FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
INF 390N.1/COM 386
Unique Number #28180/05495
Dr. Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas at Austin
Fall 2007
Class time: Tuesday
Place:
SZB 464
Office:
SZB 570
9:00 AM – 12:00 N
Office hrs: Tuesday 1:00 – 2:00 PM
By appointment other times
Telephone: 512.471.3746 – direct line
512.471.2742 – iSchool receptionist
512.471.3821 – main iSchool office
Internet:
pdoty@ischool.utexas.edu
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm
Class URL: http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Doty_Philip/2007/fall/INF390N1/
TA:
Sidney Tibbetts
tnst@ischool.utexas.edu
Office hours: TBA
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the course
3
Students’ collaboration
3
Expectations of students’ performance
4
Analysis and holism in reading, writing, and presenting
5
Standards for written work
6
Editing conventions
10
Grading
11
Texts and other tools
12
List of assignments
13
Outline of course
14
Schedule
16
Assignments
21
Suggestions for writing policy analysis
24
References
27
References in the schedule and assignments
Selected federal cases
"Reference" texts
Reports
Governmental and commercial serial sources of government information
Journals and other serial sources on information policy and government information
Newspapers
Other electronic sources
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
2
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
INF 390N.1, Federal Information Policy, provides an overview of U.S. federal information policy
and its implications for society. We will consider the federal information policy system within the
broader context of public policy, key information policy areas, and the structures and processes
involved in the formulation of federal information policies. Students will develop a critical
understanding of a variety of approaches to policy analysis and a variety of policy analysis
techniques. The class will give special attention to the contribution of Information Studies as a
discipline to policy formation and analysis.
Federal information policy comprises two major kinds of information policies: (1) policies that
control government information, i.e., information that the federal government and governmentsponsored entities generate, collect, “store,” and distribute; and (2) policies that control how
information is distributed in society, e.g., policies related to “intellectual property,” privacy,
surveillance and national security, freedom of expression, media regulation, intellectual freedom,
contracts, classification of information, the use of categories such as “sensitive but unclassified”
information, torts, and equity of information access. INF 390N.1 emphasizes this second kind of
information policy. A special focus will be electronic information, including those policies
related to privacy, surveillance, and freedom of information since the events of September 11,
2001.
INF 390N.1 will (a) increase students' knowledge of major federal information policies and how
to track their development, (b) improve students' ability to analyze critically the implications of
federal policies for managing information as well as for activities in public and private venues,
and (c) enhance students' ability to influence the policy system as professionals and private
citizens.
Thus, the course will give students the opportunity to:
1.
Concentrate on several areas in information policy: the foundations of information policy,
policy as the expression and collision of values, privacy, surveillance and security, the
growing use of information classification and the category of “sensitive but unclassified”
information, and freedom of information, particularly since 9/11/2001
2. Examine the use of what some have called “rights talk” (Glendon, 1991)
3. Consider the seductive nature of the “argument culture” and how we can avoid its
limitations and obscuring logic and locutions, especially those related to so-called “debate”
(Tannen, 1998)
4. Explore the relationships among information policy and various information technologies
and trends
5. Identify major stakeholders in information policy and the relationships among them
6. Develop skill in information policy analysis and explore how various disciplines can
contribute to the analysis of public policy
7. Explore a variety of approaches to understanding public policy
8. Become acquainted with print and electronic sources of government information and
government information policy, especially legal information
9. Conduct research related to an information policy area of their choice; although U.S. federal
policy is the focus of the course, students are encouraged to engage information policy issues
at the international, state, and local level as their interests dictate
10. Communicate, in both written and oral form, in a collegial and scholarly atmosphere.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
3
STUDENTS’ COLLABORATION
The instructor encourages collaboration and collegiality among the students enrolled in the
course from the iSchool and elsewhere, and assignments are designed in part to foster
cooperative work among students and across disciplines.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
4
EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE
Students are expected to be involved, creative, and vigorous participants in class discussions and
in the overall conduct of the class. In addition, students are expected to:
•
Attend all class sessions; if a student misses a class, it is her responsibility to arrange with
another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets.
•
Read all material prior to class; students are expected to use the course readings to inform
their classroom participation and their writing. Students must learn to integrate what they
read with what they say and write. This last imperative is essential to the development of
professional expertise and to the development of a collegial professional persona.
•
Educate themselves and their peers. Successful completion of graduate academic programs
and participation in professional life depend upon a willingness to demonstrate initiative and
creativity. Participation in the professional and personal growth of colleagues is essential to
one’s own success as well as theirs. Such collegiality is at the heart of scholarship, so some
assignments are designed to encourage collaboration.

Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour in the classroom; therefore, a 3-credit
graduate hour course requires a minimum of 10-12 hours per week of work outside the
classroom.
•
Participate in all class discussions.
•
Complete all assignments on time; late assignments will not be accepted except in the
particular circumstances noted below. Failure to complete any assignment on time will result
in a failing grade for the course.
•
Be responsible with collective property, especially books and other material on reserve.
•
Ask for help from the instructor or the teaching assistant, either in class, during office hours,
on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate way. Email is especially
appropriate for information questions, but please recall that Doty has limited access to email
outside the office. Unless there are compelling privacy concerns, it is always wise to send a
copy of any email intended for the instructor to the TA as well; she has access to email more
regularly.
Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, will not be tolerated and
will incur severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is concern about behavior
that may be academically dishonest, consult the instructor. Students should refer to the UT
General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and Texas is the Best . . .
HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.
The instructor is happy to provide all appropriate accommodations for students with
documented disabilities. The University’s Office of the Dean of Students at 471.6259, 471.4641
TTY, can provide further information and referrals as necessary.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
5
ANALYSIS AND HOLISM IN READING, WRITING, AND PRESENTING
Students in this class must be analytic in their reading of others' work, in their own writing, and
in their presentations. What follows are suggestions for developing analytic and critical methods
of thinking and communication. These suggestions are also indications of what you should
expect from the writing and speaking of others.
At the same time, however, please remember that a holistic, integrative understanding of context
must always complement depth of analysis.

First and foremost, maximize clarity – be clear, but not simplistic or patronizing.

Remember that writing is a form of thinking, not just a medium to "display" the results of
thinking; make your thinking engaging, reflective, and clear.

Provide enough context for your remarks that your audience can understand them but not so
much that your audience's attention or comprehension is lost.

Be specific.

Avoid jargon, undefined terms, undefined acronyms, colloquialisms, clichés, and vague
language.

Give examples.

Be critical, not dismissive, of others' work; be skeptical, not cynical.

Answer the difficult but important "how?," "why?," and “so what?” questions.

Support assertions with evidence.

Make explicit why evidence used to support an assertion does so.

Identify and explore the specific practical, social, and intellectual implications of courses of
action.

Be evaluative. Synthesize and internalize existing knowledge without losing your own
critical point of view.

Identify the specific criteria against which others' work and options for action will be
assessed.
See the Standards for Written Work and the assignment descriptions in this syllabus for further
explanations and examples.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
6
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK
You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity, clarity, grammar, spelling, and
organization in your written work for this class, and, to that end, I offer the following remarks.
Review these standards both before and after writing; they are used to evaluate your work.
Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what his or her audience knows about the
topic at hand; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. As Wolcott
reminds us in Writing Up Qualitative Research (1990, p. 47): "Address . . . the many who do not
know, not the few who do." It is also important to remember that clarity of ideas, clarity of
language, and clarity of syntax are interrelated and mutually reinforcing.
Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Writing is a form of inquiry, a way to
think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. A vivid example of how
this complex process of composition and thought works is in the unexpurgated version of
Theodore Dreiser’s Sister Carrie (1994, p. 144):
Hurstwood surprised himself with his fluency. By the natural law which governs all effort,
what he wrote reacted upon him. He began to feel those subtleties which he could find
words to express. With every word came increased conception. Those inmost breathings
which thus found words took hold upon him.
We need not adopt Dreiser’s breathless metaphysics or naturalism to understand the point.
All written work for the class must be done on a word-processor and double-spaced, with 1"
margins all the way around and in either 10 or 12 pt. font.
Some writing assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and
references. It is particularly important in professional schools such as the School of Information
that notes and references are impeccably done. Please use APA (American Psychological
Association) standards. There are other standard bibliographic and note formats, for example, in
engineering and law, but social scientists and a growing number of humanists use APA.
Familiarity with standard formats is essential for understanding others' work and for preparing
submissions to journals, funding agencies, professional conferences, and the like. You may also
want to consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.).
Do not use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in
graduate school or in professional writing. If you want to use a reference source to
define a term, use a specialized dictionary such as The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy or
subject-specific encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
The best alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the term
sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature.
Use a standard spell checker on your documents, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries:
do not include most proper nouns, including personal and place names; omit most technical
terms; include few foreign words and phrases; and cannot identify the error in using
homophones, e.g., writing "there" instead of "their,” or in writing "the" instead of "them."
