > > > number of funders and funding levels and then aggregate > everything. I > > > see > > > > > that some of it was meant to be private, but given the entire site > > was > > > > > hacked and exported I don't see how currently anyone could have an > > > > > expectation of privacy any more. I'm not trying to torture the > > > > definition, > > > > > it's just that it was private until it wasn't. > > > > > > > > > > I can see that some academic researchers -- at least those in > > computer > > > > > security -- would be interested in this data and should be able to > > > > publish > > > > > in peer reviewed journals about it, in an anonymized manner > (probably > > > as > > > > an > > > > > example of "here's a data hack like what we are talking about, > here's > > > > what > > > > > hackers released"). > > > > > > > > > > I also think that probably every script kiddie has downloaded the > > data, > > > > as > > > > > has every grey and black market email list spammer, and probably > > every > > > > > botnet purveyor (for passwords) and maybe even the hacking arm of > the > > > > > Chinese army and the NSA. My point here is that if we were to use > the > > > > data > > > > > in academic research we wouldn't be publicizing it to nefarious > > people > > > > who > > > > > would misuse it since all of those people already have it. We could > > > maybe > > > > > help people who want to use crowdfunding some (hopefully!) if we > have > > > > some > > > > > results. (I guess I don't see that we would be doing any harm by > > using > > > > it.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what do people think? Did I miss something in the AoIR > > guidelines? > > > I > > > > > realize I don't think it's clear either way, or I wouldn't be > asking, > > > so > > > > > probably the answers will point to this as a grey area (so why do I > > > even > > > > > ask, I am not sure). > > > > > > > > > > But I'm not looking for "You can't use it because it's hacked," > > > because I > > > > > don't think that explains anything. I could counter that with "It > is > > > > > publicly available found data," because it is, although I don't > think > > > > > that's the best reply either. Both lack nuance. > > > > > > > > > > -Nat > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D. > > > > > http://natpoor.blogspot.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > > > > > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers > > http://aoir.org > > > > > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > > > > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > > > > > > > > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > > > > > http://www.aoir.org/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > > > > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers > http://aoir.org > > > > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > > > > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > > > > > > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > > > > http://www.aoir.org/ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > > > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > > > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > > > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > > > > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > > > http://www.aoir.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -------------------- > > Jeremiah Spence, Ph.D. > > Technologist. Analyst. Consultant. > > jeremiahspence.com > > jeremiah.spence(a)gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > > The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > > http://www.aoir.org/ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 20:26:40 -0400 > From: Nathaniel Poor <natpoor(a)gmail.com> > To: Peter Timusk <peterotimusk(a)gmail.com> > Cc: AOIR <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org> > Subject: Re: [Air-L] Ethics of using hacked data. > Message-ID: <BFEDB0CD-43FA-4DF8-B6F4-1E8FBDA9F603(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Peter and list - > > We are academic researchers ? when I said something to the effect of > ?trying to help crowdfunders do it better? I meant ?I am an idealistic > ex-professor who still does academic research and I still hope some of my > work will make the world a better place and not sit unread in a dusty > journal on a shelf,? and since this line of work is about crowdfunding, > well that?s what it will improve and inform the practices of (we find it > won?t work for everyone, so keep alternate and longer-established funding > mechanisms like the NEH in the US). > > I realize I haven?t been to AoIR in quite some time, but the first one I > went to was Toronto, 2003. I?m an academic. Peter I see we have some shared > connections on LinkedIn. > > We have two published papers on this topic in journals most of this list > will know: NMS and iCS. > > Davidson, R, & Poor, N. (2015). The barriers facing artists? use of > crowdfunding platforms: Personality, emotional labor, and going to the well > one too many times. New Media & Society,17(2), 289-307. > http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/24/1461444814558916.abstract > > Davidson, R, & Poor, N. (Forthcoming). Why sugar daddies are only good for > Bar-Mitzvahs: Exploring the limits on repeat crowdfunding. Information, > Communication, and Society. > > I left Roei out of it since he would think I?m a bit daft for asking (I am > 99.5% sure he isn?t on this list?). He is a professor (just got tenure and > is on his sabbatical year!), I, though, am not (it?s not my thing). But I?m > one of those pesky ?independent scholar? people, I?m like a ronin professor > who doesn?t teach, which leaves me feeling misunderstood and annoyed with > conference registration web pages that require an affiliation. So I don?t > have an IRB or tenure committee to worry about, but I want to do good work > regardless. Roei, however, does have an IRB and, one day, a promotion > committee. This also means I get to mouth off about academic annoyances on > Facebook, quite to the irritation of some of my friends and to my great > delight. (Granted, I know some of you who do this and yet are professors?.) > > -Nat > > ------------------------------- > Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D. > http://natpoor.blogspot.com/ > https://sites.google.com/site/natpoor/ > > > > On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Peter Timusk <peterotimusk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think one could look a little at the consequences of what you are > doing. Seems you are trying to make money by researching funding data is > that right? I find that unethical but I find all kinds of data mining > unethical. There are reasons to use your same skill sets that could benefit > society. May be I don't understand what your end result is about. > > > > Peter Timusk > > peterotimusk(a)gmail.com > > I do not speak for my employer or charities or political parties or > unions I volunteer with or belong to, unless otherwise noted. > > > > > >> On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Nathaniel Poor <natpoor(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hello list- > >> > >> I recently got into a discussion with a colleague about the ethics of > using > >> hacked data, specifically the Patreon hacked data (see here: > >> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/10/gigabytes-of-user-data-from-hack-of… > >> ). > >> > >> He and I do crowdfunding work, and had wanted to look at Patreon, but as > >> far as I can tell they have no easy hook into all their projects (for > >> scraping), so, to me this data hack was like a gift! But he said there > was > >> no way we could use it. We aren't doing sentiment analysis or anything, > we > >> would use aggregated measures like funding levels and then report things > >> like means and maybe a regression, so there would be no identifiable > >> information whatsoever derived from the hacked data in any of our > resulting > >> work (we might go to the site and pull some quotes). > >> > >> I looked at the AoIR ethics guidelines ( > http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf > >> ), and didn't see anything specifically about hacked data (I don't think > >> "hacked" is the best word, but I don't like "stolen" either, but those > are > >> different discussions). > >> > >> One relevant line I noticed was this one: > >> "If access to an online context is publicly available, do > >> members/participants/authors > >> perceive the context to be public?" (p. 8) > >> So, the problem with the data is that it's the entire website, so some > was > >> private and some was public, but now it's all public and everyone knows > >> it's public. > >> > >> To me, I agree that a lot of the data in the data-dump had been > intended to > >> be private -- apparently, direct messages are in there -- but we > wouldn't > >> use that data (it's not something we're interested in). We'd use data > like > >> number of funders and funding levels and then aggregate everything. I > see > >> that some of it was meant to be private, but given the entire site was > >> hacked and exported I don't see how currently anyone could have an > >> expectation of privacy any more. I'm not trying to torture the > definition, > >> it's just that it was private until it wasn't. > >> > >> I can see that some academic researchers -- at least those in computer > >> security -- would be interested in this data and should be able to > publish > >> in peer reviewed journals about it, in an anonymized manner (probably > as an > >> example of "here's a data hack like what we are talking about, here's > what > >> hackers released"). > >> > >> I also