[Thomas Koenig continues]

Here is the passage that one might cite in favour of your position:

"The distinction between the private and the public domain may be difficult to draw with regard to information concerning behaviour which is imparted and stored electronically, for instance on the Internet. When using material drawn from such interaction, researchers must give necessary consideration to the fact that people's perceptions of what is private and what is public communication in such media may vary."

Now "necessary consideration" is suitably wobbly. After all, the email protocol is also part of the Internet and I have no problem to qualify email as private. It also gives some leeway to treat ICQ or IRC as private.

Agreed - but the more important point for me here is that the NESH guidelines, both 2001 and 2003, as more deontologically-oriented than the AoIR guidelines, bring us precisely back to people's _expectations_ regarding privacy. This will mean, again, that the NESH guidelines, both in 2001 and 2003, place greater emphasis on personal privacy rights than the AoIR guidelines as the latter recognize the more utilitarian orientation of Anglo-American ethical traditions. I didn't mean to make you guess as to my sources - for the record, the passage I had in mind is in the original version of the 2001 guidelines:

11. Researchers must show due respect for the individual's private life. Each person is entitled to control over whether or not to make identifiable information on his or her private life and close relations available to others. Respect for privacy is intended to protect people against unwanted interference and against unwanted observation. Interestingly enough, the online version you cited elevates the emphasis on close relations to the heading level: 12. The obligation to respect individuals' privacy and close relations

Researchers must show due respect for the individual's privacy. Informants are entitled to exert control over whether or not to make sensitive information about themselves available to others.

Respect for privacy is intended to protect people against unwanted interference and against unwanted observation. This applies not only to emotional circumstances, but also to questions concerning sickness and health, political and religious views, and sexual orientation. [ftn.4] Scholars should exercise particular tact when inquiring into intimate relations, and avoid putting informants under pressure. The kinds of information regarded as sensitive may vary from person to person and from group to group.

Again, my original claim was

If anything, the [AoIR] guidelines might have been even more insistent on privacy rights, etc. - have a look at the Norwegian NESH guidelines, for example, which require researchers to consider not only the possible effects of their decisions and actions upon a research subject, but also upon the subject's close circle of relationships. I hope by now that it is somewhat clearer what I had in mind in making that claim.

All best wishes, Charles Ess Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Co-chair, CATaC: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/catac/ Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23