- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

RE: [Air-l] Google is watching !
by Rowin Cross 22 May '04

22 May '04

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!): 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. 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. Hope you all have a lovely weekend, and that your weather's as wonderful as it is here in Glasgow! rowin ________________________________ 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

3 2

Re: [Air-l] NSF, Science Communication, and Google
by Art McGee 22 May '04

22 May '04

> I can imagine that their experience in the program shaped > the company's ethos, which emphasized technical expertise > and de-emphasized immediate commercial returns, which has > turned out to be a pretty profitable approach. That's not just the story behind Google, it's the story of the Internet itself. Folks seem to forget that pretty much the entirety of the research that created the Internet came from taxpayer-dollars, and was developed in scientific, DoD, governmental, and research environments. Of course, the question that never gets asked is, if the taxpayers paid for it, why do we allow corporations and private individuals to get rich off of it? Oops, there I go, bringing up politics and larger issues of power again: Net Loss: Internet Prophets, Private Profits, and the Costs to Community By Nathan Newman http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0271022051/ Net Loss: Government, Technology and the Political Economy of Community in the Age of the Internet http://www.nathannewman.org/diss/ Art McGee Principal Consultant Virtual Identity Communications+Media+Technology 1-510-967-9381 artmcgee(a)cyberspace.org "On the Internet, no one can tell that you're a dog, and that's a good thing, 'cause if they could, they would most likely beat you to death." ---Art McGee "USENET: alt.flame.niggers" AfroAm-L Mailing List April 17, 2004

2 1

RE: [Air-l] Google is watching !
by Rod Carveth 21 May '04

21 May '04

Jenny, To answer the point -- "upon what basis can a researcher declare that Americans who use the Internet give up their right to say no to being researched?" -- no offense, but how about common sense? We're not in the early adopter phase of the Internet in our country. Neilsen NetRatings for March 2004 indicated that 144,403,184 people were active users. That's half our population, and it grew by 3 million from February to March alone. Of those, 12 million were between the ages of 2-11. If you talk to children who use the Internet, even they know that what they post can be seen by others. 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. It's the same as if I talk too loud about a sensitive topic. The moment my voice becomes a "public voice" in terms of volume, I have given up all rights to the communication being private. Thus, my point is that as researchers we don't have to carte blanche declare whatever we see online as "public" and therefore researchable. It is already public, and therefore researchable. Individual researchers can draw lines more narrowly if they want, but, for the community of scholars, as long as anonymity can be insured, people's public postings are fair game for research. Rod Rod Carveth, Associate Professor Department of Communication Rochester Institute of Technology 100 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623 585-429-6127 docrod(a)rit.edu "On the Internet, no one knows if you are a dog, but they do know if you are an ass." >From: "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer(a)albany.edu> >Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org >To: <air-l(a)aoir.org> >Subject: RE: [Air-l] Google is watching ! >Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:47:16 -0400 > >Two thoughts to Rod's post. > >First, upon what basis can a researcher declare that Americans who use >the Internet give up their right to say no to being researched? Just >because Americans are early adopters does not mean that they experience >all of their interactions online as public. The premise that users of >the Internet implicitly consent to be researched is unfounded. Not all >Americans are savvy Internet users who understand how the Internet >actually works. Even if they did, that does not entail that they have >consented to be researched. > >Second, it's not that "I" feel uncomfortable recording conversations. >That's not my point. This conversation is about social ontology and >ethics and not my personal psychology. > >My point is that as researchers we cannot carte blanche declare whatever >we see online as "public" and therefore researchable. > >Sincerely, >~Jenny Stromer-Galley > > -----Original Message----- > > From: air-l-admin(a)aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org] On > > Behalf Of Rod Carveth > > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 12:59 PM > > To: air-l(a)aoir.org > > Subject: RE: [Air-l] Google is watching ! > > > > > > Jenny, > > ><snip> > > > > If a researcher wants to record the interactions of a GLBT > > support group, > > anonymity is pretty easy to insure -- just don't reveal the > > names (or any > > other identity revealing information) in the public > > dissemination of the > > data. > > > ><snip> > > > This is not the same as the interactions of Internet users in > > the United > > States in an online support group. For example, people can > > lurk relatively > > anonymously in many groups, so the total number of people > > involved in the > > interaction is not known (unlike F2F). Second, the > > interactions are written > > down and can be archived, so there's a record of what is > > being said. In > > other words, participants in an online support group know > > that the nature of > > their communication is different than in F2F interaction. > > And, by agreeing > > to participate in an online forum, they are inherently > > agreeing to deal with > > those differences -- basically, they have given implied > > consent to having > > their interactions collected, analyzed, interpreted, etc. > > > > Thus, given that participants' anonymity can easily be > > insured, and that > > interactants by their very participation have given their > > consent to their > > comments to be used as data, then I don't see anything > > ethically wrong with > > using their postings as data. > > > > Jenny, if you are uncomfortable recording those conversations > > as data, then > > you can choose not to. I just happen to believe that those > > who choose to > > are not violating any ethical principles here. > > > > Rod > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Air-l mailing list >Air-l(a)aoir.org >http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

