- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Conference "Global Media Worlds and China": Uppsala University October 6-7, 2011
by Christian Fuchs 11 May '11

11 May '11

http://www.im.uu.se/MLeague2011/?languageId=3&siteNodeId=36303&contentId=-1 http://www.im.uu.se/digitalAssets/56/56848_MLeauge2011ver2.pdf http://www.im.uu.se/digitalAssets/56/56531_RegistrationForm-MLIS2011.doc Global Media Worlds and China 2011 MLeague International Symposium October 6th-7th 2011, Uppsala, Sweden Contribution abstract submission deadline: May 31, 2011 Organized by: International League of Higher Education in Media and Communication (MLeague) Communication University of China (CUC) Uppsala University (UU) Keynote speakers - Susan Brownell, University of Missouri, USA - Daya Thussu, University of Westminster, UK - Yuezhi Zhao, Simon Fraser University, Canada The International League of Higher Education in Media and Communication, MLeague, Communication University of China (CUC) and Uppsala University (UU) invites you to attend the annual international academic symposium of MLeague organized by MLeague, CUC and Uppsala University in Uppsala, Sweden, October 6-7 2011. The symposium is hosted by Department of Informatics and Media and Department of Linguistics and Philology at Uppsala University. The theme of the symposium is “Global Media Worlds and China” and it is divided in three parts: - Global Media worlds entering China: global and international media in China - Media worlds of China: the transforming media landscape of China - China entering global media worlds: Chinese media going international and global Participants are free to address any relevant issues inside of these broad frames (for example cultural industries, innovation, media economy, digital media, media convergence, governance, digital media cultures, social media, new media ethics, immaterial rights, privacy, etc.). -- Prof. Christian Fuchs Chair in Media and Communication Studies Department of Informatics and Media Uppsala University Kyrkogårdsgatan 10 Box 513 751 20 Uppsala Sweden christian.fuchs(a)im.uu.se Tel +46 (0) 18 471 1019 http://fuchs.uti.at http://www.im.uu.se NetPolitics Blog: http://fuchs.uti.at/blog Editor of tripleC: http://www.triple-c.at Book "Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies" (Routledge 2011) Book "Internet and Society" (Paperback, Routledge 2010)

1 0

List of AoIR Executive Committee Nominees
by Mia Consalvo 11 May '11

11 May '11

Greetings, It is my pleasure to announce the list of nominees for AoIR's next Executive Committee (2011-2013). We will be posting candidate's statements on the Association's website once we receive all of them, and will notify you when they are ready to view. Ballots will be sent to all current AoIR members on May 24, 2011 with voting details enclosed. *Vice President* Ted Coopman Lori Kendall Monica Murero *Student Representative* Anthony Hoffman Trent Kays Kelly Quinn *Treasurer* Michael Zimmer (acclaimed) *Secretary* Catherine Middleton (acclaimed) *Open Seats* Andrea Baker Jillana Enteen Andrew Herman Soraj Hongladarom Mark Johns Gene Loeb Christopher Paul Ulf-Dietrich Reips Cristian Berrio Zapata Thanks to all for their interest, Mia -- Mia Consalvo, Ph.D. Visiting Associate Professor Comparative Media Studies Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Building 14N-226 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 USA consalvo(a)mit.edu 617.324.1868

1 0

a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
by Niels Brügger 11 May '11

