RE: [Air-l] Google is watching !
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@aoir.org on behalf of Derek Lackaff Sent: Fri 21/05/2004 08:48 To: air-l@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@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
Good points Rowin, I too thought that the primary ethical issue concerning the treatment of postings in publicly available postings was copyright. The notion of privacy in this case not only seems counterintuitive, it is entirely redundant. You simply cannot, as a researcher, protect the privacy of something that is already public. Secondly, it does not matter if Internet users are not savvy. The point is that nothing the researcher does should cause greater harm to persons than they may already be doing to themselves. Thirdly, consent is not an issue since the researcher did not actually solicit the information--the information was already there, in full public view. Moreover, for privacy to have been compromised means that there must have been an intrusion by a researcher. There is no intrusion involved in examining publicly available postings. I agree with a previous posting that suggested there is a "privacy for privacy's sake" undercurrent in a lot of the messages being posted to this list. At this rate, we'll soon be talking about how "unethical" it is to cite electronic documents. [Now, if you were to ask me if it's good field research practice to *not* allow someone to revise or restate their position, I would say no. If there were a way of allowing authors of public postings to have this chance, that might be the basis for a valuable conversation, perhaps much more instructive than the original posting...and then we would be back into conventional ethical guidelines as this person would be transformed into an informant, or at least a respondent.] Cheers Rowin, Max. Dr Maximilian C. Forte Assistant Professor in Anthropology Department of Anthropology and Sociology University College of Cape Breton P.O. Box 5300, Sydney, NS, Canada, B1P 6L2 Tel: 902-563-1947 Fax: 902-563-1247 E-mail: max_forte@uccb.ca Website: http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/mforte/
Lurking along in this debate gives me pause for definition. What kind of terminology applies? When one (re)searches a conversational database, for example, a listserve archive, to mine it for its content across a period of years with a shifting membership of subscribers and wishing to quote with accuracy for strict research purposes, does one think in terms of quoting human participants or in terms of quoting from authored texts? Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maximilian Forte" <mcforte@kacike.org> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [Air-l] Google is watching !
Good points Rowin,
I too thought that the primary ethical issue concerning the treatment of postings in publicly available postings was copyright. The notion of privacy in this case not only seems counterintuitive, it is entirely redundant. You simply cannot, as a researcher, protect the privacy of something that is already public.
Secondly, it does not matter if Internet users are not savvy. The point is that nothing the researcher does should cause greater harm to persons than they may already be doing to themselves.
Thirdly, consent is not an issue since the researcher did not actually solicit the information--the information was already there, in full public view. Moreover, for privacy to have been compromised means that there must have been an intrusion by a researcher. There is no intrusion involved in examining publicly available postings.
I agree with a previous posting that suggested there is a "privacy for privacy's sake" undercurrent in a lot of the messages being posted to this list. At this rate, we'll soon be talking about how "unethical" it is to cite electronic documents.
[Now, if you were to ask me if it's good field research practice to *not* allow someone to revise or restate their position, I would say no. If there were a way of allowing authors of public postings to have this chance, that might be the basis for a valuable conversation, perhaps much more instructive than the original posting...and then we would be back into conventional ethical guidelines as this person would be transformed into an informant, or at least a respondent.]
Cheers Rowin,
Max.
Dr Maximilian C. Forte Assistant Professor in Anthropology Department of Anthropology and Sociology University College of Cape Breton P.O. Box 5300, Sydney, NS, Canada, B1P 6L2 Tel: 902-563-1947 Fax: 902-563-1247 E-mail: max_forte@uccb.ca Website: http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/mforte/
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
participants (3)
-
joan carol urquhart -
Maximilian Forte -
Rowin Cross