think that probably every script kiddie has downloaded the data, > as > >> has every grey and black market email list spammer, and probably every > >> botnet purveyor (for passwords) and maybe even the hacking arm of the > >> Chinese army and the NSA. My point here is that if we were to use the > data > >> in academic research we wouldn't be publicizing it to nefarious people > who > >> would misuse it since all of those people already have it. We could > maybe > >> help people who want to use crowdfunding some (hopefully!) if we have > some > >> results. (I guess I don't see that we would be doing any harm by using > it.) > >> > >> > >> So, what do people think? Did I miss something in the AoIR guidelines? I > >> realize I don't think it's clear either way, or I wouldn't be asking, so > >> probably the answers will point to this as a grey area (so why do I even > >> ask, I am not sure). > >> > >> But I'm not looking for "You can't use it because it's hacked," because > I > >> don't think that explains anything. I could counter that with "It is > >> publicly available found data," because it is, although I don't think > >> that's the best reply either. Both lack nuance. > >> > >> -Nat > >> > >> -- > >> Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D. > >> http://natpoor.blogspot.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > >> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > >> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > >> > >> Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > >> http://www.aoir.org/ > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 18:48:06 -0700 > From: "Sarah T. Hamid" <shamid(a)uoregon.edu> > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Subject: [Air-L] Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology - > CFP for Issue 10, Open Call > Message-ID: <d8fab2b2bfad82506cd8c2e99d2e2a18(a)uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Call for papers: Open issue > Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology | adanewmedia.org > Issue 10, forthcoming November 2016 > > Edited by Radhika Gajjala (Bowling Green State University) and Carol > Stabile (University of Oregon) > > We invite contributions to a peer-reviewed open call issue featuring > research on gender, new media and technology. We are particularly > interested in contributions that exemplify Ada?s commitments to > politically engaged, intersectional approaches to scholarship on gender, > new media and technology. > > Contributions in formats other than the traditional essay are > encouraged; please contact the editors to discuss specifications and/or > multimodal contributions. > > *Submission Details* > All submissions should be sent by FEBRUARY 1, 2016 to > editor(a)adanewmedia.org. Contributions should be no more than 5,000 > words, inclusive of notes and citations. Please attach your contribution > as a word document and use ?Ada Open Call Contribution? for your subject > line and include the following in the body of your message: > > ? Your name and a short biography > ? A 50 word abstract > ? A list of five keywords/subject tags > ? Preferred email address > ? Citation style used > > *About Ada* > Ada is an online, open access, open source, peer-reviewed journal run by > feminist media scholars. The journal?s first issue was published online > in November 2012. Since that launch, Ada has received more than 200,000 > page views. Ada operates a review process that combines feminist > mentoring with the rigor of peer review. > > We do not ? and will never ? charge fees for publishing your materials, > and we will share those materials using a Creative Commons License. > > *About the Editors* > Radhika Gajjala [@cyberdivalivesl] is professor of media studies and > American culture studies at Bowling Green State University, Ohio, where > she teaches courses in global media, international communication, media > and cultural studies and feminist research methods. She is the author of > Cyberselves: Feminist Ethnographies of South Asian Women and of > Cyberculture and the Subaltern: Weavings of the Virtual and Real. She > has also co-edited South Asian Technospaces and Cyberfeminism 2.0 She is > co-editor of Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology. > > Carol A. Stabile [@castabile] is head of the Department of Women?s and > Gender Studies at the University of Oregon, where she teaches > interdisciplinary courses on gender, race, and class in media at the > University of Oregon. She is the author of Feminism and the > Technological Fix, editor of Turning the Century: Essays in Media and > Cultural Studies, co-editor of Prime Time Animation: Television > Animation and American Culture, and author of White Victims, Black > Villains: Gender, Race, and Crime News in US Culture. She is completing > a book on women writers and the broadcast blacklist in the 1950s, > entitled The Broadcast 41: Women and the Television Blacklist. She is a > founding member of Fembot, an online collaboration of scholars > conducting research on gender, new media, and technology, co-editor of > Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, and edits the > Feminist Media Studies book series for University of Illinois Press. > > *Questions or Queries?