11 May '11

Hi all, Just a short comment about robots.txt. Whether robots.txt should be respected or not by web archives is not as unequivocal as put by Jeremy below - there are national differences. The national Danish web archive Netarkivet.dk is based on the "Act no. 1439 of December 22, 2004 on Legal Deposit of Published Material", and here it is stated that the archive is not obliged to respect robots.txt. The rationale for this is that once it's out there it's out there, and as long as it's accessible to everyone it's 'public' - thus it's part of the cultural heritage, thus it should be archived. This also applies for password protected material IF everyone could get a password, no matter if s/he had to pay for it. And if you don't want it to be public, then don't put it out there - robots.txt does not prevent people to see it, then it's public and will be archived. In the Danish legislation ignoring robots.txt is being considered necessary to collect all relevant material. However, the acces to the web archive is very restricted: there's only acces for scholars, and you have to apply for acces. If interested, the Danish web archive has made a short fact sheet: http://netarkivet.dk/publikationer/Fact%20sheet%20Webarchiving%20in%20Denma… And a FAQ: http://netarkivet.dk/faq/index-en.php - and about robots.txt: http://netarkivet.dk/faq/index-en.php#faq_robots Best, Niels Brügger ----------- Message: 9 Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 11:18:04 -0400 From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns(a)vt.edu> To: aoir list <air-l(a)aoir.org> Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research Message-ID: <B7115BE4-D7AA-4B72-8C70-CF029ADF6AEE(a)vt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I think the tendency is to muddy the waters immensely here, but I also don't think we need to muddy the waters in regards to the Document vs Research Subject distinction. If you were allowed to research facebook, then you could do it either way or both ways, having subjects and documents, having just documents, or having just subjects. But once we are dealing with documents, then the only question we have is whether those are published documents or not. I think that instead of muddying the waters and continuing to say it is not simple, as we are inclined to do as academics, is going to continue to cause us grief and possibly prevent perfectly reasonable research, and thus i think we should embark on the other strategy that says: 'We can make this simple'. If it is published, it is public and open to research, you determine if it is published using these guidelines. If it is not published, then what is it, is it a private diary? is it a private letter? who has rights to the material and how can it be released for research. If you are dealing with research subjects, in what way are you doing that? if you are just reading their postings... you are not interacting with them and not creating research subjects, if you are doing an ethnography or participatory or action research then yes you are interacting with them and you are creating human subjects, in short, a matrix of methods in relation to their objects would great ly clarify the document vs subject distinction. In terms of public private on the web, my position is more or less that if you put it on the web and you do not protect in in some manner via legal device, technical system, or otherwise, then you are producing a public document and that's the end of it. People I would argue that it does not matter if that was not your intent or that you wanted it to be private, what matters is that you committed something to the public record, and while you can withdraw it, once it is distributed, you might find that very difficult, and withdrawing likely doesn't change it's public status, it just changes the ease of access to that data. Robots.txt should not be ignored. it is one of the technical means that people use to secure their property on the web. If there is a robots txt and it prevents you from making a copy of something, then i'd guess that the owners of the material do not want you to use it for research, and you'd need to get permission. ------------------------------------------------------------ LATEST PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS February 2011 "Web Archiving — Between Past, Present, and Future", The Handbook of Internet Studies (eds. M. Consalvo, & C. Ess), Wiley-Blackwell 2011, pp. 24-42 Read more on the publishers website: http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405185880.html April 2010 Web History (ed.), Peter Lang Publishing, New York 2010 Read more on the publishers website: http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?vID=310468&vLang=E&vHR=1&vUR=2&vUUR=1 January 2010 Website Analysis, Papers from The Centre for Internet Research, 12, The Centre for Internet Research, Aarhus 2010, [ get an electronic copy at: http://cfi.au.dk/en/publications/paper/#a12 ] NIELS BRÜGGER, Associate Professor, PhD Director, the Centre for Internet Research Department of Information and Media Studies Aarhus University Helsingforsgade 14 8200 Aarhus N Denmark Phone (switchboard) +45 8942 1111 Phone (direct) +45 8942 9226 Telefax + 45 8942 5950 E-mail nb(a)imv.au.dk Webpage http://imv.au.dk/~nb Profile at LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/50a/555 Profile at Kommunikationsforum [in Danish]: www.kommunikationsforum.dk/Niels-Brugger The Centre for Internet Research http://cfi.au.dk The history of dr.dk, 1996-2006 http://drdk.dk LARM (Radio Culture and Auditory Resources Research Infrastructure) http://www.larm-archive.org

