- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

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

25 May '04

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

7 8

Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
by Jonathan Marshall 24 May '04

24 May '04

Thomas writes: > >I must admit that i'm not clear what kind of 'fact' the public private > >division could be other than perceptual and conventional. > > "Perception" and "convention" are two different things. Those domains of > the Internet that I mentioned below, are public by convention, however any > single individual perceives them. The technique that makes the data on > www/usenet available does not allow for effectively concealing the data > from the general public, once a URI has been published or a posting has > been posted. That is simply not the case. Much stuff can be hidden. Some groups have archives which cannot be searched via google. Sometimes archives disappear or posts disappear. And besides, simply because you can do something does not make it ethical - whatever that is... Invading iraq etc - although i have heard right wingers argue the case that it should have been done because it was possible. As i was arguing ethical tropes are not inherently persuasive, but depend on rehetorical and personal factors. Ethics are ultimately undecideable. That you don't find the arguments i said more or less persuased me, is not inherently surprising, and indeed I know of know way to make those ethical arguments persuasive. > If some people think their blogs or usenet discussion enjoy privacy > protection, they are mistaken, their *perception* does not reflect the > actual technical and institutional arrangements. Again, because you can shoot people does not make it always ethical - even if the law allows it. However, perceptions, do reflect social facts and processes, as such they cannot be assumed, and it may not be ethical to violate them by fiat. > If you just fell off Mars and would not know, what kind of technique TV is, > you might conceivably think, that the news anchor on TV could watch you > watching the news, your *perception* of the lack of privacy would be false, > you still would watch TV in private. If I was studying martians I would find this interesting, and not something to dismiss as ignorance or stupidity. > >As such, different people, in different social positions if you will, are > >going to bring different social conventions to a field - especially when > >it is relatively new to them. > > There may be different concepts, about what *belongs* into the public > realm, but as long as you are making any distinction between public and > private, it will be hard to make an argument that Usenet and www are *not* > public(ly available). This sounds like you believe that humans are consitantly rational or something, and that everyone will draw the same conclusions from the same 'facts'. I'm not sure this is the case - again to be repetitive - this is an ethnographic question. Not simply a transition from one kind of fact to another. > > They may even play with the ambiguities for its frisson - as they play > > with other ambiguities like that of presence and absence. > > And they might very well, but that does not mean that I or anybody else > have to adhere to their rules of the game. Those rules should be set by the > appropriate legal authorities or follow from basic human rights, not by > those involved in the game. I was trying to argue that law and ethics are not the same thing. Because you can legally do something does not mean that it is ethical. Law is, however, like ethics, in that it is a matter of argument - trying to get complex situations to be framed within a set of propositions. Sometimes this is easy. Sometimes it is not. I believe juries (in britain and the US) have the right to proclaim someone not guilty if they think the law is wrong. If so then the law is also undecideable at a certain level. I understand that you imply there are circumstances in which one person's rights should be violated in favour of another's? If so, this is a not uncontroversial position. > > > Public: Usenet, (most of the) WWW, Unmoderated Listserv, gopher > > > Private: email, non-anonymous ftp > > > Ambiguous: Moderated Listeserv, IRC > > > >who is is making these assumptions? > > Common sense? The actual technical configuration and its institutional > underpinnings, if you'd prefer the fancy answer. Common sense, is something to be investigated not assumed. (Amusingly that statement is in the form of a moral imperative, even though i think of it as a scientific imperative:) The technical configurations have nothing necessarily to do with social conceptions and conventions - they may have, they may not. They also have little to do with ethics unless the ethical position is that if something is the case then it should be done. I'm still arguing the Humean point there is no necessary transition between an is statement and an ought statement. > >For me the classification is not by fiat but by the way people use the > >things and what they say about them. It is, if you will, an ethnographic > >question - and i've seen a number of discussions with different points of > >view - you could think of this as one of them :) I have private parts of > >my web site -which you might find hard to access. > > If they are password protected or the relevant URIs have not been > published, that's a different story. In fact, if there are no links to your > private website parts, it is debatable, if they are even part of the www. That is the point is it not: "it is debatable"! Not "it is certain" to me the investigator. > >I've certainly seen people say things on usenet which they probably > >worried about in calmer moments (I would anyway). There are tales of > >people in discussion groups stored areas deleting past posts and so on - > >they obviously changed their minds about public and private later on. > > Well, too late. Sorry. If you choose to publish something that in hindsight > is embarrassing, then tough luck, indeed. You might apologize/distance > yourself from a posting, you might even cancel it. But if someone has > accessed it freely before your cancel, then he or she has all the right to > quote you. What right is this?, Again is it an ethical right? or just the right of