http://onlineintegrity.org/ has a 4-point online integrity statement of principles that deals with respecting other people’s privacy.
The people behind the online integrity statement may mean well, but there is a glaring omission.
It doesn’t address the facilitating or encouragement of violence or harassment. Disclaimers that say something like, “Of course I’m not condoning violence, but if this person died, the world would be a better place” are backhand endorsements of violence and have no place on sites that lay any claim to integrity.
So often when personal contact information is posted unethically, it is given with the intent to harm the other person. If we only deal with the release of that personal information and not with the unethical intent behind the release of information, those who stick to the letter of the law and not the spirit will find loopholes so they can declare themselves ethical while acting unethically.
Note: Also posted on my blog, http://abyss2hope.blogspot.com
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: FeministBlogosphere
It’s probably worth mentioning that I signed “alas a blog” onto the OI pledge. I agree that its wording and scope could use a lot of improvement, but what it says – interpreted with the benefit of the doubt – is something I agree with.
I’ve also signed on, a day or so ago, which makes me either much more ethically quick than Ampersand, or far more cynically manipulative. Either way, I’m better than him!
The difficulty with “the spirit of the law” is that it is essentially impossible to codify a spiritual directive (2 Corinthians 3:6). I think it unlikely we’ll be able to modify a pledge not to be an asshole in such a way as to make it impossible to be an asshole, even if the person making the pledge wants to be one. Fortunately, not many assholes are likely to sign the pledge.
Stop looking at me.
Pingback: Beltway Blogroll