[Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions

[Carol Perryman]

>ed wrote
>>>I've always let the test be that  I, as researcher, am out in the open in 
>>>the plain view of the subject. If they are speaking loudly enough that I 
>>>can hear without any special equipment, or effort, I treat the 
>>>conversation as public talk freely available for analysis (and 
>>>recording). In the case of the cell phone, I am not "tapping" the phone 
>>>call illegally cause I can't hear the other side of the conversation.
>
On May 10, 2004, at 6:35 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
>>
>>but you'd be amazed at how shocked they would be if they then saw their 
>>words quoted in a public(ation) text.
>>
>But you'd be amazed at how shocked I am to have to listen to their talk in 
>the first place. If the talk IS private, I should not be able to hear it 
>without special equipment. If I can, it's not private talk, no matter what 
>"they expect." The subjects set the expectations themselves. If they talk 
>in a way that others in public can't hear . .  . it's private. If they 
>don't, it's public.


Please pardon what is probably a naiive comment, but it appears that the 
concepts of ethics are here conflated with an expectation of _politeness_ 
and an understandable annoyance at the intrusiveness of this rude public 
behavior.  I am reminded, reading this very interesting discussion, of 
Japanese practices wherein one pretends not to hear.  In fact, talking with 
a South Korean friend, she tells me that when two people are speaking, and 
one other enters the area, it's quite common that this third person would 
receive no greeting, and nor would one be expected.  Space is so limited 
that this mutual pretense is (or had been) employed as a virtual wall of 
privacy.  There appears to be a similar expectation in some areas of the 
web.

>>What is invaded is the Individual's *sense* of privacy - whatever the 
>>medium used.

>Again. The sense of privacy  has already been invaded. Not by the 
>researcher . .  . but by the subjects, themselves who have taken a private 
>matter into the public domain. I agree that the medium doesn't matter . . . 
>the fact that they are holding a small plastic device to the side of their 
>head doesn't mean that I've got to go suddenly deaf and and become unable 
>to write.  But their carrying on their private business loudly in my 
>knowing presence means that they have included me in the talk, albeit as 
>audience, but as approved participant nevertheless.

I cannot agree with this.  That we can hear it is annoying - but that we can 
record it appears intrusive.  Using this argument, if I observed my neighbor 
telling off his kid  - loudly - in the kitchen next door with the windows 
open, I should feel completely justified in doing what I wished with what I 
heard.  Analysis is another story.  All is setting, right?  And certainly it 
would inform our more formal inquiry.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Perryman
Graduate School of Library & Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
cp1757 at hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today - 
it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/