* > Direct them to issue editors: editor(a)adanewmedia.org or to the Fembot > Webmistress: shamid(a)uoregon.edu > > --- > > Sarah T. Hamid > > Web Mistress, The Fembot Collective > http://fembotcollective.org > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:06:21 -1000 > From: Dave Dittrich <dittrich(a)apl.washington.edu> > To: Nathaniel Poor <natpoor(a)gmail.com>, AOIR <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org> > Subject: Re: [Air-L] Ethics of using hacked data. > Message-ID: <5615CF9D.3080103(a)apl.washington.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > On 10/7/15 10:11 AM, Nathaniel Poor wrote: > > I recently got into a discussion with a colleague about the ethics > > of using hacked data... > > I can see that some academic researchers -- at least those in computer > > security -- would be interested in this data and should be able to > publish > > in peer reviewed journals about it, in an anonymized manner (probably as > an > > example of "here's a data hack like what we are talking about, here's > what > > hackers released"). > > Here are some references on this topic you might look at. > > David Dittrich and Erin Kenneally (co-lead authors). The Menlo Report: > Ethical Principles Guiding Information and Communication Technology > Research. > > http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CSD-MenloPrinciplesCORE… > , > December 2012. > > David Dittrich and Erin Kenneally (eds.). Applying Ethical Principles to > Information and Communication Technology Research: A Companion to the > Department of Homeland Security Menlo Report. > > http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CSD-MenloPrinciplesCOMP… > , > January 2012. > > David Dittrich, Katherine Carpenter, and Manish Karir. An Ethical > Examination of the Internet Census 2012 Dataset: A Menlo Report Case > Study. Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE, 34(2):40?46, June 2015. > http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=7128817 > > Ronald Deibert and Masashi Crete-Nishihata. Blurred boundaries: Probing > the ethics of cyberspace research. Review of Policy Research, > 28(5):531?537, 2011. > > David Dittrich and Erin Kenneally (eds.). The Menlo Report: Ethical > Principles Guiding Information and Communication Technology Research. > > http://www.cyber.st.dhs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/MenloPrinciplesCORE-… > , > December 2011. > > David Dittrich. The Ethics of Social Honeypots. Research Ethics, May > 2015. > http://rea.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/05/19/1747016115583380.abstract > > Serge Egelman, Joseph Bonneau, Sonia Chiasson, David Dittrich, and > Stuart Schechter. It?s Not Stealing If You Need It: A Panel on the > Ethics of Performing Research Using Public Data of Illicit Origin. J. > Blythe (Ed.): FC 2012 Workshops, LNCS 7398, pp. 124?132, 2012. > Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012. > > > Just as a side note, the Carna Botnet (the IEEE pub above) did > in fact set a bad precedent for "researchers" who witnessed the > exploitation of weak passwords to illegally obtain data, > which turned into illegally accessing similar devices in a similar > manner to clean them up without the owners' knowledge, involvement, > or permission. > > "There was also a well-known research botnet called the Internet Census > 2012, where some researchers used access to these devices to make > measurements of the internet. Curiously, they decided to block access > for some malware, too, so it is a kind of precursor, although their main > intent was to publish data, and our main intent is to kill malware." > > If you ask me, letting researchers have an ethical "pass" on > using illegally obtained data is giving a push to both > academic reseachers, and self-proclaimed "researchers", > as they head down that slippery slope. > > -- > Dave Dittrich > dittrich(a)u.washington.edu > http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich > > PGP key: http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/pgpkey.txt > Fingerprint: 097B 4DCB BF16 E1D8 A06C 7512 A751 C80A D15E E079 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 05:06:38 +0200 > From: Charles Ess <charles.ess(a)gmail.com> > To: Dave Dittrich <dittrich(a)apl.washington.edu> > Cc: AOIR <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org> > Subject: Re: [Air-L] Ethics of using hacked data. > Message-ID: > <CAJxTP2b41zuRUyRcsm+_vCDJJqY3iFbpgfjTE= > z6Bq41q9h2Gg(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Dear