possibility? > >hmm i'm not really sure that an ethical position (assuming someone knows > >what such a thing might be) can be justified by "tough luck, I've just > >defined your post as public". > > It is not me or you who defines it as "public," but it follows > straightforward from the technical setup and the institutional configuration. What i'm suggesting is that it deletes the complexities and the realities of online social life, its uncertainties and multiplicities.. It favours the quoter over the subject. This may be ethical, it may not. Its undecideable. > >Courts are not about ethics anyway, but about laws :) > > I am unsure, what the smiley means (sarcasm?), No. But even these remarks are obviously undecideable. It mitigates against assumptions that text is easy to read and that a quotation has only one particular meaning... And that meaning can always be found without interaction and out of context. > but that his been my point > throughout the discussion: That questions of ethics should be decided by > universal human rights plus legal arrangements, provided that the latter > are legitimized through some sort of democratic process. What are universal human rights? I thought that was up to considerable dispute at the moment? Are the current legal positions on the internet (in the US say), legitimised through any democratic process involving consultation with all internet users? If not, are they the sole source of legitimacy? > >I suspect that the court might decide based upon the use of the data and > >the situation. Copyright could come in for example. You are simply not > >free to quote anything you want all the time. > > Most of the time, I am, provided I observe some rules. > I should declare the > source, and the length of the quotation should be in a sensible relation to > the length of my own word. Copyright, as the name suggests, protects your > intellectual rights to a document, but does not exempt that document from > criticism or analysis. Sadly, the reality is there have been many attempts to use copyright and trademarking, and so on to prevent criticism of documents and of corporate action. Quite a few have been successful. Of course this is an argument of the form "because it is possible to sue, it is ethical to do so".... > For instance, the sentence in "Not to be downloaded or quoted without the > author's permission" > > http://www.otago.ac.nz/Anthropology/asaanz/abstracts.html is legally void. I've no idea why they put that on that web page, after all it was a public conference, within the academic understanding of such things :) > If an author starts a web manuscript with "draft - do not quote", it is > understood that out of professional *courtesy* you do not quote that paper, > unless you have been granted permission by the author. I guess the 'courtesy' is considered to be the ethical thing to do... It also allows a degree of freedom in putting forward unfinished arguments, without having those taken as your final form. If the courtesy was violated often enough because it could be done then it might have bad effects on the idea of free communiation between academics. Just as taking anyone's words because you can, might lead to consequences you might not like. > But, let's say, for > the argument's sake, that that draft is an elaborate racist theory. Then, > of course, you are free to jettison professional courtesy in favor of more > important norms. As an academic i don't expect my words to be protected, that is part of the job description as far as i'm concerned - so I oppose the whole take over of academic life by corporatisation, copyright and silence. But that is a different argument - although i support what you call 'courtesy'. That something 'should be' the case for academics, does not imply that it sould be the same for everyone. > Now, when it comes to "X-No-Archive: yes"-postings outside academia, you > are not even bound by professional courtesy, if you want to quote or > archive that material. You may extend that courtesy, but there frequently > might be very good reasons to ignore such requests. Taking other people's words without permision could even be seen as exploiting power differentials - academic lording it over public etc. Academic elitism etc. Now that is not necessarily good or bad again - that's an ethical/political issue. > [...] > > >I am not sure that hiding the researcher avoids the 'researcher effect' > >either. > > Of course it does. It may create different or even similar problems, but it > sure does avoid such effects. Well lack of participation means that communication will be even more ambiguous, it means you won't fully understand the workings of the group. you don't know how the group would react to you for one. you just assume you do. Lots of assumptions because you have never participated. You distort your report because in many ways you don't know the group. If you can't fit in then it could be argued you don't know anything about how the group really works. > >Aplication of method probably is a matter of ethics, and probably vice > >versa as well. > > I am unsure, what you mean here, but IMO the application of a certain > method should depend on the theory within the limits of ethical norms. what I mean is that it seems dubious whether you can split methodology and ethics easily. Application of a method to a field, or even the consititution of a field itself, involves ethics, aesthetics, practicalities, social conventions and so on. To your habitus if you will. Theory is not disembodied or asocial. > >I guess the success of Bordieu in breaking with everyday life categories > >is debateable :) > > What makes you think that way? I think most of his categories, like > "habitus" or the forms of capital are fairly theoretical -- and good ones > at that. That would be a whole other debate, but it is true that i don't regard bourdieu as "non everyday". His concepts often seem fairly distorted by the pressures of conventional social ideas. Habitus and social capital being prime examples in my view. I've never managed to see what is so exciting about his work, so i'm sorry. I'm open to persuasion, being the kind of person who even has spent lots of time listening to bob dylan trying to find out why he is supposed to be important as well :) jon -- UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

