The Reputation Society: How Online Opinions Are Reshaping the Offline World
Edited by Hassan Masum and Mark Tovey
Foreword by Craig Newmark

In making decisions, we often seek advice. Online, we check Amazon recommendations, eBay vendors’ histories, TripAdvisor ratings, and even our elected representatives’ voting records. These online reputation systems serve as filters for information overload. In this book, experts discuss the benefits and risks of such online tools.

The contributors offer expert perspectives that range from philanthropy and open access to science and law, addressing reputation systems in theory and practice. Properly designed reputation systems, they argue, have the potential to create a “reputation society,” reshaping society for the better by promoting accountability through the mediated judgments of billions of people. Effective design can also steer systems away from the pitfalls of online opinion sharing by motivating truth-telling, protecting personal privacy, and discouraging digital vigilantism.

About the Editors

Hassan Masum is a policy and technology strategist and Affiliate Researcher at the Waterloo Institute for Complexity and Innovation at the University of Waterloo.

Mark Tovey is an Affiliate Researcher at the Waterloo Institute for Complexity and Innovation at the University of Waterloo. He is the editor of Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace.

This book was inspired by the “Symposium on Reputation Economies in Cyberspace” I helped organize at the Yale Information Society Project in 2007, and I’m excited to see the results of that event finally get published.

I’m also happy to note that I co-authored one the chapters in the volume with Anthony Hoffmann, a PhD student at UW-Milwaukee School of Information Studies. Our contribution is titled, “Privacy, Context, and Oversharing: Reputational Challenges in a Web 2.0 World“:

When personal information is shared online, it may spread farther and faster than expected or inappropriately push intimate details to near-strangers. Zimmer and Hoffmann address the twin risks of information spreading beyond its intended context and the oversharing of personal information.

You can purchase the book at Amazon, etc. Enjoy!

(Update at end of post)

I’m troubled by Wisconsin’s plan to create a database of all signers of the recall petitions. I know the political parties have access to the petitions in order to challenge signatures, but I’m unsure (and I’ll need to find out) if all signatures are generally a part of the public record.

Did you sign? Did you think that fact might be publicly discoverable?

You might or might not be concerned with that disclosure, but placing these names into a database changes things. A database makes it much easier to search for particular names and addresses, easier to identify and harass, easier to discriminate, etc. It also makes systemic error or bias much more possible, and potentially more harmful.

So, to start the process of addressing these concerns, I’ve submitted an open records request to the state Government Accountability Board. Here’s the meat of the request:

Specifically, I am interesting in obtaining answers and related information to the following questions:

1) What software platform will be used for creation and maintenance of this database.

2) What software platform will be purchased (as reported in the media) to aid with character recognition of the handwriting on the petitions.

3) Exactly which information fields from the petitions will be included in the database?

4) Who has access to this database, and what security/authentication measures will be used to ensure only authorized access?

5) How long will this database remain? Is there a planned destruction date? Conversely, are there plans to archive it?

6) Will the database itself be subject to open records requests?

I’ll provide updates if I receive any response or answers.

:: UPDATE (1/23/2012) -  While I haven’t received any response to my inquiry to the GAB, this Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article notes that the handwriting recognition software being used is docAlpha from Artsyl Technologies. The story notes how error-prone these technologies can be (5-10% error rate per character!), and confirms that the state database of petition signers will indeed be publicly accessible.

For a moderate amount of time, I had been a “friend” with someone on Facebook, and we appeared to have full visibility of each others activities. Then, recently, I noticed that this person no longer appeared in my feeds or list of friends. I searched for this person on Facebook to no avail (zero results), and attempted to load this person’s Facebook profile using the custom URL, but was met with the standard error “The page you requested was not found”. This prompted me to assume that this person either (a) deactivated her/his page and left Facebook, or (b) un-friended me and tweaked the privacy settings to be essentially invisible to non friends. This didn’t bother me much, and I didn’t really think of it again.

Today, however, I noticed an update in my Ticker noting this person made a comment on some other Facebook user’s (not a friend of mine) page.  This particular action also was reported in my main News Feed. I found it quite odd that suddenly I was seeing updates from this ex-friend. I proceeded to search my friends list, and s/he wasn’t there. I searched for this person’s name, and still received no results. I tried to load this peron’s URL, and got the same error message.

However, when I clicked the user name (this person’s real name) in the status update, I was taken to her/his Facebook profile page, only it now was a different URL with a different username.** But it was my former Facebook friend: same photo, same basic info, etc. I searched the friend list, and I wasn’t there (as expected).  As far as I can tell, this person reactivated or recreated a new Facebook account, and simply decided not to friend me (fine). Yet, I’m not seeing activity from this person — this non Facebook friend — in my News Feed.