It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in
editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
7
increase clarity. Finally, each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing your
full name, the date, the title of the assignment, and the class number (INF 390N.1). If you have
any questions about these standards, I will be pleased to discuss them with you at any time.
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
8
Remember, every assignment must include a title page with:
•
The title of the assignment
•
Your name
•
The date
•
The class number – INF 390N.1.
Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, I will read
and edit your work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of a technical session
at a professional conference would. The reminders below will help you prepare professional
written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16,
19, 21, and 25 (some have more than one error):
1. Staple all papers for this class in the upper left-hand corner. Do not use covers, binders, or
other means of keeping the pages together.
2. Number all pages after the title page. Notes and references do not count against page limits.
3. Use formal, academic prose. Avoid colloquial language, *you know?* It is essential in
graduate work and in professional communication to avoid failures in diction – be serious
and academic when called for, be informal and relaxed when called for, and be everything in
between as necessary. For this course, avoid words and phrases such as "agenda," "problem
with," "deal with," "handle," "window of," "goes into," "broken down into," "viable," and
"option."
4. Avoid clichés. They are vague, *fail to "push the envelope," and do not provide "relevant
input."*
5. Avoid computer technospeak like "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except
when using such terms in specific technical ways.
6. Avoid using “content” as a noun.
7. Do not use the term "relevant" except in its information retrieval sense. Ordinarily, it is a
colloquial cliché, but it also has a strict technical meaning in information studies.
8. Do not use "quality" as an adjective; it is vague, cliché, and colloquial. Instead use "highquality," "excellent," "superior," or whatever more formal phrase you deem appropriate.
9. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .*
10. Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms
entail major philosophical, epistemological controversy. Avoid terms such as "facts,"
"factual," "proven," and related constructions for similar reasons.
11. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
9
12. Be circumspect in using the term "this," especially in the beginning of a sentence. *THIS* is
often a problem because the referent is unclear. Pay strict attention to providing clear
referents for all pronouns. Especially ensure that pronouns and their referents agree in
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
10
number; e.g., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is
singular, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the referent
or the pronoun must change in number.
13. "If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller."
14. Put "only" in its appropriate place, near the word it modifies. For example, it is appropriate
in spoken English to say that "he only goes to Antone's" when you mean that "the only place
he frequents is Antone's." In written English, however, the sentence should read "he goes
only to Antone's."
15. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad.
16. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will
not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them.
17. Avoid misplaced modifiers; e.g., it is inappropriate to write the following sentence: As
someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, it was important for me to attend the
lecture. The sentence is inappropriate because the phrase "As someone interested in the
history of Mesoamerica" is meant to modify the next immediate word, which should then,
obviously, be both a person and the subject of the sentence. It should modify the word "I" by
preceding it immediately. One good alternative for the sentence is: As someone interested in
the history of Mesoamerica, I was especially eager to attend the lecture.
18. Avoid use of "valid," "parameter," "bias," "reliability," and "paradigm," except in limited
technical ways. These are important research terms and should be used with precision.
19. Remember that the words "data," "media," "criteria," "strata," and "phenomena" are all
PLURAL forms. They *TAKES* plural verbs. If you use any of these plural forms in a
singular construction, e.g., "the data is," you will make the instructor very unhappy :-(.
20. "Number," "many," and "fewer" are used with plural nouns (a number of horses, many
horses, and fewer horses). “Amount," "much," and "less" are used with singular nouns (an
amount of hydrogen, much hydrogen, and less hydrogen). Another useful way to make this
distinction is to recall that "many" is used for countable nouns, while "much" is used for
uncountable nouns.
21. *The passive voice should generally not be used.*
22. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more.
23. Generally avoid the use of honorifics such as Mister, Doctor, Ms., and so on when referring to
persons in your writing, especially when citing their written work. Use last names and dates
as appropriate in APA.
24. There is no generally accepted standard for citing electronic resources. If you cite them, give
an indication, as specifically as possible, of:
- responsibility
- title
- date of creation
(who?)
(what?)
(when?)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
11
- date viewed
- place to find the source
(when?)
(where? how?).
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
12
See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed., pp. 213-214,
231, and 268-281) for a discussion of citing electronic material and useful examples. Also see
Web Extension to American Psychological Association Style (WEAPAS) at
http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE for more guidance.
25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*
26. Citation, quotation, and reference are nouns; cite, quote, and refer to are verbs.
27. Use double quotation marks (“abc.”), not single quotation marks (‘xyz.’), as a matter of
course. Single quotation marks are to be used to indicate quotations within quotations.
28. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page
or other digital source, provide at least the paragraph number and/or other directional cues,
e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”
29. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because.
30. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."
31. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" is used in a technical way to
identify sources of public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to topics
about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT synonymously with general
terms such as "area," "topic," or the like.
32. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.”
33. Avoid the use of “etc.” – it is awkward, colloquial, and vague.
34. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,”
“participants,” and “informants” are preferred and have been for decades.
35. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary, but, if you must use them, use endnotes not
footnotes.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
13
SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS
Symbol
Meaning
#
number OR insert a space; context will help you decipher its meaning
AWK
awkward; and usually compromises clarity as well
BLOCK
make into a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with
quotations ≥ 4 lines
caps
capitalize
COLLOQ
colloquial and to be avoided
dB
database
FRAG
sentence fragment; often that means that the verb and/or subject of the sentence
is missing
ITAL
italicize
j
journal
lc
make into lower case
lib'ship
librarianship
org, org’l
organization, organizational
PL
plural
Q
question
Q’naire
questionnaire
REF?
what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer?
RQ
research question
sp
spelling
SING
singular
w/
with
w.c.?
word choice?
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
14
I also use check marks to indicate that the writer has made an especially good point. Wavy lines
indicate that usage or reasoning is suspect.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
15
GRADING
Grades for this class include:
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CF
Extraordinarily high achievement
Superior
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Barely satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unacceptable and failing.
not recognized by the University
4.00
3.67
3.33
3.00
2.67
2.33
2.00
1.67
0.00.
See the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in
the School of Information student orientation packet for explanations of this system. Consult the
iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/general_info.php) and the Graduate
School Catalogue (e.g., http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad0507/ch1/ch1a.html#Nature.and.Purpose and
http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad0507/ch1/ch1b.html#Student.Responsibility) for more on standards of work. While the University
does not accept the grade of A+, the instructor may assign the grade to students whose work is
extraordinary.
The grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. The instructor
reserves the grade of A for students who demonstrate a command of the concepts and techniques
discussed, have the ability to synthesize and integrate them in a professional manner,
communicate them effectively, and successfully inform the work of other students.
The grade of incomplete (X) is reserved for students in extraordinary circumstances and must be
negotiated with the instructor before the end of the semester. See the former Dean's
memorandum of August 13, 1991, available from the main iSchool office.
I use points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. Points on any assignment are determined
using an arithmetic – not a proportional – algorithm. For example, 14/20 points on an
assignment does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is roughly
equivalent to a B. If any student's semester point total ≥ 90 (is equal to or greater than 90), then
s/he will have earned an A of some kind. If the semester point total ≥ 80, then s/he will have
earned at least a B of some kind. Whether these are A+, A, A-, B+, B, or B- depends upon the
comparison of point totals for all students. For example, if a student earns a total of 90 points and
the highest point total in the class is 98, the student would earn an A-. If, on the other hand, a
student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 91, then the student would earn
an A. This system will be further explained throughout the semester.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
16
TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS
There are five required texts for this class; all can be purchased at the University Coop on
Guadalupe. Many of the other readings are available online, and those readings that are neither
textbooks nor available from online subscriptions are available in the Course Documents section
of the course BlackBoard site. All of the required readings will be on Reserve at PCL.
The required texts are:
Abbate, Janet. (2000). Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Original work published
1999)
Agre, Philip E., & Rotenberg, Marc. (Eds.). (1997). Technology and privacy: The new landscape.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Lapham, Lewis H. (2004). Gag rule: On the suppression of dissent and the stifling of democracy.
New York: Penguin Books.
Lyon, David. (Ed.). (2006b). Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond. Portland, OR:
Willan.
Majchrzak, Ann. (1984). Methods for policy research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
All the texts address political questions and, thus, are inherently controversial and value-laden.
One of the major goals of the course is to help students move beyond the simplistic “here’s my
personal opinion . . .” to a more analytic, historical, and theoretically grounded understanding of
information conflicts and politics. For example, some may see Lapham (2004) as a political
screed. In fact, two of the book’s great strengths are its historical exposition of dissent over 200
years of our polity’s history and Lapham’s fundamental distrust of governmental power. This
last characteristic shows us that reductive and colloquial notions of political left/right and
liberal/conservative are inadequate to give us scholarly perspective on questions of information
policy. Such notions are out of place in this class.