all, > what a great question, and what helpful responses! > First of all, I appreciate this relatively new case as it helps illuminate > the need for continually updating and refreshing the AoIR guidelines. That > is, as Nathaniel's careful efforts to make use of the guidelines > demonstrates, there's a kind of hole here that clearly needs specific > consideration and reflection. > (At the same time, Aristotle warned against the impossibility of developing > final rules for every new case. In a powerful metaphor (to my mind at > least) - guideline and rule-making is somewhat akin to weaving or knitting: > every time you weave in a new thread to "cover" a new example or case, you > thereby also multiply the holes in your weaving ...) > > Secondly, without being able to do justice to the full richness of this > discussion, a couple of additional observations. One is that I espy some > important cultural differences in the ethical argumentation. Correct me > where I'm wrong, but a good portion of the argumentation in favor of using > the hacked data turns on efforts to consider the consequences of doing so - > including possible consequences to the data subjects as well as to the > researchers. So far, so good - but this sort of ethical consequentialism > is more prevalent in (but by no means exclusive to) U.S./U.K./ and to some > degree Australian approaches. (No surprise: the utilitarian philosophers > come out of and importantly stamp English-speaking philosophies and > cultures in the early 19th century, if not earlier.) > By contrast, the example of Stine Lomborg asking for informed consent > nonetheless in my mind is an example of the more deontological emphases, > especially (but again, by no means exclusively so) in northern Europe and > Scandinavia. That is, there is a sense of the importance of respecting > foundational rights, with less regard to the consequences of doing so > (beginning with making the researcher's life that much more complicated - > perhaps to the point of scuttling a project). (Again, no surprise: for all > their well-deserved criticism, Kant and Habermas (among others) are > regularly invoked in ethical discussions here, especially in connecting our > ethics with basic democratic norms, rights, and practices.) > While this is clearly painting with a broad brush that screams for a great > deal of nuance and counterexample - the contrast, I think, is nonetheless > useful in at least two ways. One, it helps more sharply articulate the > specific ethical approaches we tend to take up within a given cultural > context and tradition, so that we can be clearer about the strengths and > limits of those approaches. Two, it helps foreground the ethical > difficulty common to much Internet-facilitated research - namely, that our > data often draws from and crosses important national and cultural borders, > thereby requiring us to pay attention to these culturally-variable emphases > insofar as they may apply to a given data set. > In the Stine Lomborg example: her taking the more demanding ethical step of > asking for informed consent has the advantage of not only going further to > ensure basic rights protections - and this, I'm pretty sure, on both > deontological and feminist grounds; in addition, had this been an > international project, the stronger ethical approach here would have > simultaneously met the comparatively weaker demands of a consequentialist > approach. > > Lastly, I'm wondering if anyone has developed analogies from biomedical > ethics, i.e., of using medical data drawn from clearly illegal and > unethical work (most notoriously, Nazi and Japanese experiments, but > certainly also the infamous Tuskeegee Institute work - when they can be > legitimately called that)? Insofar as any such analogies might hold - > broadly, a consequentialist would argue that great good can come of using > data and information, whatever their source, as long as further foreseeable > risks are minimal. Some deontologists might argue differently. > I dunno - I need more coffee - and it might well be that such analogies > would turn out to be fruitless. > > But in the meantime, again, many thanks for this, and I hope we can take > this up as part of the ethics panel at AoIR this year: Friday, October 23, > from 1.00-2.50 p.m. (just FYI). > > Best in the meantime, > - charles > -- > Professor in Media Studies > Department of Media and Communication > University of Oslo > > Director, Centre for Research in Media Innovations (CeRMI) > Editor, The Journal of Media Innovations > <https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/TJMI/> > President, INSEIT <www.inseit.net> > > Postboks 1093 > Blindern 0317 > Oslo, Norway > c.m.ess(a)media.uio.no > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Dave Dittrich <dittrich(a)apl.washington.edu > > > wrote: > > > On 10/7/15 10:11 AM, Nathaniel Poor wrote: > > > I recently got into a discussion with a colleague about the ethics > > > of using hacked data... > > > I can see that some academic researchers -- at least those in computer > > > security -- would be interested in this data and should be able to > > publish > > > in peer reviewed journals about it, in an anonymized manner (probably > as > > an > > > example of "here's a data hack like what we are talking about, here's > > what > > > hackers released"). > > > > Here are some references on this topic you might look at. > > > > David Dittrich and Erin Kenneally (co-lead authors). The Menlo Report: > > Ethical Principles Guiding Information and Communication Technology > > Research. > > > > > http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CSD-MenloPrinciplesCORE… > > , > > December 2012. > > > > David Dittrich and Erin Kenneally (eds.). Applying Ethical Principles to > > Information and Communication Technology Research: A Companion to the > > Department of Homeland Security Menlo Report. > > > > > http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CSD-MenloPrinciplesCOMP… > > , > > January 2012. > > > > David Dittrich, Katherine Carpenter, and Manish Karir. An Ethical > > Examination of the Internet Census 2012 Dataset: A Menlo Report Case > > Study. Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE, 34(2):40?46, June 2015. > > http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=7128817 > > > > Ronald Deibert and Masashi Crete-Nishihata. Blurred boundaries: Probing > > the ethics of cyberspace research. Review of Policy Research, > > 28(5):531?537, 2011. > > > > David Dittrich and Erin Kenneally (eds.). The Menlo Report: Ethical > > Principles Guiding Information and Communication Technology Research. > > > > > http://www.cyber.st.dhs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/MenloPrinciplesCORE-… > > , > > December 2011. > > > > David Dittrich. The Ethics of Social Honeypots. Research Ethics, May > > 2015. > > > http://rea.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/05/19/1747016115583380.abstract > > > > Serge Egelman, Joseph Bonneau, Sonia Chiasson, David Dittrich, and > > Stuart Schechter. It?s Not Stealing If You Need It: A Panel on the > > Ethics of Performing Research Using Public Data of Illicit Origin. J. > > Blythe (Ed.): FC 2012 Workshops, LNCS 7398, pp. 124?132, 2012. > > Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012. > > > > > > Just as a side note, the Carna Botnet (the IEEE pub above) did > > in fact set a bad precedent for "researchers" who witnessed the > > exploitation of weak passwords to illegally obtain data, > > which turned into illegally accessing similar devices in a similar > > manner to clean them up without the owners' knowledge, involvement, > > or permission. > > > > "There was also a well-known research botnet called the Internet Census > > 2012, where some researchers used access to these devices to make > > measurements of the internet. Curiously, they decided to block access > > for some malware, too, so it is a kind of precursor, although their main > > intent was to publish data, and our main intent is to kill malware." > > > > If you ask me, letting researchers have an ethical "pass" on > > using illegally obtained data is giving a push to both > > academic reseachers, and self-proclaimed "researchers", > > as they head down that slippery slope. > > > > -- > > Dave Dittrich > > dittrich(a)u.washington.edu > > http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich > > > > PGP key: http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/pgpkey.txt > > Fingerprint: 097B 4DCB BF16 E1D8 A06C 7512 A751 C80A D15E E079 > > _______________________________________________ > > The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > > http://www.aoir.org/ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 21:37:21 -0700 > From: Tiffany Woelfel <tpw(a)uw.edu> > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Subject: [Air-L] social media and research ethics > Message-ID: > < > CAHP3_7EpyiP5D7d8J23d5t7zEPwd+QM_0q5VaWRHwk5urspecw(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hello fellow internet researchers, > > > > Would you like to help me with my MPH thesis? I am currently recruiting > participants with at least 6 months of past or current experience reviewing > the ethical conduct of research to find out more about their beliefs and > attitudes regarding the ethical use of social media in research. If you're > eligible and have 20-30 minutes to spare, please contact me at *tpw(a)uw.edu > <tpw(a)uw.edu> or (206) 451-5429.* All participants will receive a $10 gift > card. > > > > Thank you! > > > > *Tiffany Woelfel, MSW, MPHc* > > *University of Washington* > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 23:56:22 -0500 > From: Fred Fuchs <fred(a)firesabre.com> > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Subject: Re: [Air-L] Ethics of using hacked data. > Message-ID: <5615F776.6020506(a)firesabre.