1 0

RE: [Air-l] Google is watching !
by Rod Carveth 21 May '04

21 May '04

Jenny, Interesting post, but there's a couple different issues in your online support group example -- insuring anonymity and understanding the public nature of the conversation. If a researcher wants to record the interactions of a GLBT support group, anonymity is pretty easy to insure -- just don't reveal the names (or any other identity revealing information) in the public dissemination of the data. The second issue involves whether or not participants understand the public nature of Internet interactions. I have in an earlier post agreed that there are areas of the world (such as Africa) where the experience of the Internet is so recent that participants in online conversations may not be fully aware of how the interaction is public. This is not the same as the interactions of Internet users in the United States in an online support group. For example, people can lurk relatively anonymously in many groups, so the total number of people involved in the interaction is not known (unlike F2F). Second, the interactions are written down and can be archived, so there's a record of what is being said. In other words, participants in an online support group know that the nature of their communication is different than in F2F interaction. And, by agreeing to participate in an online forum, they are inherently agreeing to deal with those differences -- basically, they have given implied consent to having their interactions collected, analyzed, interpreted, etc. Thus, given that participants' anonymity can easily be insured, and that interactants by their very participation have given their consent to their comments to be used as data, then I don't see anything ethically wrong with using their postings as data. Jenny, if you are uncomfortable recording those conversations as data, then you can choose not to. I just happen to believe that those who choose to are not violating any ethical principles here. Rod Rod Carveth, Associate Professor Department of Communication Rochester Institute of Technology 100 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623 585-429-6127 docrod(a)rit.edu "On the Internet, no one knows if you are a dog, but they do know if you are an ass." >From: "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer(a)albany.edu> >Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org >To: <air-l(a)aoir.org> >Subject: RE: [Air-l] Google is watching ! Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:48:37 >-0400 > >Eero's post (below) makes me think of this: > >(from Dewey) the public sphere is called into being whenever two (or >more) people are involved in a conversation, and that conversation has >unintended consequences that reach beyond the originators of the >conversation. > >Lesson (for me, anyway): > >The Internet renders visible, concrete, and "public" a social process of >communication that may not have been felt in these ways before. > >Example: three people sit at a Starbucks in New York discussing >Massachusettes legalizing marriage between gays and lesbians. Sally and >Kate are a lesbian couple that feel strongly that legalized marriage >will be a step towards ending discrimination against them. They retell a >story to their friend Jamaal, who's sitting with them, about their own >experiences with discrimination at work, and at a hospital when Sally >was ill. Jamaal mostly listens to the conversation, but leaves the >conversation with renewed enthusiasm for legalized marriage for >homosexuals. After the three depart, Jamaal meets up with an old college >roommate for dinner. They too discuss gay marriage, and Jamaal uses many >of Sally and Kate's examples with his college roommate. The college >roommate the next day talks with his wife about the conversation with >Jamaal, and she, in turn, takes a tidbit of a fact about discrimination >that Sally had said, and shares it with a co-worker . . . . . And so it >goes. > >The Internet enables the same kinds of interaction. But, it does so in >ways that are visible and far more permanent than a throuh-the-air >conversation. This makes the Internet as an archival medium >simultaneously a delight and a fright. > >It's really remarkable to see that the conversation we're having on AoIR >about ethnography, ethics, and public and private distinctions, has made >its way to a blog. It's remarkable to see my post recreated for another >forum, for a slightly different group of people to read and comment on. >And, it's out of my control. > >But, on one hand it's no more or less out of my control than Sally's >comments that get passed from Jamaal to the roommate, to the wife, to >the co-worker. On the other hand, conversations captured online can be >perceived as more harmful because names are associated with the >conversations, the conversations are persistent in ways that >over-the-air conversations are not, and that persistance and visibility >means a message is far more durable online than offline. A conversation >that could not easily be quoted or analyzed when occurring face-to-face, >becomes an easy opportunity for a researcher, for example, to save and >analyze, to reprint and quote. But, just because it's easier to do so >online, doesn't mean that it's ethical to do so. > >So, to return to the larger question at hand: > >Thomas and Eero, as I understand them, continue to argue that what is >posted online is inherently public. As a result, following guidelines >for attributing sources, it's A-OK to do what we will with it. > >My position is that although posts online are durable, persistant, and >visible, it does not mean they are inherently public such that >researchers can do with the posts what they will. Now, I agree with >Nancy that researchers should not have to get consent from participants >in a discussion group, such as Usenet, that are open to anyone to >participate and to read, and where identities (that is, first and last >names and identifying information) is generally unavailable, rendering >the posts anonymous. But, there are many grey areas, as others have >identified, like the AoIR list. Few of us are anonymous on this email >list. Our posts have email addresses and names (usually first and last) >attached to them. > >So, I point back to Dannah's eloquent post, that the *experience* of >participating online, the *perceptions* of those involved in the >interaction, need to become the primary concern in determining how to >proceed with research. If the conversation between Sally, Kate, and >Jamaal had happened in a support group for gays and lesbians, I'm >unconvinced that many participants would feel it okay for a stranger to >record, analyze, and publish the discussion, just as they likely would >not feel okay if someone secretely recorded the conversation at >Starbucks. But, that is a question that requires a researcher to know >and understand the group and abide by the norms the group has >established. > >At the heart of this, I'm urging that the primary consideration when >engaging in research of people online is not if posts are durable, >archived, visible, public, then they are fair game for research, but how >do those who participate in the conversation perceive their >participation? If they recognize and are comfortable with their posts >being researched, great. If they don't, then as researchers, we ought to >respect that. > >Sincerely, >~Jenny Stromer-Galley > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: air-l-admin(a)aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org] On > > Behalf Of ET > > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:42 AM > > To: air-l(a)aoir.org > > Subject: [Air-l] Google is watching ! > > > > > > 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-identi >ty/ > >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 > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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