Additional valuable texts include:
Burger, Robert H. (1993). Information policy: A framework for evaluation and policy research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Easton, David. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1987). Federal information policies in the 1980s: Conflicts
and issues. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Hernon, Peter, McClure, Charles R., & Relyea, Harold. (Eds.). (1996). Federal information
policies in the 1990s: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Horwitz, Robert Britt. (1991). The irony of regulatory reform : The deregulation of American
telecommunications. New York: Oxford University.
Lessig, Lawrence. (1999b). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
Lessig, Lawrence. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New
York: Random House.
Lessig, Lawrence. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses [sic] technology and the law to lock
down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin.
McClure, Charles R., & Hernon, Peter. (Eds.). (1989). United States scientific and technical
information policies: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
McClure, Charles R., Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (Eds.). (1989). United States
government information policies: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and
how it threatens creativity. New York: New York University.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
17
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2004). The anarchist in the library: How the clash between freedom and
control is hacking the real world and crashing the system. New York: Basic Books.
BlackBoard and direct email messages will be used to inform students of changes in the course
schedule, discuss assignments, and the like. You will also find Declan McCullagh's mailing list
Politech (http://www.politechbot.com/) especially useful, and you should subscribe to it and
begin reviewing its archives by the second class of the semester.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
18
LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS
The instructor will provide additional information about each assignment. Written assignments
are to be word-processed and double-spaced in 10- or 12-point font, with 1" margins.
Assignments are due in class unless otherwise indicated. GRP indicates a group assignment.
Assignment
Preparation and participation
Date Due
Percent of Grade
-----
10%
Overman & Cahill (1990) (4 pp.)
SEP 25, in class
10
Analysis of Protect America Act of 2007 (6 pp.)
OCT 23, in class
15
Topic for information policy paper GRP or IND
OCT 30, in class
-----
Surveillant assemblage and surveillance theory (6 pp.)
NOV 13, in class
20
Choice of presentation date
NOV 13, in class
-----
Presentation on information policy paper GRP or IND
NOV 27,
DEC 4, in class
-----
Draft of information policy paper
GRP or IND
NOV 27, in class
-----
Review of another team's draft policy paper
(3-4 pp.)
DEC 4, in class
15
Final draft of information policy paper
(20-25 pp.) GRP or IND
DEC 10, MON
3:00 PM
30
All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructor reserves the right to issue a course
grade of F if any assignment is not completed. Late assignments will be accepted only if:
1.
At least 24 hours before the date due, the instructor gives explicit permission to the student to
hand the assignment in late.
2.
At the same time, a specific date and time are agreed upon for the late submission.
3.
The assignment is then submitted on or before the agreed-upon date and time.
The first criterion can be met only in the most serious of health, family, or personal situations.
All of your assignments should adhere to the standards for written work; should be clear,
succinct, and specific; and should be explicitly grounded in the readings, class discussions, and
other sources as appropriate. You will find it particularly useful to write multiple drafts of your
papers.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
19
OUTLINE OF COURSE
Meeting
Date
Topics
Unit 1: Introduction to the Study of Information Policy and the National Information Infrastructure
1
SEP 4
Introduction to the course – Review of the syllabus
Introduction to public policy and information policy
2
SEP 11
Approaches to policy analysis and information policy
3
SEP 18
Locating information policy sources
Modified Final Judgment (MFJ)
1934 Communications Act
1996 Telecommunications Act
4
SEP 25
Introduction to the National Information Infrastructure I:
History of the Internet and other national nets
“Rights talk”
Transcending the “argument culture”
DUE:
5
OCT 2
Overman & Cahill (1990)(4 pp., double-spaced) (10%)
National Information Infrastructure II: Visions, models, and the
so-called “information commons”
Unit 2: Privacy, Surveillance, Freedom of Information, and the Management of Security Information
6
OCT 9
Privacy I – Introduction and overview
History in the U.S.
Public/private spheres – an acceptable model?
1974 Privacy Act – history and context
7
OCT 16
Privacy II – Current controversies and theories
Computer matching and surveillance
USA PATRIOT Act/Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA)
Library and other records
Gendered discussions of privacy: U.S. Supreme Court and
Privacy
8
OCT 23
Surveillance I – Analytics beyond the panopticon
Introduction
The surveillant assemblage
CCTV
Surveillance and totalitarianism
ASIST
DUE:
Analysis of Protect America Act of 2007 (6 pp.) (15%)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
20
9
OCT 30
Surveillance II – Theories in practice
The so-called “war on terror”
Web cams
Surveillance and the body
DUE:
Topic for information policy paper
10
NOV 6
Freedom of Information I – History and post-9/11 questions
General concepts
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
FOIA and electronic information
Classification of information
E.O. 13233 and the secrecy of presidential records
11
NOV 13
Freedom of Information II – “Sensitive but unclassified”
History
Current uses and conflicts
12
NOV 20
DUE:
Surveillant assemblage and surveillance theory (6 pp.)