4 4

considering how to think about facebook re: research ethics and maybe privacy
by jeremy hunsinger 11 May '11

11 May '11

Michael brought up the example of what the understanding of privacy might mean in a group marked private on facebook and what that would mean for a researcher. I responded comparing facebook to a privately owned shopping mall with publicly accessible stores and publicly accessible common areas, with all areas covered by video cameras and other surveillance technologies. That is still my perspective on facebook, but I wonder how much work can a group do on facebook to maintain any real sense of privacy beyond the request. By requested privacy I mean it is parallel to the signs that teenagers put on their doors in their parents home, it is a recognizable request for distance and separation that in most practical matters is respected 'day to day' but is summarily ignored once anything of import happens and sometimes even otherwise ignored. I'm thinking that much of what happens in regards to stated privacy on the web fits under something like either a requested privacy or really false privacy, with only 'real' privacy existing on the web (or the internet in general) when there really is no way to obtain the information provided without agreeing to the terms of privacy. Also there might be a difference between actually having a sense of 'privacy' in such public arenas and requesting anonymity, which is really the sort of value one might expect in a shopping mall, 'just another anonymous individual' thoughts? Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Political Science Virginia Tech Everything you can imagine is real. --Pablo Picasso

2 1

Transcription services
by Burcu Bakioglu 11 May '11

11 May '11

Greetings AoiR members, The transcription service that I had been using over the past years is going out of business. Can anyone recommend me another transcription service? I need audio files to be transcribed on a regular basis (interviews and such). Any input is much appreciated. Thanks! -- Thanks,</burcu> Burcu S. Bakioglu, Ph.D. http://www.palefirer.com http://palefirer.com/blog/ Skype: PaleFireR AIM: PaleFireR -- "It is not what the vision is. It is what it does."

1 0

Study: Even in the Digital Era, Canadians have Confidence in Mainstream News Media
by Alfred Hermida 11 May '11

11 May '11

Dear colleagues Today, the Canadian Media Research Consortium (CMRC) releases its latest report showing that, even with the growing importance of social media, the mainstream media have retained the confidence of most Canadians. The fourth in the CMRC’s series of reports on Canadian news habits, Even in the Digital Era, Canadians Have Confidence in Mainstream News Media, shows that nine out of ten Canadians consider the traditional news media to be reliable and trustworthy. Social media and other information websites are now used by many Canadians for news alerts and alternative perspectives but established news brands continue to be the gold standard for verification. These findings are good news for traditional journalism but the established media also face significant challenges as news consumption habits change, new sources of information proliferate and novel forms of journalist-citizen collaboration emerge. Public confidence in traditional journalism is an important resource in this process of adaptation to new audience expectations and demands. To report more of the CMRC report, click on the attachment or visit http://mediaresearch.ca/en/projects/trust_report.htm For further information, contact my colleague Prof Fred Fletcher at fred_fletcher(a)sympatico.ca Regards, Alfred Alfred Hermida: Assistant Professor The School of Journalism | University of British Columbia 6388 Crescent Road | Vancouver | BC | V6T 1Z2 Contact: alfred.hermida(a)ubc.ca | (+1) 604 827 3540 Web: http://www.journalism.ubc.ca | Blog: http://www.reportr.net

1 0

do we need an aoir data archive
by jeremy hunsinger 11 May '11

11 May '11

I brought this up on twitter yesterday. Perhaps it is time for AoIR to start an archive of data for current and future use. My thought is that right now many researchers have access and rights to share significant bits of data, and many do not have access. As I've said elsewhere, i don't actually think you can do peer reviewable research without providing access to the data that generated that research, and given that I have reviewed several papers based on proprietary information they could not release..., I'm thinking that we need to find ways of getting our data out there in the spirit of community and to promote scholarly quality. I also think having a neutral nonprofit holding the information would make it far easier for people to get information shared from corporations. However, that i see the need and others have agreed here and there, I think it is time to have a discussion. Personally, I know that I could set the infrastructure up without issue. The website in theory has close to unlimited storage space, though downloads would need to be limited as we have limited processor speed. There are also legal issues, copyright issues, and codebook issues that would need to be sorted out. so do we need something like this? and if so or if not, why or why not? Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech Words are things; and a small drop of ink, falling like dew upon a thought, produces that which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think. --Byron