2 1

CFP: Journal papers - Web and Aging: Challenges and Opportunities
by Panayiotis Zaphiris 21 May '04

21 May '04

**Please note revised submission dates** Deadline for submission of papers: July 1, 2004. CFP: Web and Aging: Challenges and Opportunities Special Issue for Universal Access in the Information Society Journal http://www.springeronline.com/east/journal/10209/ Aims and scope of this special issue ------------------------------------ A significant increase of the older population has led to various studies investigating the effect of age in utilizing the Web as an information resource. A report by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2001 stated that the estimated change in the total size of the world's elderly population between July 1999 and July 2000 was more than 9.5 million people, growing at an average of 795,000 people each month. This trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Recent research shows that older adults are beginning to incorporate Web use in their daily activities, mainly because the Web presents an opportunity for them to maintain a high quality of life. As a consequence, a variety of new opportunities and challenges related to the use of the Web by older adults arise in a Universal Access perspective. The main objective of this special issue is to bring together work by researchers, academics and practitioners from various disciplines who are interested in the interrelationships among web access, web usability and ageing. Contributions on novel methodologies, theories, products and design guidelines that address these issues, as well as on related case studies, are solicited. Main topics ----------- Authors of submissions should carefully explain how the work and results presented contribute to facilitating and promoting universal access. Contributions are solicited in, but not limited to, the following topics: · Information architecture and the older user. · Ageing-related disabilities and accessible design of web technology. · Empirical studies on web usability and older users. · Analytical studies & computational modeling of the older web user. · Social aspects of web and aging, including the effects of web use on personal well-being, as well as social determinants of successful web use (e.g. educational attainment, socio-economic status, etc.) · Emerging applications and interaction techniques with high relevance for older web users (e.g., WAP) · Social policy implications of web access for older users, especially including issues of public access to computing facilities, access to government services, and social/civic engagement. · Web-based learning and training for the elderly. Important dates --------------- Deadline for submission of papers: July 1, 2004. Notification of acceptance: September 1, 2004. Deadline for submission of camera-ready version of accepted papers: November 1, 2004. Expected publication date of the special issue: second half of 2004 or early 2005. Authors should submit their manuscripts electronically as PDF files to one of the Guest Editors of the special issue: Panayiotis Zaphiris (e-mail: zaphiri(a)soi.city.ac.uk) Sri Kurniawan (e-mail: s.kurniawan(a)umist.ac.uk) R. Darin Ellis (e-mail: rdellis(a)wayne.edu) The call for papers and any updates about this special issue can be found at http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~zaphiri/UAIS-Aging/ Manuscript preparation ---------------------- Please, refer to the "Instructions to authors" section on the Website of the UAIS Journal. Reviewing process ----------------- All papers will be peer reviewed by three reviewers, experts in the field, appointed by the Guest Editors of the issue in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal. Copyright information --------------------- Submission of an article implies that: - the work described has not been