Part 2 of 2

In addition, the anecdote also makes another point: if researchers want to remain as free as they currently are - they are better off, from a strictly utilitarian standpoint, _not_ pissing off people by violating their privacy (perceived, justified, or otherwise). As numerous posts on this thread have made clear, whatever may go on in the minds of researchers as far as justifying research methods that may cross important ethical lines regarding privacy - when people get unhappy for what they perceive as violations of that privacy, the results are not good for researchers.

I already mentioned several times that "pissing off" some people might be part of the job description for sociologists, so I would not be overly concerned about that. [...] [privacy bias in AoIR guidelines] Quote: "Is there is a posted site policy that establishes specific expectations – e.g., a statement notifying users that the site is public, the possible technical limits to privacy in specific areas or domains, etc." That is IMO not a reasonable criterion for establishing "privacy/publicness" on the Internet. Would you expect that a fully registered car parked in front of your door is not drivable, unless it has a sticker saying "May move, if filled with gasoline and after ignition key has turned" on it? And, say, you would have that unrealistic expectation. Would you then demand that the car should not be moved until it has that sticker on it? Quote: "Researchers should determine what medium – e-mail? postal letter? –for both requesting and receiving informed consent best protects both the subject(s) and their project." The document does not discuss, *when* to solicit informed consent, but *how* to do it. Well, everybody is to some extent part of the public sphere. Why should those, who speak in the public sphere usually *about other citizens and their actions* enjoy more protection than those they address. If somebody utters an Anti-Semitic remark in public, he or she she is just as much a research subject than those about whom the statement is made and those who are bystanders or opponents. Communication, particularly public communication, is not only the property of the senders of messages, but also the receivers. Should I just ask everybody in the public sphere, if I am allowed to quote a statement? What, if there are conflicting views? The assumption underlying the document is that communication on the Internet is private until proven public. The actual technical and social configuration of the Internet is exactly the opposite: Communication on the www/Usenet is public, unless considerable effort has been undertaken to render it private. "Informed consent" is something that should apply, if you enter the private spheres of individuals or if you actively solicit participation in your research, not if you just observe the public sphere. Thomas