2 1

Re: [Air-l] Google is watching !
by Thomas Koenig 24 May '04

24 May '04

Part 2 of 2 >In addition, the anecdote also makes another point: if researchers want to >remain as free as they currently are - they are better off, from a strictly >utilitarian standpoint, _not_ pissing off people by violating their privacy >(perceived, justified, or otherwise). As numerous posts on this thread have >made clear, whatever may go on in the minds of researchers as far as >justifying research methods that may cross important ethical lines regarding >privacy - when people get unhappy for what they perceive as violations of >that privacy, the results are not good for researchers. I already mentioned several times that "pissing off" some people might be part of the job description for sociologists, so I would not be overly concerned about that. [...] [privacy bias in AoIR guidelines] Quote: "Is there is a posted site policy that establishes specific expectations e.g., a statement notifying users that the site is public, the possible technical limits to privacy in specific areas or domains, etc." That is IMO not a reasonable criterion for establishing "privacy/publicness" on the Internet. Would you expect that a fully registered car parked in front of your door is not drivable, unless it has a sticker saying "May move, if filled with gasoline and after ignition key has turned" on it? And, say, you would have that unrealistic expectation. Would you then demand that the car should not be moved until it has that sticker on it? Quote: "Researchers should determine what medium e-mail? postal letter? for both requesting and receiving informed consent best protects both the subject(s) and their project." The document does not discuss, *when* to solicit informed consent, but *how* to do it. Well, everybody is to some extent part of the public sphere. Why should those, who speak in the public sphere usually *about other citizens and their actions* enjoy more protection than those they address. If somebody utters an Anti-Semitic remark in public, he or she she is just as much a research subject than those about whom the statement is made and those who are bystanders or opponents. Communication, particularly public communication, is not only the property of the senders of messages, but also the receivers. Should I just ask everybody in the public sphere, if I am allowed to quote a statement? What, if there are conflicting views? The assumption underlying the document is that communication on the Internet is private until proven public. The actual technical and social configuration of the Internet is exactly the opposite: Communication on the www/Usenet is public, unless considerable effort has been undertaken to render it private. "Informed consent" is something that should apply, if you enter the private spheres of individuals or if you actively solicit participation in your research, not if you just observe the public sphere. Thomas