published before, except in form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis; - it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. For further information, please, refer to the "Copyright information" section on the Website of the UAIS Journal. -- Dr. Panayiotis Zaphiris Lecturer Center for Human-Computer Interaction Design School of Informatics City University London, EC1V 0HB Tel: +44-(0)-20-7040-8168 Fax: +44-(0)-20-7040-8168 zaphiri(a)soi.city.ac.uk http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~zaphiri Also check my HCI blog: http://www.zaphiris.org/Resources/

2 2

RE: [Air-l] Google is watching !
by Laurent Straskraba 21 May '04

21 May '04

Dear Jonathan: just take a look at this: http://aoir.org/pipermail/air-l/2004-April.txt Best, Laurent At 16:00 20.05.2004, you wrote: >It would be nice if one could >join a group knowing that the archives of the discussion are a) completely >open to the public b) some middle ground c) only available to the group. >As far as listservs go, can AoIR restrict web access to the archives, >which would presumably limit Google's access as well? --- Mag. Laurent Straskraba Information Society Researcher / Information Society Representative at UN Youth & Student Association of Austria post: Ontlstrasse 3, A - 4040 Linz, Austria / Europe mobile: +43.650.7711861 (GMT +1) e-mail: laurent(a)straskraba.net web: http://www.straskraba.net ---

1 0

re:- [Air-l] Google is watching !
by ET 21 May '04

21 May '04

Charles wrote... "1. A central point is what people's expectations are - whether justified or not. It seems clear that people frequently expect privacy, both in (a) contexts in which such expectations are, from an informed perspective, unrealistic and (b) contexts which even if originally comparatively private, become in various ways more public (e.g., USENET postings that were later published, etc.)" I know you are very busy Charles, but I cant let this one slip by unattended :-) I have thought long and hard about this, and I wish to sum up my stance by referring to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights... [ICOCPR]Article 17 - 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. [ET]In law, a court would consider the issue of "legitimate expectations" and question from where such expectations arise. Clearly from this human rights document there is a legitimate expectation for ones privacy to be respected within the boundaries of the law. There is nothing in this document that would suggest one has a right to enjoy a right to privacy greater than this. And, we must also consider the rights of the researcher citizen, which are outlined below... [ICOCPR]Article 19 - 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: 1. For respect of the rights or reputations of others; 2. For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. [ET]Surely, as long as I respect the rights of my fellow citizens under article 17, I am free to enjoy my rights under article 19 - i.e. my right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas...through the media of my choice - and i would consider this to mean my right to legally research people and data. This leaves me with an important question and ethical dilemma - from where do others gain the right to attempt to limit my rights under Article 19? [ICOCPR]Article 5 1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant. [ET] So, if I understand correctly, this means that no group of people, however well meaning, or individual (who may have excessive expectations of privacy), has the right to limit my rights under Article 19 to a greater extent than is provided for in the Covenant - and that extent is the limitation provided by law. It would appear nobody has the right to limit my right to lawful research, ethical or otherwise. an interesting topic indeed. regards, Eero Tarik Adelaide

