I have used part of a posting to this group in my dissertation. The way that I handled the ethical questions, was that I contacted that person regarding my intention and included the text I was intending to use. I included the text to seek that person's feedback and to compare my perception with their intent. I would not always handle Internet postings in this way. However, in this case, we are communicating indirectly with our peers, and the world is potentially watching. The person I am quoting from this list also shows up in my list of references from other sources. Kevin W. Tharp Community Informatics Officer Senior Research Officer Faculty of Informatics & Communication Central Queensland University Rockhampton, Queensland Australia 07 4923 2566 k.tharp@cqu.edu.au http://infocom.cqu.edu.au/Staff/Kevin_Tharp/
Hi all Some thoughts on the nature of expressions sent to the Internet: 1. Anyone who is sending bits of information to the Internet should be aware that this action is a *public* statement to a more or lesser degree, just as in the case of standing somewhere speaking. Technology and type of setup of the service used will determine *how* public the expression will be, like speaking while sitting on your own balcony versus standing on a box in a corner of Hyde Park versus giving an interview to a TV station. 2. Despite the somewhat predictable dissemination of your expression, the publicity nature of your expression can change remarkably - beyond your intention and control. This doesn't happen often, but it is your own responsibility to know that there is a certain chance that it may happen on the Internet, just as when somebody records what you are saying on your own balcony and sends it to a radio station (ask VIPs, if you don't believe these things happen). One reason may be that someone reposts your expression, another one may be that someone invents a service like Deja or Google that makes it much easier to stumble upon what you once posted. Even if you posted it in a moment that you would consider being an untypical state of your mind and mood... ;-) 3. To a degree, the good news is that there is also a certain chance that records of public statements may be fake. As a reader, I can only assume that the message below really comes from Kevin - with the help of my world knowledge about differing base rates of false postings that in turn depend on a variety of criteria like the message content and the security features and credibility of the service used. In conclusion: a sender bears resonsibility for knowing that any expression on the Internet is public and may be widely disseminated and stored forever. A reader bears resonsibility for knowing that the sender may (naïvely) not have intended to see a statement disseminated as widely and for knowing that the sender may not be the one who is said to be the sender. Cheers, --u At 19:32 Uhr +1000 20.5.2004, Kevin Tharp wrote:
I have used part of a posting to this group in my dissertation. The way that I handled the ethical questions, was that I contacted that person regarding my intention and included the text I was intending to use. I included the text to seek that person's feedback and to compare my perception with their intent.
I would not always handle Internet postings in this way. However, in this case, we are communicating indirectly with our peers, and the world is potentially watching. The person I am quoting from this list also shows up in my list of references from other sources.
Kevin W. Tharp Community Informatics Officer Senior Research Officer Faculty of Informatics & Communication Central Queensland University Rockhampton, Queensland Australia 07 4923 2566 k.tharp@cqu.edu.au http://infocom.cqu.edu.au/Staff/Kevin_Tharp/
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
-- ---------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Ulf-Dietrich Reips Universität Zürich ICQ: 16739325 Psychologisches Institut Rämistr. 62 CH-8001 Zürich, Switzerland http://www.psychologie.unizh.ch/sowi/reips/reipspers.html
With regard to face-to-face conversation both the law (talking US law before the Patriot Act) as well as what we may call the tradition of the commons affording an understanding that what you say in a public place is subject to being overhead regardless of your intentions. This includes the police, although the 4th amendment has been applied to place restrictions once electronic devices are needed for authorities to eavesdrop. Furthermore, the home is place you can and should expect the most privacy from authorities first, and others second. My point is that there are both legal and traditional type understandings that help people to somewhat gage the actual privacy of their conversations. Non-listserv email currently has better boundaries...you have some sense of your level of privacy vis-à-vis the service provider, hackers, and the government. Thus, perhaps we could find a way to establish some more concrete standards of privacy expectations and safeguards for listserv technology, and other ICTs facilitating group dialogue. It would be nice if one could join a group knowing that the archives of the discussion are a) completely open to the public b) some middle ground c) only available to the group. As far as listservs go, can AoIR restrict web access to the archives, which would presumably limit Google's access as well?
participants (3)
-
Jonathan Lillie -
Kevin Tharp -
Ulf-Dietrich Reips