[Air-l] Google is watching ! - a few replies

[ET]

just a couple of replies to some of the posts...

Hamish - you wrote..."perhaps we should remember where this discussion 
started - someone advocating
complete irresponsibility in social research, then squirming around 
trying to avoid admitting that any of
his (weak and inconsistent) arguments were in any way flawed,
even given some very weighty counter arguments."

1. All I have advocated is operating within the law, yet  you see this 
as advocating irresponsibility.. how odd.
2. Perhaps my arguments are weak and inconsistent, but I have seen no 
example in any of the posts of a list member declaring
that they have been so impressed by the strength of argument put forward 
by X that they have changed their own mind on this subject !
3. I note that your first entry, Dr Cunningham, into this discussion has 
been to criticise me for having a weak argument.
Yet you, the highly credentialled academic and Senior Research 
Scientist, actually offer no argument yourself?
Is that ethical?

4. You say that my arguments are weak - perhaps this is true.
But let us just reflect for a moment on my posting history in here...
My first post was in February. The number of posts in the thread(s) that 
developed was 100, by far the largest thread in the past 12 months
in this forum. This wasnt 100 posts saying I was an idiot, although some 
appeared to take that viewpoint. This was 100 posts
made by list members who felt passionate about the subject matter being 
discussed, a discussion I started.
Some members wrote to me pointing out that it was the longest and most 
interesting thread in here for a long time.
This Ethics thread, that I started with my weak arguments is now approx 
85 posts long.
This is the second longest thread in the past year in this forum.

Since my first post, I have been the most prolific poster in this forum, 
a statistic that I did not aim to achieve, but at least I am having a go !

So it may be true that I put forward weak arguments - but it is also 
true that this feeble student is exceptionally successful at getting a 
group of
high achieving academics to  get down and get dirty in the AoIR 
discussion list. It appears I know how to start a good conversation, and
having everyone talking and thinking is sure as hell better than having 
everyone sitting around not getting involved.
It appears we disagree :-)
===================================================================
Charles...

you are (20 May) arguing that we should consider the expectations of the 
person/s being researched, and that we should respect their
expectations of privacy regardless of how unjustified that expectation 
may be.
you wrote...
"In my mind, this requires us to go back to the expectations of the persons
we're dealing with as a starting point for developing our sense of 
ethical obligation."

This is what I am trying to deal with.
If, as I stated, I take a look at this argument from a human rights 
perspective then the solutions are simple.
I respect the privacy and rights of others as per the ICOCPR and the 
laws of the country I am living in.
There are no ifs and buts in that equation. Its as clear cut as anything 
in life can be.
I am free to research within those above constraints.
And I am free of other individuals or groups trying to load higher 
burdens upon me as it is an infringement of
my human rights to do so.
Simple, clear.

Others in here have arrived at a similar position to mine from tottally 
different angles and others disagree.

You, for example, see the world differently and wish to apply a higher 
standard.
I respect completely your right to impose a higher standard - upon yourself.

I am happy to accept your view of the world for yourself.
All I ask is that others accept my right to act lawfully, humanely, and 
according to my own set of moral values, which
may, or may not, be higher than your own standards.
Am I asking too much?


regards,

Eero Tarik
Adelaide