(20%)
DUE:
Choice of presentation date
Managing security information
Power in information relations
Unit 3: Presentations of Students' Research
13
NOV 27
Policy paper presentations
DUE:
14
DEC 4
Course evaluation
Policy paper presentations
Summary discussion
DUE:
DEC
Draft of information policy paper
10
Review of another team’s draft (3-4 pp.) (15%)
Monday, 3:00 PM
DUE:
Policy paper (20-25 pp.) (30%)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
21
SCHEDULE
The following schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as we progress through the semester.
CD indicates that a reading is in the Course Documents section of the class BlackBoard site.
DATE
TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND REQUIRED READINGS
Unit 1: Introduction to the Study of Information Policy and the National Information Infrastructure
SEP
4
Introduction to the course – Review of the syllabus
Introduction to public policy and information policy
READ: Overman & Cahill (1990) online
Rist (1997) CD
Schön (1993) CD
AS:
SEP
11
Burger (1993), Chapters 1 and 2
Coates (1978)
Approaches to policy analysis and information policy
READ: Dror (1984) CD
Majchrzak (1984), all – and be sure to read the (contested!) Policy
Research Glossary
National Research Council (2000), Appendix D (“Information Economics:
A Primer”) online
AS:
18
Burger (1993), Chapter 6
Doty (2001b)
Dye (1995), Chapters 1, 2, and 13
Lessig (2001), 1-4
Locating information policy sources
Modified Final Judgment (MFJ)
1934 Communications Act
1996 Telecommunications Act
READ: Abbate (2000), Introduction and 1
Aufderheide (1999), 1 CD
Browne (1997a) online
Browne (1997b) online
Doty (1998) CD
Rowlands (1996) CD
Communication Act of 1934/appropriate parts of the USC, passim
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (PL 104-104) (read/retrieve, passim)
AS:
Aufderheide (1999), 2 and 5
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
22
Congressional Research Service (2001)
Hernon et al. (1999), 1, 12, and passim
Horwitz (1991), Preface, 1-4 [skim]
Lessig (2001), 5 and 6
Robinson (1998), 1, 2, and passim
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
23
SEP
25
Introduction to the National Information Infrastructure I: History of the Internet
and other national nets
“Rights talk”
Transcending the “argument culture”
READ: Abbate (2000), 2 and 3
National Research Council (2000), Appendix C (“Networks: How the
Internet Works”) online
NTIA Web site -- http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
OCT
2
AS:
Bertot and McClure (1996)
Glendon (1991), passim
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Web site
Internet Society (ISOC) Web site
Lessig (2001), 7 and 8
McClure and Ryan (1996)
Tannen (1998), passim
DUE:
Essay on Overman & Cahill (1990) (4 pp., double-spaced) (10%)
National Information Infrastructure II: Visions, models, and the so-called
“information commons”
READ: Abbate (2000), 4, 5, and 6
NRENAISSANCE Committee (1994), 4 (“Principles and Practice”)
AS:
DoC NTIA (1993) (retrieve)
GAO (1994)
Lessig (2001), 9 and 10
Unit 2: Privacy, Surveillance, Freedom of Information, and the Management of Security Information
OCT
9
Privacy I – Introduction and overview
History in the U.S.
Public/private spheres – an acceptable model?
