Journal of Information Ethics最新文献_第2页

Plagiarism and Ethics of Knowledge: Evidence from International Scientific Papers 剽窃与知识伦理:来自国际科学论文的证据

Journal of Information Ethics Pub Date : 2014-04-01 DOI: 10.3172/JIE.23.1.101

R. Jamali, Sepehr Ghazinoory, Mona Sadeghi

引用次数: 6

On (the Burdens of) Securing Rights to Access Information 论保障获取信息权利的负担

Journal of Information Ethics Pub Date : 2014-04-01 DOI: 10.3172/JIE.23.1.42

Jonathan Trerise

引用次数: 0

Information-Based Autonomy vs. Oligarchy 基于信息的自治vs.寡头

Journal of Information Ethics Pub Date : 2014-04-01 DOI: 10.3172/JIE.23.1.12

Ron Houston

引用次数: 0

The Lesser Known Business Models of Online Copyright Infringement 鲜为人知的网络版权侵权商业模式

Journal of Information Ethics Pub Date : 2014-04-01 DOI: 10.3172/JIE.23.1.55

Morris S. Rosenthal

引用次数: 0

Teaching the Ethics of Scientific Research Through Novels 通过小说进行科研伦理教学

Journal of Information Ethics Pub Date : 2014-04-01 DOI: 10.3172/JIE.23.1.65

J. Dilevko, R. Barton

引用次数: 2

The Real but Unmentioned Enemy in the "War on Drugs": Disorders of American Character “毒品战争”中真实但未被提及的敌人:美国人性格的紊乱

Journal of Information Ethics Pub Date : 2014-04-01 DOI: 10.3172/JIE.23.1.111

P. Olsson

引用次数: 1

The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth/I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy/Privacy 每日你:新广告业如何定义你的身份和价值/我知道你是谁，我看到你做了什么:社交网络和隐私的死亡/隐私

Journal of Information Ethics Pub Date : 2013-10-01 DOI: 10.5860/choice.49-6375

Judy Anderson

{"title":"The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth/I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy/Privacy","authors":"Judy Anderson","doi":"10.5860/choice.49-6375","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.49-6375","url":null,"abstract":"The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth Joseph Turow. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011. 234. pp. $28.00I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy Lori Andrews. New York: Free Press, 2011. 253 pp. $26.00Privacy Garret Keizer. New York: Picador, 2012. 194 pp. $15.00Privacy is the bulwark of any free society. It seems like such a simple concept- letting people decide what information about themselves they want to make public-but what does it really entail? Today's political and commercial world is about collecting information about people. Every keystroke from tweets, every keystroke biometric measuring keyboarding pattern, every student accessing pages in online textbooks, is being recorded and logged for data retrieval for potential buyers. There are seemingly endless electronically linked storage sites that collect data on what information we search, what movies we prefer, where we like to vacation, what books we read, and the list goes on. Our society is developing a resigned acceptance of being under surveillance-both visual and audio-from any governmental authority, shopkeeper, or casual cell phone photographer. Coupled with that is a growing concern among some that we are losing the valued right to keep some information about ourselves confidential and to have control over how any personal information is used and distributed. The privacy issue is not new; it has been a topic in the courts for centuries. The difference today is the magnitude of the possibilities for invading a person's privacy and the range of uses, both positive and negative, for which that data is being used.Turow, Andrews, and Keizer have each taken an aspect of the complex world of privacy and shown the reader a web of positives and negatives that exist when the topic is closely examined. Turow's The Daily You takes the reader through a very detailed analysis of the world of advertising and how individual companies gather, package, and market information about you to any person or company willing to pay for that valued material. He covers the many clever ways data is collected as persons query Internet sites, tweet, and \"like\" items. Then he delves into the way consumer-centric insight is bought, sold, and used to the best marketing advantage to promote sales and attract people to particular websites and product lines. This may be viewed with both positive and negative eyes. On the positive, the more precise the data collected on users, the more likely they will have information that interests them displayed the next time they access the Internet. If they enjoy sports, for example, the content they see will more likely contain advertisements for sports events and equipment. On the negative, the data analyzers and artificial intelligent programs are screening the choices that will be displayed, causing a silo effect and censorship for the user. They will only view content and pos","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"163"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71138298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