1 0

Response to Thomas Koenig - Part II
by Charles Ess 24 May '04

24 May '04

[Thomas Koenig continues] > Here is the passage that one might cite in favour of your position: > > "The distinction between the private and the public domain may be difficult > to draw with regard to information concerning behaviour which is imparted > and stored electronically, for instance on the Internet. When using > material drawn from such interaction, researchers must give necessary > consideration to the fact that people's perceptions of what is private and > what is public communication in such media may vary." > > Now "necessary consideration" is suitably wobbly. After all, the email > protocol is also part of the Internet and I have no problem to qualify > email as private. It also gives some leeway to treat ICQ or IRC as private. > Agreed - but the more important point for me here is that the NESH guidelines, both 2001 and 2003, as more deontologically-oriented than the AoIR guidelines, bring us precisely back to people's _expectations_ regarding privacy. This will mean, again, that the NESH guidelines, both in 2001 and 2003, place greater emphasis on personal privacy rights than the AoIR guidelines as the latter recognize the more utilitarian orientation of Anglo-American ethical traditions. I didn't mean to make you guess as to my sources - for the record, the passage I had in mind is in the original version of the 2001 guidelines: > 11. Researchers must show due respect for the individual's private life. Each > person is entitled to control over whether or not to make identifiable > information on his or her private life and close relations available to > others. > Respect for privacy is intended to protect people against unwanted > interference and against unwanted observation. Interestingly enough, the online version you cited elevates the emphasis on close relations to the heading level: > 12. The obligation to respect individuals' privacy and close relations > > Researchers must show due respect for the individual's privacy. Informants > are entitled to exert control over whether or not to make sensitive > information about themselves available to others. > > Respect for privacy is intended to protect people against unwanted > interference and against unwanted observation. This applies not only to > emotional circumstances, but also to questions concerning sickness and > health, political and religious views, and sexual orientation. [ftn.4] > Scholars should exercise particular tact when inquiring into intimate > relations, and avoid putting informants under pressure. The kinds of > information regarded as sensitive may vary from person to person and from > group to group. Again, my original claim was > If anything, the [AoIR] guidelines might have been even more insistent on privacy > rights, etc. - have a look at the Norwegian NESH guidelines, for example, > which require researchers to consider not only the possible effects of their > decisions and actions upon a research subject, but also upon the subject's > close circle of relationships. I hope by now that it is somewhat clearer what I had in mind in making that claim. All best wishes, Charles Ess Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Co-chair, CATaC: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/catac/ Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23

2 1

query from Paulina Borsook
by david silver 24 May '04

24 May '04

Folks, here is an inquiry from Paulina Borsook. please direct all responses to Paulina <loris(a)well.com> I [Paulina Borsook] am currently writing a book entitled "wired for sex/an illustrated guide to sex, technology, and the way we live now" = wfs). WFS is - attempting to be fun/interesting - covers things like Viagra, the latest in sex toys of all kinds (materials science and electronics miniaturzation hit the world of vibrators!), webcams, electric play, porn on the net, real dolls, technology-enhanced mate-hunting (not just match.com, but cellphones are now in on the deal. and there are all those websites where patrons rate the favors and talents of sexworkers!), etc - consists of approx 200 images + approx 30k words of text - is about NOW (now being defined as 1998 - 2004) - is explicit but not arousing i.e. will reproduce MRIs of people having sex (for real!) as well as MRIs of the brain and genitals during arousal, but will not show pubic hair, nipples, sex toys in -use-, etc WFS is NOT - pornographic/a user guide/a consumer guide - about the future - about reproductive technology, genetic engineering, plastic surgery, gender reassignment - a sociopolitical/historical cultural critique/analysis - an compendium of bdsm - academic/abstract, a la donna haraway or sadie plant. i suppose my interest in querying you and folks on yr lists (air and yr personal one) are a) i can't seem to find -any- good stats on sex on the net --- whether amount of pornographic email, # of binaries exchanged, x-rated websites, hotchat, dating sites, whatever. am not expecting to be definitive, but it would nice to have some numbers about -something- b) am always looking for good art. this perhaps has been the most challenging part of the project: finding interesting images that arent x-rated/cheesy/bdsm (this is not, after all, the big book of bdsm)/look like an ad for a laptop. have found all kinds of fun archival sexy mood art of all, but am always looking for additional stuff, interesting screen shots, etc c) though the book is already outlined in detail, and 60 percent researched. and 20 percent written, am always open to new fun ideas. frinstance, at the moment am tracking down a couple of german artists who did a porn karoake stunt at various nightclubs in germany last yr... d) am interested in talking to folks who have been thinking about sex + tech, but as this is a -coffeetable- book, nor a book about the future, nor a sociopolitical exegisis of anything, needs to be someone who can talk in a way that is accessible to the mainstream... thanx in advance for yr help and oh, here's the author bio the publisher is sending around: AUTHOR: Paulina Borsook's journalism, essays, and humor pieces have appeared in Mother Jones, The New York Times, Salon.com, and numerous other magazines and Web sties. Her novella about email adultery, "Love Over the Wires", was the first fiction published in Wired magazine. *** david silver http://www.theseptemberproject.org/