Has anyone else experienced this? Or have a possible explanation?  My only guess is that perhaps the user is using the same email address for the new account, and some code within Facebook recognizes that I used to be friends with someone using that email, therefore it is making activity visible to me. This is troublesome, of course, since people unfriend for various reasons, all with the presumption that Facebook activity will no longer be made visible to former friends.

UPDATE: I’ve now realized that this former Facebook friend and I do share one friend in common. So it is possible that her/his privacy settings allow visibility of actions to “Friends of friends”. I will investigate further….

** I should point out that the new custom username for this former Facebook friend is not, as far as I know, this person’s name. Nor does it appear to be any other version of her/his name. To compare, it would be as if I created a new Facebook account with the custom URL of /george.kerplanski. This new username — perhaps created to help obfuscate this user’s new account — appears to violate Facebook’s guidelines, which states “Your username should be as close as possible to your true name”.  I might be wrong about this, of course…

Call for Papers

Internet Research 13.0: Technologies

The 13th Annual International and Interdisciplinary Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR)

October 18-21, 2012

MediaCity:UK – University of Salford
Salford – Greater Manchester – UK

Internet Research 13.0 will focus on the theme of technologies, understood in the broadest sense as crafts, techniques, and systems. The conference will examine the place of the Internet in the contemporary world and in relation to a range of existing and emerging technologies, considering its impact in a context where life is entangled with technologies of all kinds as never before. The conference will bring together scholars, researchers, students and practitioners from many disciplines to map and situate the development of the Internet as part of the history of human technology.

To this end, we call for papers, panel and pre-conference workshop proposals from any discipline, methodology, community or a combination of them that address the conference themes, including, but not limited to, papers that intersect and/or interconnect with the following:

• the speed and acceleration of technological change
• 
the past, present and future of technology
• emerging and converging technologies
• educational technology
• cultures of crafting
• connectivity and access
• space, location and mobile technologies
• technology, networks and attachments
• 
technology and the body
• 
technologies of the self
• technology, regulation and ethics

Sessions at the conference will be established that specifically address the conference themes, and we welcome innovative, exciting, and unexpected takes on those themes. We also welcome submissions on topics that address social, cultural, political, legal, aesthetic, economic, and/or philosophical aspects of the internet beyond the conference themes. In all cases, we welcome disciplinary and interdisciplinary submissions as well as international collaborations from both AoIR and non-AoIR members.

Submissions

We seek proposals for several different kinds of contributions. As in the past, we welcome proposals for traditional academic conference PAPERS, organized PANEL PROPOSALS that present a coherent group of papers on a single theme, as well as PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS which focus on a particular topic. We also invite proposals that will focus on discussion and interaction among conference delegates. A common form of this type is the ROUNDTABLE SESSION, but we would also like to encourage other formats, such as OPEN FISHBOWL SESSIONS. (See the Wikipedia entry under “Fishbowl (conversation)” for a description of this format. Fishbowl sessions should cover broad topics of interest to a wide segment of the AoIR community.) Finally, we invite short 5-minute talks on topics of interest to the community as part of our Ignite-IR panels. Please see below for more information on this format.

Deadlines

• 

Submissions Due: 1 March 2012 (Papers, Panels and Pre-Workshops. Details below.)
  NOTE: The submission deadline is a HARD DEADLINE; there will be NO extensions to this date.
• Notification: 1 May 2012
• Full Papers Submissions Due for inclusion in Selected Papers of IR: 1 July 2012
• Ignite-IR Final Proposal Deadline: 1 August 2012
• Ignite-IR Slides Due: 15 September 2012

Submission Requirements

• All papers and presentations will be evaluated in a standard blind peer review.
• PAPERS (individual or multi-author) – submit abstract of 600-800 words
• PANEL PROPOSALS – submit a description of 600-800 words on the panel theme, plus a 250-500 word abstract for each paper or presentation. The panel organizer must assemble these materials for submission
• ROUNDTABLE and FISHBOWL PROPOSALS – submit a statement indicating the nature of the discussion and form of interaction, and listing initial participants. (In the case of a fishbowl proposal, this will include the name of the moderator, and the names of the first four speakers for the fishbowl.)
• PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS – please submit all workshop proposals via email to atwood@aoir.org. Workshop proposals should include names of presenters and a 1,000-word description.
• IGNITE-IR – please submit a one-paragraph abstract and other information. Details at http://ir13.aoir.org/ignite-ir

Papers, presentations and panels will be selected from the submitted proposals on the basis of multiple blind peer review, coordinated and overseen by the Program Chair. Each individual may present only one paper during the conference, though they may be listed as a co-author on multiple papers. In addition to this one presentation, they may also appear on a panel, roundtable, or performance. The exception is the Ignite-IR lightening talk, which may be in addition to any other presentations.