1974 Privacy Act – history and context
READ: Agre (1997a)
Agre (1997b)
Burkert (1997)
Fraser (1992)
Warren & Brandeis (1890/1985) online
Privacy Act (5 USC 552a)
AS:
Allen (1995) CD
Gellman (1996a)
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
McGaw (1989)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
24
Relyea (2001)
Raab & Mason (2005)
Rosen (2000) CD
Warren & Dearnley (2005)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
25
OCT
16
Privacy II – Current controversies and theories
Computer matching and surveillance
USA PATRIOT Act/Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
Library and other records
Gendered discussions of privacy: U.S. Supreme Court and Privacy
READ: USA PATRIOT Act (PL 107-56)(retrieve) § 215
Bowers (2006)
Davies (1997)
Relyea (2002) online
Gellman (1997)
Samarajiva (1997)
Regan (2004) online
Seifert & Relyea (2004) online
Strickland (2003) online
AS:
23
ASIST
Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Bailey & Caidi (2005) online
Caidi & Ross (2005) online
Doty (2001a) CD
Gellman (2002) online
Jaeger et al. (2006) online
Lessig (1999b)
Mart (2004)
Minow & Lipinski (2003), 5 (“Library Records and Privacy”)
Stefik (1999b)
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (PL 99-508)(retrieve)
Surveillance I – Analytics beyond the panopticon
Introduction
The surveillant assemblage
CCTV
Surveillance and totalitarianism
READ: Lyon (2006a)
Haggerty (2006)
Haggerty & Ericson (2000) online
Hier et al. (2006)
Los (2006)
DUE:
30
Analysis of Protect America Act of 2007 (6 pp.) (15%)
Surveillance II – Theories in practice
The so-called “war on terror”
Web cams
Surveillance and the body
READ: Elmer & Opel (2006)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
26
Koskela (2006)
Ball (2006)
Gandy (2006)
DUE:
Topic for information policy paper
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
27
NOV
6
Freedom of Information I – History and post-9/11 questions
General concepts
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
FOIA and electronic information
Classification of information
E.O. 13233 and the secrecy of presidential records
READ: Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552, as amended by PL 104-231,
110 Stat. 3048)[see the EPIC Web site as well as the U.S. Code]
E-FOIA [see the EPIC Web site]
E.O. 13233 (“Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act,” 66
FR 214, 56025-56029) online
Barker (2005) online
Feinberg (2004) online
FBI’s FOIA and privacy site (http://foia.fbi.gov/)
Part of the EPIC Web site (http://www.epic.org/open_gov/)
AS:
13
Connors (2002) online
Gaidos (2006) online
Roberts (2004) online
Shuler (2007) online
Freedom of Information II – “Sensitive but unclassified”
History
Current uses and conflicts
READ: Knezo (2004) online
Knezo (2006) online
Taddeo (2006) online
Nov
20
AS:
Cohen (2002) online
Shay (1989) online
DUE:
Surveillant assemblage and surveillance theory (6 pp.) (20%)
DUE:
Choice of presentation date
Managing security information
Power in information relations
READ: Dearstyne (2005) online
Feinberg (2002) online
Fraser (1989) CD
Jaeger & Burnett (2005) online
Seifert (2004) online
AS:
Benoît (2002)
Chen & Xu (2006) online
Davies (2002)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
28
Strickland (2005) online
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
29
Unit 3: Presentations of Students' Research
Nov
27
Policy paper presentations
DUE:
Dec
4
Course evaluation
Policy paper presentations
Summary discussion
DUE:
Dec
10
Draft of information policy paper
Review of another team’s draft (3-4 pp.) (15%)
Monday, 3:00 PM
DUE:
Policy paper (20-25 pp.) (30%)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
30
ASSIGNMENTS
Please consult the sections in this syllabus on (1) Analysis and Holism in Reading, Writing, and
Presenting and (2) Standards for Written Work before and after doing the assignments. I use
those criteria, as well as others, in evaluating your work.
Essay on Overman & Cahill on information policy and values (1990) – Due September 25 (10%)
In this paper, Overman & Cahill (1990) discuss what they regard as the value conflicts at the base
of federal information policy in the United States. Please write an essay 4 double-spaced pages
long replying to question 1 AND either question 2 OR 3 below:
1.
Overman & Cahill identify seven information policy values (pp. 805ff). Do you agree that
these are the primary values in the context of information policy? Why or why not? (2 pp.)
2.
Their Table 2 highlights what they call the normative structure of information policy (p. 811).
What do you make of their distinction between restrictive and distributive perspectives? (2
pp.)
3.
Along with many others, Overman & Cahill assert that U.S. information policy is far from
comprehensive. In fact, they go so far as to say that it is “a marginalist response . . . whereby
successive marginal trade-offs are being made between competing distributive and restrictive
values on a case by case basis” (p. 814). What is your evaluation of their emphasis on the
marginal character of information policy in the United States? (2 pp.)
Please recall that every student must respond to Q1 and only one of either Q2 or Q3. Please be
sure that the paper is analytic, reflective, and specifically grounded in Overman & Cahill and any
other sources used.
Analysis of Protect America Act of 2007 – Due October 23 (15%)
The Protect America Act of 2007 (PL 110-55) was signed into law on August 5, 2007, to amend the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Using the text of the act, President Bush’s press
release statement (Bush, 2007), the fact sheet (Executive Office of the President, 2007), and
Marjorie Cohn’s editorial critiquing the act (Cohn, 2007), please answer the following questions
in six (6) double-spaced pages:
1.
In your opinion, what is the primary rationale for the act presented by its proponents? (2 pp.)
2.
What is Cohn’s critique of the act? (2 pp.)