1 0

Invitation to participate in a survey of internet use
by Steve Jones 24 May '04

24 May '04

Greetings: You are invited to participate in an on-line survey and be part of a research project to explore various aspects of Internet use by college instructors. The survey will take about 10 - 15 minutes to complete. All of your answers are completely confidential. Responses are analyzed only in the aggregate, and are never linked to the individual completing the survey. No identifying information is required to complete this survey, other than basic demographic characteristics. Most questions give you response categories from which to choose. Others are followed by a blank text area where you can write your answers. If you have any questions about this survey, or concerns about confidentiality, please contact the Principal Investigator, Steve Jones, at sjones(a)uic.edu. The research protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The URL for the survey is http://info.comm.uic.edu:8080/001survey/ If you know of colleagues who might also take this survey, or of faculty email lists to which you would feel comfortable informing subscribers of it, please forward this email and include this message. Thank you. Steve Jones Professor of Communication University of Illinois at Chicago and Senior Research Fellow Pew Internet & American Life Project

1 0

Re: Air-l digest, NSF, Science Communication, and Google
by Sheri Repucci 24 May '04

24 May '04

Regarding the conversation Art sparked about how it came about that a taxpayer-funded service turned into a commercial venture... The underlying assumption of this question, that the Internet was solely a taxpayer-funded technology, is not strictly accurate. The NSFNet project (the project that transferred the Internet technology from the academic sphere to the public sphere between 1987 and 1995) was a partnership between Merit, the State of Michigan, IBM and MCI. Tax dollars certainly funded Merit's work as lead on the NSFNet project and Michigan's donation to the NSFNet project, but MCI paid for the underlying circuits of the national infrastructure during that time and IBM paid for router development and hardware costs. IBM and MCI's financial contributions during the NSFNet project were enormous. Their part in the funding of the Internet's transfer to the larger society was essential and should not be discounted. A 1990 IBM publication entitled "NSFNET - The National Science Foundation Computer Network for Research and Education" quotes Steve Wolff (then Deputy Director at NSF, overseeing the NSFNet project) as saying "Merit tells us that the true worth of the five-year [NSFNet] agreement is somewhere around $40-$50 million, of which only $14 million comes from NSF" (pg 14). -Sheri Repucci ================= Andy's response to Art: >2> Your question - "if the taxpayers paid for it, why do we allow >corporations and private individuals to get rich off of it?" - forces >us to confront two fundamental political questions: Who is the "we"? >And in what ways do we "allow"? Speaking for myself, I pay a >corporation, Verizon, 50 bucks a month so I can get fast, stable access >to the Internet. I don't know if they're getting rich off that or not, >but I do it because they have the equipment and expertise to keep me >connected. I assume other Verizon customers feel the same way. But this >is a market-based conception of how we exercise power, probably not >exactly what you had in mind, but I'm not sure.