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 10/7/2015 10:06 PM, Charles Ess wrote: > > Dear all, > > what a great question, and what helpful responses! > > > In the Stine Lomborg example: her taking the more demanding ethical step > of > > asking for informed consent has the advantage of not only going further > to > > ensure basic rights protections - and this, I'm pretty sure, on both > > deontological and feminist grounds; in addition, had this been an > > international project, the stronger ethical approach here would have > > simultaneously met the comparatively weaker demands of a consequentialist > > approach. > > For discussion, to what extent would requiring informed consent affect > sampling? Are there effective ways to deal with this? > > > Lastly, I'm wondering if anyone has developed analogies from biomedical > > ethics, i.e., of using medical data drawn from clearly illegal and > > unethical work (most notoriously, Nazi and Japanese experiments, but > > certainly also the infamous Tuskeegee Institute work - when they can be > > legitimately called that)? > > The analogy using the Nazi case isn't a good one. The Nazi were not > doing anything close to good science even by the standards of the day. > > The discussion here presupposes that those using data obtained through > hacking would be doing good science. > > So, ultimately, this is not a proper or useful comparison. > > Fred > > -- > Fred Fuchs - Founder, CEO, & Producer > FireSabre Consulting LLC > Content Services for Virtual Worlds > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:03:54 +0300 > From: Xenia Zeiler <xenia.zeiler(a)helsinki.fi> > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Subject: [Air-L] out now: first regular issue of gamevironments. > games, religion, and stuff > Message-ID: > <20151008160354.Horde.-QS_WRO16tpflAKAzRM8Ww1(a)webmail.helsinki.fi> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes > > Dear all, > > we are happy to announce the new issue of gamevironments. games, > religion, and stuff. > > In our first regular issue, #2 (2015), you find articles, reports > about current activities in the field of gaming and religion, an > interview and a game review. > free download at http://www.gamevironments.org/. > > Enjoy! > Kerstin Radde-Antweiler & Xenia Zeiler > (editors-in-chief) > > -- > Prof. Dr. Xenia Zeiler > Associate Professor > South Asian Studies > > P.O. Box 59 (Unioninkatu 38B) > 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland > +358 50 4482713 > http://tuhat.halvi.helsinki.fi/portal/en/person/zeiler > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:55:04 -0400 > From: Gerald Voorhees <dr.g.voorhees(a)gmail.com> > To: Crtnet News <crtnet(a)natcom.org>, gamesnetwork > <GAMESNETWORK(a)uta.fi>, air-l <Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org>, > CULTSTUD-L(a)lists.umn.edu > Subject: [Air-L] Update & Deadline Extended: CFP for Gender and Games > Trilogy > Message-ID: > < > CAHysLZE_TyTCctsLpxd1iKe_Be0XxA+knDYyQHAN9xwTacLbgw(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > The due date for the submission of abstracts for this trilogy of books > exploring the gendered practices enacted in relation to games and gaming > technologies has been extended to October 25. > > > Some aspects of the CFP have been updated to clarify the intended aims and > orientation of the project and potential contributors may also care to note > the expanded configuration of the editorial team for each volume. > > We are seeking chapter contributors for a ?trilogy? of edited volumes that > collect and curate previously unpublished scholarship looking at gender, > sexuality and games. We envision three volumes that bring together: > > - > > women?s studies and game studies to focus on feminist criticism of > women's experiences with games, gaming and game cultures > - > > queer studies and game studies to focus on queer and genderqueer > experiences with games, gaming and game cultures > - > > masculinity studies and game studies to focus on men's experiences with > games, gaming and game cultures. > > > Acknowledging that gaming acts as a key ? and heavily contested -- site of > subject formation in the lives of those who play, we are soliciting > explorations of the gendered practices enacted in relation to games and > gaming technologies. In doing so, we hope to provide a comprehensive > (though by no means exhaustive) account of the increasingly significant > roles gaming plays in the reproduction, and possible subversion, of > contemporary regimes of gender-based power. > > We are seeking chapter contributors for a "trilogy" of edited volumes that > collect and curate previously unpublished