8 10

Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
by jeremy hunsinger 10 May '11

10 May '11

Well what actually happens when you put something on facebook? it isn't like you are sending a private letter to a group of friends. it is much closer to going to a shopping mall where all the video cameras are tracking your every move. It isn't your property you are acting within... it is facebooks, in doing that acting you are agreeing with the terms that they put upon you. It isn't about your or my ethics Michael at that point, it isn't about what we should do or our ethical systems, it is then about the agreement that we consent to. There are no subjects to ask what you want to ask if you are doing document based research. You can ask the webpage, but your browser probably is not going to respond. The assumption you are putting forth is one that... there are subjects and it matters what their opinion is, but I want to say, when I read and interpret a book, a newspaper, a public record or any other published document, I need not consider that. You want to say perhaps that 'they don't know they are publishing it' and even if they publish it 'they might not want it researched' but that is not something we afford authors of published documents. We could, but I think it is going the wrong direction. That debate, I'd argue ended, when they put on the web in a manner similar to a published document in which it is assigned a copyright and is freely available to anyone without login. I've already stated that login may change that status. I think you can do research on a database with personally identifiable positions without running afowl of u.s. standards for research ethics and I mostly agree with that personally. If the data was freely given to a corporation and then the corporation freely gives it to you, then I don't think anyone is going to have any issue with you using that data as it was a. previously gathered and b. you are not interacting with the people. It might not be something people like, but I think that is generally the way it works. We have many colleagues doing this research right now actually, they all seem to have had their material passed by IRB's, most I suspect with waivers, but some perhaps with deeper reviews. I am fairly certain that if Facebook gave me data that they collected with personally identifiable information in it, and it was given under contract, and I ran that by the irb they would treat it much like they treat personally identifiable census data or use of standard social research data sets with individually identifiable data, that is... unless it contains private information, which as I said is a problematic construct, it is probably going to get a waiver, and the debate about whether these are human subjects or not, won't come up gotta run to an appt. but look forward to rejoinders. On May 10, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Michael Zimmer wrote: > I find this logic troubling, Jeremy. > > In our earlier exchange about Facebook suddenly making something public that was originally shared to a limited group, you seem to be placing strong preference on what a platform might afford at a given time (does it make something publicly available) rather than what the subject expected/intended/currently desires. That's not how I wish to have research ethics determined. > > And below you again now that "Texts are not people. Representations of people are not people", and appear to state that unless you are directly engaging with a human, you're not engaging in human subject research. Elizabeth has replied in part on this, but just to add: your logic seems to indicate that I can do research using a database of personally-identifiable and sensitive information, publish my results, etc without ever having to worry about ethics related to "human subjects" since I'm merely using a database, a "representation of people". Is this your position? > > -mz > > > -- > Michael Zimmer, PhD > Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies > Co-Director, Center for Information Policy Research > University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee > e: zimmerm(a)uwm.edu > w: www.michaelzimmer.org > > > On May 10, 2011, at 8:33 AM, jeremy hunsinger wrote: > >> I think i already mentioned the private information exception. But past that, as I said, instead of complicating it, i argue that we we need to simplify it. Texts are not people. Representations of people are not people. Whatever claims people have on those objects are not claims against their nature, they are claims to ownership or copyright. That is the line I think we have to take here. Things like documents are