Ed, it might help if you would explain how you think this is pertinent in this case. we were talking about studying weblogs, or published texts on the internet. texts that are published. we were not talking about in this specific instance the creators were we? is there even a human subject being researched? are we making inferences about the text or about people? i think coming to understand what you think is so important here is necessary because I'm failing to see how we are dealing with subjects at all, i'd argue we are just dealing with published texts. what form of the study are you imagining here that requires anything more than a reference to an author. I think in the case of illinois, it is likely stretching the federal mandate which speaks only of private data being protected. I can see the illinois committee having an interest in all data, but only to discern which is private or public. I think that we'd find as our colleagues at UI system have found, as i recall a few posts ago, that the study of weblogs and content analysis even for social research, has not required a system of informed consent, and was exempted from review. you are arguing that if you use identifiable data, you require informed consent, I'm thinking that this will fall under the minimal risk doctrine, and informed consent will be only required if there is real possibility of some harm, and I think the argument will be very hard to make as we've seen. here i turn to things like media studies and newspaper analysis and we have the same problem.. will i have to get permission from mayor daley to represent his actions in my paper? no, he is a public figure, will I have to get permission of the author of a newspaper story through informed consent.. again no. but blogs? you think yes. why? are you making some argument that bloggers do not know that their material is published or some argument that bloggers are not publishing? Some other argument about the relationship between bloggers and their text? or what? are you thinking that blog research is some kind of implied ethnography which must then imply a subject? i'm not sure, and I'm clearly not seeing your position very clearly. my position is: blogs are texts like books, magazines and bulletin boards blogs are not like letters or medical records Researching blogs does not imply that one is researching a person IRB should waive blog research that deals only with published text Researchers should not worry about repeating and citing prior published text as it falls under minimal risk doctrine. Individual researchers should use their judgment and consult with their local irb, because doctrines vary, but a published text is different than a human subject.