Publication of Papers

Full papers submitted by the 1 July 2012 deadline will undergo review to be published in an open-access, online collection, Selected Papers of Internet Research (ISSN 2162-3317). A template and guidelines for preparing your final paper are available on the conference website (http://ir13.aoir.org/papers)

Selected papers from the conference will alternatively be published in a special issue of the journal Information, Communication & Society. Authors selected for submission for this issue will be contacted prior to the conference.

Pre-conference Workshops

On 18 October 2012, there will be a limited number of pre-conference workshops and symposia that will provide participants with in-depth, hands-on and/or creative opportunities. We invite proposals for these pre-conference workshops. Local presenters are encouraged to propose workshops that will invite visiting researchers into their labs or studios or locales. Proposals should be no more than 1,000 words, and should clearly outline the purpose, methodology, structure, costs, equipment and minimal attendance required, as well as explaining its relevance to the conference as a whole. Proposals will be accepted if they demonstrate that the workshop will add significantly to the overall program in terms of thematic depth, hands on experience, or local opportunities for scholarly or artistic connections. These proposals and all inquiries regarding pre-conference proposals should be submitted as soon as possible to both the program chair (atwood@aoir.org) and no later than 1 March 2012.

Contact Information

Program Chair: Feona Attwood, Communication, Sheffield Hallam University, UK. email: attwood@aoir.org

Local Conference Chair: Ben Light, School of Media, Music, and Performance, University of Salford, UK. email: light@aoir.org

ALA conducting new survey about librarians and privacy

For Immediate Release
Tue, 12/13/2011 – 15:50

Contact: Barbara Jones
Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF)

CHICAGO – The American Library Association’s (ALA) Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) is inviting librarians and library workers across the country to participate in a survey that will measure librarians’ attitudes about privacy rights and protecting library users’ privacy.

The survey is available online, and takes only 15 minutes to complete. All responses are anonymous and confidential:

http://tinyurl.com/ALAprivacysurvey

The survey, which builds on an earlier 2008 survey assessing librarians’ attitudes about privacy both within and outside of the library, will provide important data that will help ALA assess the state of privacy in the United States and help guide OIF’s planning for “Privacy for All,” ALA’s ongoing campaign to engage librarians in public education and advocacy to advance privacy rights.  The survey will be available until March 1, 2012.

The study is funded by a generous grant from the Open Society Institute and is managed by Dr. Michael Zimmer, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s School of Information Studies and co-director of its Center for Information Policy Research.

Barbara Jones, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom, encouraged all librarians and library workers to take the survey.  “After three successful years working on Choose Privacy Week and related educational programs, it is essential that we test our assumptions for the remaining years of the grant,” she said.  “We want ‘Privacy for All’ to create models for programming and services that librarians can use for various constituencies and community groups.  We can’t do that without your opinions.”

The “Privacy for All” initiative features Choose Privacy Week, an annual event that encourages libraries and librarians to engage library users in a conversation about privacy; and a website, privacyrevolution.org, that provides access to privacy-related news, information and programming resources.  In 2011 – 2012, “Privacy for All” and Choose Privacy Week will be focused on the topic of government surveillance, with an emphasis on immigrant and refugee communities’ use of libraries and youth attitudes about privacy.

Visit www.privacyrevolution.org to learn more about Choose Privacy Week and the resources available to help libraries engage their users in a conversation on privacy.

Ethics of Secrecy

Call for Papers for Vol. 17 (07/2012)

• Deadline for extended abstracts: January 15, 2012
• Notification of acceptance to authors: February 29, 2012
• Deadline for full articles: May 1, 2012
• Deadline for revised articles: June 15, 2012
• Publication: July 2012

The concept of “secrecy” is bound up in a variety of aspects of information ethics, sometimes in con-flicting ways: respecting personal privacy and opposing undue surveillance ensures a certain level of secrecy in one’s personal life and activities; to ensure security and public safety, government secrecy is often justifiable; open records laws and whistleblower protections are meant to limit government secrecy and promote transparency; corporate trade secrets remain secret to protect investments and economic growth; the secrecy of our personal lives is increasingly shattered – and commodified – through social media or, to paint a black picture: the personal freedom to conceal and reveal information and thus even the concept of personal identity might be at stake.