The Canadian Disease: The Ethics of Library, Archives, and Museum Convergence 加拿大疾病:图书馆、档案馆和博物馆融合的伦理

Journal of Information Ethics Pub Date : 2013-09-01 DOI: 10.3172/JIE.22.2.66

Braden Cannon

{"title":"The Canadian Disease: The Ethics of Library, Archives, and Museum Convergence","authors":"Braden Cannon","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.66","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.66","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionThe convergence of libraries, archives, and museums (or LAMs) into mono lithic institutions is not a particularly new idea. Although the Alliance of Libraries, Archives and Records Management (ALARM) published multiple studies on human resources in the information sector in the 1990s (1995), the literature on the subject really starts to build in the early 2000s with some of the most prominent examples of LAM convergence in Canada happening nearly ten years ago. Despite the fact that the convergence proposal has been a part of infor - mation management discourse for over a decade, we have not yet begun to feel the full effects of its introduction. As the pro-convergence movement grows, an antithetical movement has failed to emerge and the arguments for convergence have gone largely unanswered in a systematic manner. This absence of a unified critique is particularly worrisome because the implications of LAM convergence are so wide-reaching that even many of its proponents have not yet recognized its potential effects. These effects have the ability to vastly alter the fundamental principles of library, archives, and museum management and it is for this reason that a critical re-assessment of convergence is so urgently needed.The convergence movement is building momentum with several related movements and cannot be fully assessed without taking these developments into consideration. As more institutions ponder a convergence like that seen at Library and Archives Canada (LAC), for instance, business culture seeps further into an information sector built on concepts of public service. As business culture makes more headway into cultural and heritage institutions, top-down management models become more ingrained. It is for these reasons that LAM convergence is a potential threat to the professional principles of libraries, archives, and museums, a threat that runs counter to the best interests of both information workers and patrons of information institutions.This paper will provide a review of the arguments presented in support of convergence, demonstrate the fallacies in these arguments, show how the convergence model is both influenced by and influences the corporatization of the cultural sphere, and argue that convergence is a threat to the principles of libraries, archives, and museums that should be opposed with great deliberation.Before continuing, a definition of these principles is in order. Beginning with libraries, the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights (1996) succinctly defines the principles for \"all libraries\" as being devoted to equitable access to information regardless of background, provision of material regardless of the background of those contributing to its creation, challenging censorship, cooperation with \"all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgement of free expression\" and the provision of exhibit and meeting spaces on an equitable basis.For the principles of archives, the Associ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"66-89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

In the Trenches: Archival Ethics, Law and the Case of the Destroyed CIA Tapes 《战壕中:档案伦理、法律和CIA录音带被毁案》