1 0

New CFP for Document Research Conference
by Niels Windfeld Lund 24 May '04

24 May '04

NEW EXTENDED CALL FOR PAPERS TO DOCAM '04 submission deadline August 1, 2004 The Document Academy presents: DOCAM '04 on: Document as Concept - Tool - Perspective The Second International Conference on Document Research and Development in Sciences, Arts and Business October 22-24, 2004 University of California, Berkeley DOCAM '04 is the second annual meeting of The Document Academy, an international network chaired and cosponsored by The Program of Documentation Studies, University of Tromsoe, Norway and The School of Information Management and Systems, UC Berkeley. The aim of The Document Academy is to create a global space for experimental and critical research on documents in a wide sense drawing on traditions and experiences around the world. That means that the Academy is open for scholars, artists, businessmen, students and many other kinds of people attempting to do the very best at the same time as one is still making "work in progress". The DOCAM-meetings are intended to be events where people interested in a document approach can meet, present, and discuss research, ideas, experiments etc. in a relatively open-ended athmosphere. This means that the presentations will be kept short and time for discussion will be given priority. As key-note speaker this year we have the pleasure of presenting our French partner: Jean-Michel Salaün, ENSSIB - RTP-DOC Prof. Salaün is professor at L' Ecole nationale des sciences de l'information et des bibliothèques (ENSSIB - http://www.enssib.fr) In 2000-2003 he was the head of the «Institut des sciences du document numérique» (ISDN) (2000-2003), a network of 17 labs in Rhône-Alpes district (http://isdn.enssib.fr) and he is now the chief manager of the «Réseau Thématique Pluridisciplinaire 33», "Documents et contenu : création, indexation, navigation" (2002 - ), a national network in Information and Communication Sciences and Technologies, CNRS (http://rtp-doc.enssib.fr) Call for papers to DOCAM '04 The main goal for DOCAM '04 is to develop a space and offer time for interdisciplinary and international research cooperation on Document Research and Development. The multidisciplinary approach in the project enables us to study the problem of documents from different perspectives, both theoretical and experimental. The international environment enables presentation and exchange of different scientific traditions as well as different social and cultural experiences with documents. Scholars, developers, artists and practitioners around the world working with document research and development are invited to submit 500 words proposals for papers, posters or demonstrations for seminars and workshops at DOCAM '04 by May 1st 2004. Background for the theme "Document as concept - tool - perspective" The main agenda DOCAM '04 is to consider if and how a document approach can be useful as an analytical concept, as a practical tool in society and a relevant perspective on processes in society today. The concept of document is used as an analytical category almost only in library and information science, textual criticism and computer science. Compared to discussions on concepts like sign, text, medium and genre, relatively little theoretical work has been done on the concept of document. One of the reasons may be the dominant understanding of a document as a very material object and thus of little interest for humanists interested in the meaning of human expressions. This situation might change due to the development of digital media environments. One needs still to delimit meaningful totalities in the digital space and since they are all digital products, one can draw on the tradition in computer science and conceive them as documents and use the concept of document as an analytical category like concepts as text, media and genre. Since the new media do have a significant impact on the meaning of document, you have to develop new methods in order to analyze both old and new kinds of documents and focus on the complex relationship between the material, social and mental aspects of documents. We therefore especially welcome proposals on the following themes: Documents in different convergent media environments (e.g. analogue - digital environments, arts, health care, mass media, business etc.) Document types (audio, visual, verbal, multimedial, performative) Concepts (document, comparison of the concept of document with other concepts (sign, text, discourse, representation etc.)) Methods (hermeneutics, experiments) Technology (analogue and digital instruments, experimental instruments) Proposals should include: - a short description of the work to be presented, - name of all contributors, - address, including email contacts and URL, - a list of up to 5 keywords. Abstract should be submitted electronically in Word or RTF format to niels.windfeld.lund(a)hum.uit.no on August 1st 2004 at the latest. Accepted contributions notified September 1st 2004. Full version should be delivered in RTF or PDF format on October 15 2004. Further details concerning program, registration, accomodation etc. will be available on and added continously to the website of The Document Academy, http://thedocumentacademy.hum.uit.no/. Any questions concerning DOCAM'04 and The Document Academy can be addressed to the chair of the Document Academy, Niels Windfeld Lund, professor, Chair of program in Documentation Studies HUM-FAK /University of Tromsoe Breivika, N-9037 Tromsoe, Norway tlf. +47-77646284, fax + 47-77644239 niels.windfeld.lund(a)hum.uit.no -- Niels Windfeld Lund, professor, Koordinator for dokumentasjonsvitenskap / Chair of Documentation Science Program Institute of Culture and Literature HUM-FAK, Universitetet i Tromsø/University of Tromsoe Breivika, N-9037 Tromsoe, Norway tlf. +47-77646284, fax + 47-77644239 http://thedocumentacademy.hum.uit.no http://thedocumentacademy.hum.uit.no/students/niels.lund/index.html

1 0

Google is watching !
by ET 23 May '04

23 May '04

I decided to type my own name into Google. And apart from the top few entries being expected - as they relate to sites I have here, there and everywhere - and a few that dont relate to me, there was an entry about my comments in here. But the page isnt in this forum. My comments, and those of Danah and Jenny are being discussed in someone ELSES forum !!! here is the link http://lackaff.net/archives/2004/5/15/ethics-and-online-identity/ Isnt that amazing. Our comments of the 15th of May have been picked up and discussed on another forum and are already in Google. So much for privacy :-) I rest my case.... see ya Eero Tarik

