[Air-l] Google is watching !

Thomas Koenig T.Koenig at lboro.ac.uk
Mon May 24 17:55:54 PDT 2004


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





More information about the Air-L mailing list