Journal of Information Ethics Pub Date : 2013-09-01 DOI: 10.3172/JIE.22.2.90

Douglas Cox

{"title":"In the Trenches: Archival Ethics, Law and the Case of the Destroyed CIA Tapes","authors":"Douglas Cox","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.90","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.90","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionThe archival community has embraced government accountability as a \"core value\" of archivists and ethical codes for archivists have long included prohibitions on document destruction designed to sanitize \"the record\" or conceal evidence (Society of American Archivists [\"SAA\"], 2013). For government archivists such values and standards are not simply aspirational or theoretical, but an integral part of their professional and legal obligations. In particular, the duties of the Archivist of the United States and NARA include the responsibility to authorize and empower federal agencies to destroy records. Exercising this authority requires NARA to negotiate a unique mix of competing, and sometimes conflicting, interests. While working cooperatively with federal agencies to improve the efficiency of agency record-keeping by encouraging agencies to dispose of unnecessary records, NARA archivists are simultaneously tasked with ensuring that agencies retain records that may be directly adverse to the interests of the agency and enforcing records retention responsibilities when agencies fail to comply.This essay explores the relationship between NARA and government records destruction. It begins by discussing relevant archival \"values\" and ethical codes related to document destruction and government accountability and stressing the unique role of government archivists. It describes the methods federal agencies have used historically to evade record-keeping responsibilities and archival guidance, which have often relied upon manipulating archival concepts and terminology. The essay then examines the CIA's 2005 destruction of videotapes depicting the detention and brutal interrogation of detainees as a practical illustration of both an agency apparently attempting to avoid recordkeeping requirements and the difficult task of archivists in attempting to enforce them as a means towards government accountability. The article ends by suggest - ing that the most practical efforts to deal with conflicts are largely within the special expertise of archivists, but that current record-keeping reforms may unfor - tunately result in diminishing the role of archivists in ensuring accountability.Archivists, Ethics, and Government Document DestructionArchivists have a unique relationship with document destruction. Unlike many professionals who work in repositories of historical and cultural material, archivists' destruction of material in their care is not only acceptable, but a crucial and indispensable responsibility. In the process euphemistically called \"selection,\" the role of the archivist is to separate the wheat from the chaffand determine which portions merit long-term preservation. The primary justification for this process is that with ever-present limitations of resources, archivists must reject the many to preserve the few (Cox, R.J., 2004, p. 8). In fact, the responsibility to select arguably rises to the same level as the duty to preserve. The ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"55 2 1","pages":"90-101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

State Property or Cultural Property? The Limitations of Replevin as an Interpretive Framework for Disputed Archives 国家财产还是文化财产?作为争议档案解释框架的补偿的局限性

Journal of Information Ethics Pub Date : 2013-09-01 DOI: 10.3172/JIE.22.2.102

Ryan Speer

{"title":"State Property or Cultural Property? The Limitations of Replevin as an Interpretive Framework for Disputed Archives","authors":"Ryan Speer","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.102","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the state has evidenced a dedication to preserving our documentary heritage not only by maintaining archival repositories, but also by attempting to remove particularly notable and valuable historical documents from public circulation. North Carolina's efforts to regain its official copy of the Bill of Rights, a downright caper featuring a sting operation directed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is perhaps the most notable recent example of the phenomenon (Goss, 2010). In recent decades many such cases have been handled much more quietly, but in initiating suits to pursue contested historical documents and when relying heavily on particular legal strategies for their recovery, the public sector has decisively shaped this debate. The ubiquity of the term \"replevin\" among relevant parties is one sign of success: in the councils of state archivists, among the professional organizations of both state and academic archivists, and throughout the community of private manuscript collectors, in conference sessions and journal articles, and in informal conversation, \"replevin\" serves as a pervasive shorthand descriptor of conflicts involving the ownership of public documents. A common law remedy for parties seeking the return of stolen or otherwise unlawfully held property, and largely concerned with proof of title, replevin is the central feature of most individual state laws created to defend the property rights of governments in their official records (Bain, 1983). Replevin's stringent requirements, have, much to the detriment of informed and reasonable dialogue, lent a consistently acrimonious tenor to an otherwise episodic string of conflicts over public records. Relations between state archives and private collectors have only deteriorated in recent years, and at this point it would be helpful to develop alternative approaches to the analysis and mediation of these contests.The Private Market and Archival Preservation in the United StatesRecognizing the priority and influence of the private sector in preserving American archives is a necessary step in beginning to understand the complexities of this issue. American documentary preservation efforts have always been pursued within a mixed economy of public and private activity. At one time or another, either of the two sides might have been said to be dominant. Institutional archives, including government repositories and university special collections, are now the primary actors, but for much of our history governments have been imperfect guardians of the documentary heritage embodied in their inactive records. Only at the turn of the 20th century did state-funded archival institutions emerge as dedicated organizations to protect these records. And for years the state archives were alone; there would be no national archives until the 1930s. In terms of archival preservation, the 19th century belonged almost wholly to the individual collector of historical manuscripts. Private ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"102-109"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1