6 6

Re: [Air-l] Google is watching !
by Dan L Burk 22 May '04

22 May '04

In answer to Rowin's question: Copying the original expression in a website, email, blog, or whatever, is a prima facie act of infringement in most countries, certainly in any countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention and/or members of the WTO. However, in the United States, use of some portions of the expression for purposes of scholarship would likely constitute fair use. In countries such as the UK or Canada, it may constitute fair dealing if it falls within one of the specific educational or research exceptions, which will be highly fact dependent. Other countries will have their own user priveleges and exemptions. (There is decidedly NOT, BTW, a fair use exception in UK copyright law. You are probably thinking of fair dealing, which is something entirely different.) U.S. courts have generally rejected the idea that hypertext linking constitutes copyright infringement. A number of European courts have held to the contrary, as has at least one Korean court decision that I am aware of. Alternatively, in some cases, courts in EU member states have held that linking constitutes a violation of some other proprietary right, such as national database legislation. A number of recent U.S. decisions have held or assumed that public posting of material on the Internet confers an implied privelege for others to copy or link, unless that privelege is explicitly revoked. This is pretty much a foregone conclusion, given that you cannot view or read a web page, email, etc. without making at least RAM copies. I don't think this says much regarding the ethical question, however. Even if legally permissible, reproduction or linking may still be unethical. Contrariwise, I tend to think that legally impermissible reproduction or legal can sometimes be ethical, although that may be open to debate. As long as I am de-lurking, but without turning this into a treatise on international law, I will just mention that Eero's post regarding the Convention on Civil and Political Rights was, shall we say, maybe not the best guide to the meaning of the passages cited, their status in international law, and most especially their status under any given state's domestic law. Typically, the best advice regarding international law is the old television variety show warning, "Don't try this at home, kids!" *************************************** Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA *************************************** On 22 May 2004, Rowin Cross wrote: > I've been finding this a really interesting debate, so I hope that no = > one minds me raising a point, and that it's not already been discussed = > as part of the debate. I just wondered where copyright comes into this = > - is part of the problem about what it's legitimate to record actually = > about what it's legitimate to reproduce? I'm thinking from a UK = > perspective and do appreciate that things will be (very) different in = > other countries/contexts, but from that perspective I would think that = > actually lifting material and putting it into another website would be = > inappropriate, while just linking to it would be appropriate. I know = > there's a 'fair use' for academic research clause in UK law, but how far = > does that extend? Would a blog that's not on an ac.uk or .edu or = > equivalent domain (like the one below) still 'count' as academic = > research? (Yes, I'm sure that opens up lots of cans of worms!) Eero, = > would you have felt differently about finding your words on another = > website if there had just been a link to them instead? For what it's = > worth, I agree entirely with Rod Carveth's comments (and please excuse = > the not-intended-to-be-ironic cut & paste!): > =20 > And, if I as a citizen put my communication in a form that others > can access, then I am giving up my right to say no to being researched. = > If > I don't want to be subject to research, then I don't participate in > communication activities where my interactions can be accessed by the > public. =20 > > But I don't necessarily agree that my act of posting gives other people = > the right to reproduce what I post, only to refer to it and link to it = > (outside a context that is clearly a research context). I'm not trying = > to have a go at Derek, or anyone, I was just curious about what people = > thought. > =20 > Hope you all have a lovely weekend, and that your weather's as wonderful = > as it is here in Glasgow! > =20 > rowin > =20 > =20 > =20 > =20 > > ________________________________ > > From: air-l-admin(a)aoir.org on behalf of Derek Lackaff > Sent: Fri 21/05/2004 08:48 > To: air-l(a)aoir.org > Subject: Re: [Air-l] Google is watching ! > > > > ET wrote: > > But the page isnt in this forum. My comments, and those of Danah and > > Jenny are being discussed in someone ELSES forum !!! > > > > here is the link > > http://lackaff.net/archives/2004/5/15/ethics-and-online-identity/ > > Thus is a lurker exposed. I'm glad I could contribute in some way to the = > discussion. > > Thank you all for your insightful exploration of these ethical issues -- = > as a relatively new researcher in a relatively new research area, I find = > such debate very useful. > > And, by the way, hello. > > ----- > Derek Lackaff > Masters candidate / Media Studies > La Trobe University > Bundoora, Australia > > _______________________________________________ > Air-l mailing list > Air-l(a)aoir.org > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Air-l mailing list > Air-l(a)aoir.org > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA *************************************** Voice: 612-626-8726 Fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006(a)umn.edu

1 0