This special issue will explore the complex nature of “secrecy” in our contemporary information society. The ethical exploration of secrecy must be renewed in the face of the multiple and shifting social, political and cultural contexts in which information and people flow.

We welcome papers analyzing ethical problems of online social networks such as:

• Privacy, reputation, and the secrecy of personal information
• Tensions between secrecy and transparency
• Corporate secrecy and the ethics of whistleblowing
• The value of secrecy in a social information ecosystem
• The ethics of secrecy across cultures and societies
• Secrecy, transparency, privacy: moral principles of democracy?
• Government secrecy and the ethics of WikiLeaks
• Privacy and secrecy in ethical and sociological discussion
• The “interplay” between secrecy and mass/social media
• Privacy and secrecy in the discussion of communication science
• …

Guest Editors:

Daniel Nagel
Attorney
BRP Renaud & Partner
Stuttgart, Germany
daniel.nagel@brp.de

Prof. Dr. Matthias Rath
Director, Research Center Youth – Media – Education
University of Education Ludwigsburg, Germany
fjmb@ph-ludwigsburg.de

Michael Zimmer, PhD
School of Information Studies
Co-Director, Center for Information Policy Research
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA
zimmerm@wum.edu

Submission guideline:

Potential authors are requested to submit an extended abstract (for details see http://www.i-r-i- e.net/about_irie.htm) by December 31, 2011. Abstracts may be submitted in the native language of the author though an English translation of this abstract must be included if the chosen language is not English. IRIE will publish articles in English, French, German, Portuguese or Spanish. The author(s) of contributions in French, Portuguese, or Spanish must nominate at least two potential peer reviewers.

Abstracts will be evaluated by the guest editors.

Deadline for the final article (usually ca. 3,000 words or 20,000 characters including blanks) is May 1, 2012. All final articles must conform to the IRIE style sheet. All full submissions will be subject to peer review. Therefore the acceptance of an extended abstract does not imply the publication of the final text, unless the article has passed the peer review and revisions (if required) have been included in the text.

All submissions should be sent by email with “IRIE-Secrecy Submission” in the header to Michael Zimmer: zimmerm@uwm.edu

On the opening morning of the conference, I will join John Palfrey and Lydia Shrier for a plenary panel on “Would Margaret Mead Have Blogged? How Social Media has Changed Research”. My slides for that presentation are provided below. I will also be leading a workshop on “Research, the Cloud, and the IRB”, and giving a presentation to the U.S. Department of Energy Human Subjects Working Group.

Internet research ethics is well represented at this year’s AER conference, with a strong track focusing on “Research Involving the Internet & Social Networking”. Among these presentations and workshops are several led by Elizabeth Buchanan. Buchanan will be co-facilitating a pre-conference workshop entitled “What a Tangled Web We Weave: Ethical, Regulatory, and technical Aspects of Internet Research”. She is also participating in the following workshops:  “Research, the Internet, and the IRB: Ethical and Regulatory Issues,” “Research, Social Media and the IRB,” and “Ethical Implications of Pre and Post Enrollment uses of Social Media in Clinical Trials”.

Monday, Elizabeth Buchanan and I are convening a doctoral colloquium, bringing together over thirty young scholars to discuss their dissertation research with a collection of notable Internet researchers. It should be a stimulating — and hopefully fruitful — day.

Tuesday the main conference kicks off, featuring a new format for AoIR: Ignite presentations. An “Ignite” presentation is a structured, high-energy, short talk in which you share your passion and creative ideas about internet research. Like pecha-kucha, Ignite is formed around a formalism: you must create a “deck” of 20 slides that auto-advance every 15 seconds. This represents a radical departure from the traditional paper presentation, and is focused on telling an enlightening story, making an argument, and inciting an audience to come to your way of thinking and action. Nick Proferes, a 2nd year SOIS PhD student, is slated to kick off the ignite sessions with a very clever presentation of his on-going research into how issues of research ethics are discussed on the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) mailing list. I saw a preview of Nick’s talk — it will be very entertaining.

Wednesday, I’m moderating a privacy panel, featuring these excellent papers:

Information Movements in Networked Spaces: A Model of Networked Private and Public Spaces
Beth Patin, Jeff Hemsley, Karine Nahon
University of Washington, United States of America

Seeing Surveillance in the Cloud: Both Sides for the Moment
David J. Phillips, Karen Pollock, Michael Murphy
U Toronto, Canada

Social Networking & Young Adults in the U.S.: Participation, Privacy, and (Mis)Perceptions
Heidi A. McKee, Hillary Oberpeul, Amy Wilkins, Francis Kazungu
Miami University, United States of America

I also will be attending various sessions on technology & resistance, the Wisconsin labor protests, and, of course, just catching up with many old friends.

