[Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions

ET et at tarik.com.au
Mon May 10 21:16:12 PDT 2004


Perhaps Carol, we could look at this interaction business in some other 
ways.

What should I do if I want to research and analyse the Letters to the 
Editor page in the New York Times?
Should I ask the NYT to post a warning that I may be recording what 
people write about?
And what happens if there are hundreds of people conducting research on 
the NYT Letters to the Editor page?
Should the newspaper clog their pages with warning messages about the 
research activities going on?

Lets look at a possible example of newsgroup research.
Lets imagine that I get permission from one of usenets most prolific 
publishers of pornographic material
to observe him and identify him in my research.
He has consented so there should be no problem.

What if his fervently religious wife is humiliated by this public 
recognition of his activities and she commits suicide?
What if his children suffer?
And what of his yet to be born children?

How can I , the researcher, be responsible for other people and how they 
may be hurt?

If we treat all utterances in the public domain as fair game then we are 
able to retain our sanity and its easy to identify a consistent standard.

People carrying on a loud conversation on a train, or speaking into a 
mobile phone in a public place, or writing a Letter to the Editor, or 
posting to a publily open newsgroup are all accepting the same risk when 
they undertake these activities. They must assume that their 
communication is being observed by other people who may comment about 
it, record it, analyse it etc - and if they do not wish for this to 
occur the solution is very simple, dont make such utterances publicly.

Life is a pretty simple business when we sweep away the bulldust, why 
must we complicate it ?

see ya

Eero Tarik
Adelaide







More information about the Air-L mailing list