Perhaps Carol, we could look at this interaction business in some other ways. What should I do if I want to research and analyse the Letters to the Editor page in the New York Times? Should I ask the NYT to post a warning that I may be recording what people write about? And what happens if there are hundreds of people conducting research on the NYT Letters to the Editor page? Should the newspaper clog their pages with warning messages about the research activities going on? Lets look at a possible example of newsgroup research. Lets imagine that I get permission from one of usenets most prolific publishers of pornographic material to observe him and identify him in my research. He has consented so there should be no problem. What if his fervently religious wife is humiliated by this public recognition of his activities and she commits suicide? What if his children suffer? And what of his yet to be born children? How can I , the researcher, be responsible for other people and how they may be hurt? If we treat all utterances in the public domain as fair game then we are able to retain our sanity and its easy to identify a consistent standard. People carrying on a loud conversation on a train, or speaking into a mobile phone in a public place, or writing a Letter to the Editor, or posting to a publily open newsgroup are all accepting the same risk when they undertake these activities. They must assume that their communication is being observed by other people who may comment about it, record it, analyse it etc - and if they do not wish for this to occur the solution is very simple, dont make such utterances publicly. Life is a pretty simple business when we sweep away the bulldust, why must we complicate it ? see ya Eero Tarik Adelaide