"And those are my last words on the subject, I for one am signing out of this "discussion" due to what I see as intransigence by the protagonist who clearly has an agenda." Lois, I think that maybe you misunderstand my intention and motivation. Perhaps not. But I'll try to explain. I don't really have some sort of hidden agenda here. My concern is that there are faculty, researchers, and students who may well be exposing human subjects to undue risks, without the IRB at their place reviewing their plans. If folks take the position that virtually everything available on the inter-web thingie is a public document, open to research without any application to an IRB, then no one is looking out for human subjects. My good friend Jeremy has even taken the position that the people that produce these texts aren't even subjects. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree. Granted, people who post (many of whom are minors) do subject themselves to the dangers of making their private information widely available to others. But to just say that it's all out there so there aren't any rules, is, in my view, drastically wrong. I believe that some of the rules DO apply. And even if they don't I think that we should follow ethical guidelines that are MORE concerned about protecting human subjects than we are about furthering our own research agenda. Two other points. This list serves a lot of people like you . . . graduate students looking for direction. In fact, this thread was started by a grad student asking for advice/direction. What's a faculty member to do? Ignore possible issues and just say "OK KID, GO FOR IT!" even when and if they think there are issues to be discussed? We were asked our opinion about these considerations. Both sides of the issue have been represented and discussed. I think that's healthy. That's why stuff like this is often called a "contested issue." Just because one side says that it's a done deal, doesn't always make it so (not even my side). That's why I shared the U of Ill. procedure document. That wasn't my argument (though I used it) . . . those are procedures used by a fairly enlightened IRB. I think those procedures would apply to a lot of the web-netted research that's been discussed here. Other folks don't think so. Ok. Second, some of us are the same faculty who will go into our classes and preach hour after hour to our students about the public loss of privacy in America . . all the time cautioning our students (let alone our children) about the dangers of over-exposing private information. Or at least, I should say, I do. Then are we the very same faculty that turn around and grab whatever we can find from that netted-web without regard for protecting the very humans who produced the texts we want to study? That doesn't strike me as right, somehow. I'm sorry if I sound intransigent. I'm really not. I've often made applications to IRBs with all sorts of efforts to finesse various strictures, for various reasons. But I know, for example, that when Linden Lab took down their TOS restrictions to and procedures for research in Second Life, they explicitly offered the idea that they expected that the oversight provided to researchers by their local IRB would suffice. But for that to happen, applications to do the work, to get the exemption, must be filed. If the faculty member says, instead, "Oh, I know this is ok," then no oversight occurs. I honestly DO NOT have an axe to grind over this. I DO happen to think that open discussion of issues such as these are important. I also think that the internet is a fuzzy enough business that the answers are not fixed or obvious or universal. I am sorry if I seemed stubborn. I too, will quit now as I've made the key points I want to make and repeating them just wastes valuable bits and bandwidth. peace Edward Lee Lamoureux,