not research subjects. They are research objects, research quasi-objects, but they don't rise to the level of being a research subject no matter what exterior subjective claims people put on them. If they have private information embedded in them, that is still an object, the issue with private information is not that the object becomes a research subject, but that the claim of a subject overrides the interests of the researcher in that case. So my argument is that the private information claim is not that it transforms the document, but it creates a clai >> m by one person upon another based on the claim of privacy, however... very few things once published rise to that claim of private, especially once they are published, for instance a person's name on a document published is not private, it isn't private in the newspaper, it isn't private on public documents, nor are other identifying characteristics, height, demographic features, even salary might be public. So what rises to the claim of private in a public document? Medical records are one... though even then medical records can be made public by any number of sources and once public, might not be made private again. so... this line... seems really to be far, quite far away. Treat a published source as a published source, it is not a research subject. >> >> >> >> On May 10, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Elizabeth Buchanan wrote: >> >>> Hey, all, >>> >>> I'm late in adding a couple of points about this discussion. From a US-human subjects perspectives (talking more regulatory), I disagree with Jeremy's hard line "if you are dealing with texts, you are not dealing with research subjects." I disagree with it from disciplinary and philosophical perspectives, but, that would take us down the road of another discussion. >>> >>> But--from a US regulatory perspective,(f) Human subject means a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains >>> >>> (1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or >>> (2) Identifiable private information. >>> >>> So, I would argue that to patently reject "texts" as subjects is a risky choice and not a line that holds a lot of ethical weight; disciplinary specificity is very important for this discussion--these decisions are not, should no,t be based on only one set of criteria; with online research, as we know, there are community (or venue) norms, ethics, practices; disciplinary norms, ethics, practices; extant research ethics guidelines at the federal/country/commission level; and, increasingly, third party (eg, Facebook, etc etc) norms, "ethics", practices. All of those must be considered in making these decisions about research practices. >>> >>> Regarding the issue of public v private (which I agree with Michael is a fluid and moving dichotomy), again, from a regulatory perspective, there are boundaries: >>> >>> From 101 (b)(2) and 101(b)(4) in the CFR 45: >>> >>> Regarding online observation and exemptions for existing data, the issue of researcher "entry requirements" and "threshold of access" is significant. The OHRP standard is "what is readily ascertainable." If there are costs, restrictions, or other measures that prevent data from being "readily ascertainable, "the exemption does not apply and the data should be considered private. (This comes from a report in draft form, written with a colleague from the Office for Human Research Protections here in the US.If you are looking for more regulatory guidance, I can share this report). >>> >>> Recently, I gave a few talks with the lawyer who advises OHRP, and while they have issued no formal guidance on Internet research in particular, some interpretations have been presented. I can share our powerpoints on Internetresearchethics.org for those interested. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> e. >>> >>> >>> Elizabeth A. Buchanan, Ph.D. >>> Endowed Chair in Ethics >>> Director, Center for Applied Ethics >>> University of Wisconsin-Stout >>> PO Box 790 >>> Menomonie, Wisconsin, 54751-0790 >>> >>> buchanane(a)uwstout.edu >>> >>> >>> Principal Investigator, >>> Internet Research Ethics Commons >>> internetresearchethics.org >>> (NSF Project # 0924604) >>> >>> elizabeth(a)internetresearchethics.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/ >> >> Jeremy Hunsinger >> Center for Digital Discourse and Culture >> Virginia Tech >> >> >> >> Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. >> --Pablo Picasso >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech Words are things; and a small drop of ink, falling like dew upon a thought, produces that which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think. --Byron

