Respect for privacy of groups that endanger public health?
Eysenbach and Till express concerns about secretive lurking by
researchers on internet discussion lists and chat rooms, and provide
compelling examples of groups who understandably resent research
eavesdroppers. As I read their article, I wondered how their prescriptions
would apply to efforts to research such listservers and chat rooms set up
by groups whose overt agendas threaten public health and safety. Hundreds
of such sites exist in areas such as race hatred, groups intent on eroding
road safety measures, groups dedicated to opposing gun control, pro-
tobacco interest groups supported by the tobacco industry, and the anti-
immunisation lobby to name but a few.
Such groups do not welcome the presence of researchers not committed
to their values. Rather than using registration procedures to protect
their privacy, these groups use such procedures to ensure that their
discussion of strategies and tactics can proceed in an uninhibited way.
They are very much not "seeking public visibility", but are seeking to
screen out those who are likely to disagree with their ambitions. This is
precisely why efforts at successfully penetrating and reporting on their
discussions ought not be inhibited by rules developed to respect the
privacy of the sort of groups described by Eysenbach and Till. They are
concerned that publicity given to the discussions that take place on such
sites "may negatively affect group members or harm the community as a
whole." On the contrary, failure to gain intelligence on such groups
justified by placing respect for such groups' privacy ahead of concern to
publicize and thwart their often dangerous agendas would surely be
misplaced.
Rapid Response:
Respect for privacy of groups that endanger public health?
Eysenbach and Till express concerns about secretive lurking by
researchers on internet discussion lists and chat rooms, and provide
compelling examples of groups who understandably resent research
eavesdroppers. As I read their article, I wondered how their prescriptions
would apply to efforts to research such listservers and chat rooms set up
by groups whose overt agendas threaten public health and safety. Hundreds
of such sites exist in areas such as race hatred, groups intent on eroding
road safety measures, groups dedicated to opposing gun control, pro-
tobacco interest groups supported by the tobacco industry, and the anti-
immunisation lobby to name but a few.
Such groups do not welcome the presence of researchers not committed
to their values. Rather than using registration procedures to protect
their privacy, these groups use such procedures to ensure that their
discussion of strategies and tactics can proceed in an uninhibited way.
They are very much not "seeking public visibility", but are seeking to
screen out those who are likely to disagree with their ambitions. This is
precisely why efforts at successfully penetrating and reporting on their
discussions ought not be inhibited by rules developed to respect the
privacy of the sort of groups described by Eysenbach and Till. They are
concerned that publicity given to the discussions that take place on such
sites "may negatively affect group members or harm the community as a
whole." On the contrary, failure to gain intelligence on such groups
justified by placing respect for such groups' privacy ahead of concern to
publicize and thwart their often dangerous agendas would surely be
misplaced.
Competing interests: No competing interests