[Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions

Rod Carveth rodcarveth at hotmail.com
Tue May 11 22:19:45 PDT 2004


Eero,

It just means that some of us disagree.

In a couple years, as the number of Internet users in the U.S. approaches 
80%, I think the cultural expectations of postings to a newsgroup being 
anything but public will generally reach universal acceptance.  Until then, 
I am inclined to agree with Jenny and err on the cautious side.

However, it was only about a month ago that the number of Internet users in 
African reached 1%.  Even those 1% don't share the depth of experience about 
the nuances of the Internet as we do.  What would be considered private v. 
public on the Internet in Africa is far less cut-and-dried.

Among my many favorite parts of the movie "Broadcast News" is when the 
character played by William Hurt is read the riot act by the Holly Hunter 
for faking a reaction shot during a one-camera interview of a rape victim.  
"You crossed the line," she screams.  He replies, "Well, they keep moving 
the line."

Once upon a time, social scientists could bring in subjects to participate 
in an experiment where they were duped into believing they had shocked their 
partner (in reality, a confederate) into submission.  We can't conduct 
studies like that anymore because of concerns over potential emotional harm 
to subjects.
While you can take an absolutist position on ethics and treat those 
guidelines as non-negotiable, the fact is that what is called ethical -- 
like what the cultural expectations of public v. private communication -- 
are constantly up for renegotiation.  The line does keep on moving.

So, I think it would be unfair to consider you immoral or unethical.  The 
most important thing is to have reasoned discussion about these complex 
issues.



Rod Carveth, Associate Professor
Department of Communication
Rochester Institute of Technology
100 Lomb Memorial Drive
Rochester, NY 14623
585-429-6127
docrod at rit.edu

"On the Internet, no one knows if
you are a dog, but they do know if
you are an ass."


>From: ET <et at tarik.com.au>
>Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org
>To: air-l at aoir.org
>Subject: re:[Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
>Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:08:58 +0930
>
>Rod Carveth wrote...
>
>"Jenny, I agree with you about the public nature of writing to a newspaper 
>and the ambiguity of whether or not posting to a newsgroup is public."
>
>Wow - this is the part that I do not get at all.
>
>There seems to be an obsession with treating the internet as though it is 
>some kind of "not in this world" experience.
>
>The internet is merely another communications form, all it does is remove 
>the middle man.
>To suggest that there is somehow a different process going on with 
>different moralities and rules is absurd.
>
>Instead of writing a Letter to the Editor and being at the mercy of the 
>editors whims a citizen can now chop out the editor and post their views to 
>the world direct via a newsgroup, or website.
>If an individual is stupid enough, or naive(inexperienced) enough to 
>believe that posting in an open newsgroup forum is somehow a private 
>communication, then I feel sorry for them but its not my responsibility!
>
>There is no doubt in my mind that regardless of whether you are published 
>in the paper, or you self publish in a newsgroup or website, you are indeed 
>shouting to the world from the rooftops for all to hear.
>The number of people listening or the number of people able to listen means 
>nothing.
>You shout - the world is free to listen, and observe and record !
>
>Its obvious some do not agree with this, but does this make my viewpoint 
>immoral or unethical, or does it simply mean that some of us disagree?
>
>
>regards,
>Eero Tarik
>Adelaide
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Air-l mailing list
>Air-l at aoir.org
>http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l






More information about the Air-L mailing list