7 10

Call for Papers: ICITST-2011!
by g.akmayeva＠icitst.org 10 May '11

10 May '11

Apologies for cross-postings! Kindly email this Call for Papers to your colleagues, faculty members and postgraduate students. CALL FOR PAPERS ************************************************************ The 6th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST-2011), Technical Co-Sponsored by IEEE UAE Computer Chapter December 11–14, 2011, Abu Dhabi, UAE (www.icitst.org) ************************************************************ The 6th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST-2011) is Technical Co-sponsored by IEEE UAE Computer Chapter. The ICITST is an international refereed conference dedicated to the advancement of the theory and practical implementation of secured Internet transactions and to fostering discussions on information technology evolution. The ICITST aims to provide a highly professional and comparative academic research forum that promotes collaborative excellence between academia and industry. The topics in ICITST-2011 include but are not confined to the following areas: Internet Application and Technology: * Internet Architecture * Internet of things * Broadband Access Technologies * Application Agents * Boundary Issues of Internet Security * Database Management * Data Models for Production Systems and Services * Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems * IPSec Quality of Service * Knowledge Management * Embedded Systems * Defence Systems Ubi/Cloud Computing: * Authentication and Access Control for Data Protection in Ubi/Cloud Computing * Context-Awareness and its Data Mining for UbiCom * Data Grids * Distributed Information Systems * Human-Computer Interface and Interaction for UbiCom * Ubiquitous Systems * USN/RFID Service * Smart Homes and its Business Model for UbiCom Service * Security and its Data Management for UbiCom * Peer to Peer Data Management * New Novel Mechanism and Application for Ubi/Cloud Computing Information Security: * Trust, Privacy and Data Security * Network Security Issues and Protocols * Security Challenges and Content Authoring * Cryptography * Secure Communications * Authentication Techniques * Chaos-based Data Security * MANET Security * Wireless Sensor Network Security * Organization Considerations in Security Policy Formulation and Implementations * Digital Forensics and Crimes * Biometrics * Cyber Security Multimedia and Web Services: * Intelligent Multimedia and its Data Management * Multimedia Information Systems * Multimedia Security * Web Databases * Web Metrics and its Applications * Web Mining including Web Intelligence and Web 3.0. * Web Services * XML and other extensible languages * Semantic Web and Ontology Infonomics and e-Technology: * Infonomics * Information Visualization * Information Management * Information Quality * Technology-Enabled Information * e-Learning * e-Commerce * e-Business * e-Government * e-Society * System Design and Security for e-Services * Synchronizing e-Security IMPORTANT DATES Full Paper Submission Date: June 30, 2011 Extended Abstract (Work in Progress) Submission Date: July 31, 2011 Proposal for Workshops and Tutorials: May 31, 2011 Notification of Workshop and Tutorial Acceptance: June 05, 2011 Proposal for Industrial Presentation: April 30, 2011 Notification of Extended Abstract Acceptance/Rejection: August 15, 2011 Notification of Industrial Presentation Acceptance: May 10, 2011 Notification of Paper Acceptance/Rejection: July 31, 2011 Camera Ready Extended Abstract Due: August 31, 2011 Camera Ready Paper Due: August 15, 2011 Early Registration Deadline (Authors only): May 01 to September 30, 2011 Late Registration Deadline (Authors only): October 01 to November 15, 2011 Participants Registration: May 01 to December 01, 2011 Conference Dates: December 11-14, 2011 For more details, please contact info(a)icitst.org

1 0

Casual tutor required, Digital Culture, U of Newcastle Australia
by Marj Kibby 10 May '11

10 May '11

Hi all, For my sins I have been seconded to a full time position improving the student experience. So I'm looking for someone to teach Digital Culture - a third year course in the BA that has students from a wide range of programs taking it as an elective. As taught in 2010 it has three modules. Module 1 The Information Revolution Module 2 Produsers, Creativity and Remix Culture Module 3 Social Networks & Online Communities Students undertake tasks relevant to the module. Set up an annotated bibliography in Delicious; edit specific Wikipedia pages; Post images to Flickr, download a classmates images and manipulate and re-post them; and so on. They then read related material and discuss the process in an online forum. Three assessible items: Contribution to the discussion A research project A production project using free online tools. As the course is online the tutor would not need to be located in Newcastle. However being able to have one or two f2f meetings would be an advantage. If interested please contact me privately marj.kibby(a)newcastle.edu.au Regards, Marj Associate Professor Marjorie Kibby Discipline Convenor: Film, Media and Cultural Studies School of Humanities and Social Science The University of Newcastle Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby(a)newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604

1 0