[Air-l] Google is watching !

Ulf-Dietrich Reips ureips at genpsy.unizh.ch
Thu May 20 06:14:02 PDT 2004


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 at cqu.edu.au
>http://infocom.cqu.edu.au/Staff/Kevin_Tharp/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Air-l mailing list
>Air-l at 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




More information about the Air-L mailing list