2 1

Re: [Air-l] Google is watching !
by Derek Lackaff 21 May '04

21 May '04

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

1 0

Re: Data
by Bram Dov Abramson 20 May '04

20 May '04

Justin, It's quite a problem. GISes, and tools like UCINET or even plain old spreadsheets, are great for manipulating the data -- once you have it. Some thoughts which may be of help: > In my ideal world, I would be > able to build a relational database of data traffic between > the largest cities worldwide. The data I have found shows > gross data traffic between nodes, which includes traffic > originated in third-party cities and destined for fourth-party > cities, for example, and which does not provide an estimate > of the traffic originated in 3 and destined for 4. This means > that the data doesn't relate every node in the city system > to every other in terms of network traffic inbound and > outbound. The TeleGeography research group (now part of PriMetrica, Inc.) has this kind of data for major cities. The non-provider- specific datasets they create on city-to-city Internet *bandwidth* displays the characteristics you mention. But their city-to-city Internet *traffic* data are end-to-end. Elijah is right to point out that collating, tabulating, and verifying this data is very difficult. That's probably why the dataset only exists for major cities, and why TeleGeography only began the traffic work only after a few years on the Internet bandwidth side. > you have any thoughts on how currently available data can be > patched for network analysis, or how such a relational > database could be built in the future? If you go to TeleGeography, you'll probably want to ask for older data -- the most recent stuff is quite expensive. If you prefer to construct your own, you'll probably want to do something attainable. An interesting approach might be to combine DNS lookups with Web link analysis. In other words, something like: 1) come up with a list of cities you want to test for; 2) find some set of Web sites for each of those cities, for example by looking up the registered addresses for the "top x" Web sites according to Nielsen//NetRatings or ComScore or Alexa or whoever else you judge least bad; 3) tabulate city-to-city links between these Web sites. Based on the argument that these Web sites probably represented some very high percentage of all Web usage (the ratings service you went with would make some claim here), it seems to me you'd have something useable. Now, that would obviously give you links between cities to which Web sites are registered -- not between the cities in which Web sites are hosted. If you thought the latter was more relevant, you'd probably want to make step 2 a bit fancier, involving DNS to IP to geolocation using one of many techniques. As to whether or not doing all this is less costly time-wise than paying for what someone else has used their time to do ... that's another story. It's a not-insignificant but interesting programming challenge, anyway; the devil would be in the tweaking. A final thought: some (particularly George Barnett's group at SUNY Buffalo) have done a fair bit of work with country-to- country telephone traffic in this vein. Because international PSTN traffic has been collected for a much longer time, that kind of data (again, ITU or TeleGeography) is much more -- and much more cheaply -- obtainable. cheers Bram

2 1

Re: Data
by Justin Rosenthal 20 May '04

20 May '04

Irene, Regarding your specific question, Primetrica's free report on internet geography contains interesting information. www.telegeography.com/ Justin Message: 5 Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:59:15 -0400 From: Irene Berkowitz <irene.berkowitz(a)temple.edu> Subject: Re: [Air-l] Data To: air-l(a)aoir.org Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org Justin, I would also be interested in any posts any ideas in this area. On the other hand it is very interesting to observe where there are significant differences between cybergeography and physical geograpghy relative to high density centers. I think this is very "fertile ground" (pun intended), for further research. IB _____________________________________ Justin Rosenthal MA Candidate - Social Science University of Chicago jrr(a)uchicago.edu

1 0