And while in Seattle, I’ll be taking in the Battlestar Galactica exhibit at the EMP museum. I also might or might not be spending some time at Tavern Law.

Hope to see many of you there!

Opening Standards: The Global Politics of Interoperability
Edited by Laura DeNardis
September 2011

Openness is not a given on the Internet. Technical standards–the underlying architecture that enables interoperability among hardware and software from different manufacturers–increasingly control individual freedom and the pace of innovation in technology markets. Heated battles rage over the very definition of “openness” and what constitutes an open standard in information and communication technologies. In Opening Standards, experts from industry, academia, and public policy explore just what is at stake in these controversies, considering both economic and political implications of open standards. The book examines the effect of open standards on innovation, on the relationship between interoperability and public policy (and if government has a responsibility to promote open standards), and on intellectual property rights in standardization–an issue at the heart of current global controversies. Finally, Opening Standards recommends a framework for defining openness in twenty-first-century information infrastructures.

Contributors discuss such topics as how to reflect the public interest in the private standards-setting process; why open standards have a beneficial effect on competition and Internet freedom; the effects of intellectual property rights on standards openness; and how to define standard, open standard, and software interoperability.

About the Editor

Laura DeNardis is Associate Professor in the School of Communication at American University. She is the author of Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governance (MIT Press, 2009) and a Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project at Yale Law School.

You can purchase the book at Amazon, etc. Enjoy!

The department’s motivation was largely to ensure professionalism in how its student teachers were acting on social media: not complaining about students on Facebook, Tweeting out funny things a kid said in class, or ranting about a co-worker in a blog post.

I haven’t tried to write such a policy previously, and wanted to carefully balance these important professionalization concerns with a student’s freedom of expression. To guide me, I looked over a variety of existing policies, and came up with the following as an initial draft.

Thoughts?  (I’m particularly concerned about my initial suggestion that students not create blogs to provide commentary on their experiences)

Professionalism, Student Teaching, and Social Media

This document presents social media use guidelines and recommendations suggested for all UWM student teachers. For the purposes of this document, social media means any facility for online publication and commentary, including without limitation blogs, wiki’s, discussion forums, and social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Tumblr, Google+, Flickr, and YouTube. These guidelines complement – but do not replace – any existing policies regarding the use of technology, computers, e-mail and the Internet in place at UW-Milwaukee or the location of your student teaching placement.

As a student teacher, participation in social media and commenting in online media stories carries with it certain professional obligations. In your role as a student teacher, you represent UW-M with your placement institution. More importantly, you are an educator – a role model – for the students in your classroom. Your actions online should respect these professional obligations.

While all student teachers are welcome to participate in social media, we expect everyone who participates in online commentary to understand and to follow these simple but important guidelines. The goal of these guidelines is simple: to allow you to participate online in a respectful, relevant way that protects your reputation, the reputation of UW-M, respects the relationship between teachers and students, and of course follows the letter and spirit of the law.

Setting up Social Media

Social media identities, logon ID’s and user names should not reference your position as a student teacher or the school in which you are working. You should also not create blogs or social media sites for the specific purpose to provide commentary on your student teaching experience.

Don’t Tell Secrets

It’s perfectly acceptable to talk about your work and have a dialog with the community, but it’s not okay to publish confidential or sensitive information that might jeopardize the privacy of students or the overall educational environment. This includes information such as unpublished details about internal issues within a school or department, examples of student work or performance assessments, conversations had with students, conversations overheard within school, etc.

Respect your audience, your school, and your students

The public in general, and your school’s community and students, reflect a diverse set of people, values and points of view. Don’t be afraid to be yourself, but do so respectfully. This includes not only the obvious (no ethnic slurs, offensive comments, defamatory comments, personal insults, obscenity, etc.) but also proper consideration of privacy and of topics that may be considered objectionable or inflammatory – such as politics and religion. Use your best judgment and be sure to make it clear that the views and opinions expressed are yours alone and do not represent the official views of UW-M or your school.

Student Contact

It is best to not contact or interact with any students from your school through social media, such as Facebook posts/messages, Twitter, or instant messages. Official communication, when appropriate, could take place through official email. Student teachers should also refrain from “friending” or “following” any students from your school on social media.