scholarship looking at gender and > games. We envision three volumes: one each on femininity, masculinity and > genderqueer identities, respectively. > > In particular, we are concerned with theoretically-grounded explorations of > the following: > > - > > the relationships -- identification, idealization, appropriation, > negotiation, rejection, contestation, etc -- between > representations/performances of gender in games and their uptake in > gaming > practices and cultures; > - > > the gendered dynamics and communicative practices of cultures coalescing > around particular games and gaming pursuits; > - > > the historical and/or contemporary processes by which gaming > technologies (platforms, peripherals, software, etc) become > (dis)associated > with particular subject positions; > - > > gendered patterns of privilege and inequity that characterize > gaming-related labor, including (but not limited to) game production, > modding, e-sports, and spectatorship; > - > > the persistent and limiting dichotomization of gender in gaming-related > texts, discourses and practices; > - > > the intersections of gender and other systems of oppression, such as > race, sexuality, ability, age, and socio-economic status, with regards > to > any of these above facets. > > > Contributions from all academic disciplines and geographic regions are > invited, and emerging and unaffiliated scholars are encouraged as the > trilogy aims to bring different voices and perspectives into conversation. > However, the audience of the work is academic and scholarly style and rigor > are expected. To that end, all chapters will undergo peer review and > willingness to accept criticism and undertake revisions is necessary. Also > note that we can ensure double blind peer-review of your chapter if > requested, but, we also ask that each chapter contributor be willing to > peer-review one other chapter submitted to the trilogy to help expedite > this. > > For consideration, please email an abstract of 250 - 500 words and a short > bio statement of no more than 100 words to the editors at ( > gender.games.trilogy(a)gmail.com) no later than October 15. The abstract > should provide a clear summary of the proposed chapter?s thesis and outline > of its structure. Indicate which volume of the trilogy you are submitting > to in the subject line of your email. > > Complete chapter drafts will be due February 1, 2016 and should be no more > than 6000 words (including notes and references) and use the Chicago Manual > of Style author-date sytem (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html) > for > references. > > All contributions must be the original work of the author and cannot be > published elsewhere. For co-authored works, all authors must agree to the > submission of the chapter. > > Questions and inquiries can be sent to (gender.games.trilogy(a)gmail.com) > > Masculinity Studies Volume > > Nick Taylor > > North Carolina State University > > Gerald Voorhees > > University of Waterloo > > Women?s Studies Volume > > Kishonna Leah Gray > > Eastern Kentucky University > > Gerald Voorhees > > University of Waterloo > > Emma Vossen > > University of Waterloo > > Queer Studies Volume > > Todd Harper > > University of Baltimore > > Nick Taylor > > North Carolina State University > > Meghan Blythe-Adams > > University of Western Ontario > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ > > ------------------------------ > > End of Air-L Digest, Vol 135, Issue 8 > ************************************* >

1 0

#gamergate trolling attack going on now against a feminist tech movement
by Zara Rahman 09 Oct '15

09 Oct '15

Hi all, I thought this might be of interest for those of you studying trolling: there is a (seemingly well-coordinated) Gamergate going on right now against those using the hashtag #takebackthetech and (to a lesser extent) #imagineafeministinternet. Both of these hashtags started with the feminist organisation APC, and they were/are planning an online twitter discussion tonight on the impact of onlnie violence against women - but Gamergate trolls seem to have picked up on it in advance. The community is organising at the moment on how to respond, but if you're interested in following/studying/archiving the attack - head to #takebackthetech <https://twitter.com/hashtag/TakeBackTheTech?src=hash>. For reference: https://www.takebackthetech.net/ https://www.apc.org/en/about/programmes/womens-networking-support-programme… Thanks - if you end up working on this topic further, please let me know! And, perhaps this goes without saying but please don't @/tag me or others in your responses if you choose to respond on Twitter. The organisers of the twitter chat have already received abusive twitter and email messages. Best, Zara -- Zara Rahman Fellow at Centre for Internet and Human Rights http://zararah.net | Twitter: @zararah

3 5