3.
What is your evaluation of these two positions? (2 pp.)
Each student will write responses of 6 double-spaced pages to these questions. Feel free to use
any other sources you regard as appropriate to help you make your argument in this paper,
whether they are things we have read in class, class discussions, or any other material you regard
as helpful. Be sure to recall that each actor and each organization has its own point of view that
we must regard with care as well as skepticism.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
31
Surveillant assemblage and surveillance theory – Due November 13 (20%)
Scholars and commentators in many disciplines and from many perspectives have reacted to
Kevin Haggerty and Richard Ericson’s paper on the surveillant assemblage (2000). Please use the
essay and other sources you find useful to address the following questions:
1.
What is the surveillant assemblage? What are its theoretical roots? What are its implications
for surveillance practice? (3 pp.)
2.
Using the essays in Theorizing Surveillance, especially David Lyons’ introduction (2006a), and
other readings you consider appropriate, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the
surveillant assemblage as a theory of surveillance? You may want to consider especially the
concept of what they call the “monitored body” (Haggerty & Ericson, 2006, pp. 611-614).
Be wary of accepting any arguments uncritically or unskeptically, whether from Haggerty &
Ericson, Foucault, Deleuze, or anyone else, including me.
Your paper should be 6 double-spaced pages long, as well as sufficiently analytic, holistic, and
grounded in the specifics of the sources you use.
Information Policy Paper – Due various dates
Every student will be a member of a self-selected, two-member research team. The size of the
class may, however, dictate single-student papers. Each two-student team will ideally consist of
students enrolled in different degree programs. The team will write a paper about a U.S. federal,
local, state, or international information policy issue, theme, actor, information service, or agency
of interest to the students. The main goals of this assignment are to (1) identify a difficulty in
government information policy (often an issue, i.e., an area of contention and dissensus) of
interest to the students, (2) explain the topic and its context clearly and thoroughly, and (3)
offer well-founded, clearly described recommendations to resolve any conflicts among
actors and the implications of implementing those recommendations. See the description of the
paper below for more information.
Topic – Each team will clear the proposed topic with the instructor by October 30. In
addition to your own knowledge and acquaintance with information policy issues, you may find
a number of resources of value to you in identifying a topic for your paper: discussion with the
instructor and your colleagues (both inside and outside of the class), reading ahead in the
syllabus to identify upcoming topics, the mass media, class readings and all the sources in the
syllabus, Web and other Internet sources, and the bibliographies of what you read.
Draft – Due November 27. Each team will submit a draft of the information policy paper
on November 27. The draft will consist of the same parts as the final draft of the paper described
below. Submit two or three copies of this draft – one for each student peer editor and one for the
instructor.
Review of another student team's draft of the paper – Due December 4 (15%). Each
individual student will review the draft of one other student team and submit two or three copies
of a three- to four-page, double-spaced review of the paper: one to each student who wrote the
draft and one to the instructor. Be specific in your critique – what works in the draft? What does
not? Why or why not? What specific suggestions can you offer for improvement to the paper,
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
32
whether about the topic, the argument, definitions, sources, composition, citations, lay-out, and
so on? Each student must offer recommendations in the spirit of engaged critique, not dismissive
cynicism.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
33
Presentation – November 27 and December 4. The students in each team will make a
25-30 minute oral presentation on the subject of their paper. Each student will do roughly half of
the presentation. While the presentation will be informal and ungraded, you should plan to use
visuals and handouts as appropriate; both Wintel and Mac computers will be available, as will an
Internet connection and a LitePro. Each student peer editor will act as respondent to another
student team's presentation. The dates for the presentations are November 27 and December 4.
Please notify the instructor of your preference for presentation dates no later than Tuesday,
November 13.
Final draft – Due Monday, December 10, 3:00 PM (30%). This is a final paper of 20-25
double-spaced pages that considers any approved topic in government information policy. Your
paper should focus on analysis and contextualization. Remember to look at the syllabus section
on Analysis and Holism in Reading, Writing, and Presenting as well as the section on Standards
for Written Work. Put two copies of your policy paper in the instructor’s box in the iSchool main
office, SZB 564 no later than 3:00 PM on Monday, December 10.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
34
SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING POLICY ANALYSIS
This section of the syllabus offers three general, interrelated models for doing policy analysis and
then writing policy reports, beyond that offered in Majchrzak (1984). You can use these models
to guide your own writing as your study of policy and policy analysis progresses beyond this
semester. The models are also useful for evaluating the work of others. Such evaluations are
common in policy studies, whether for critique, literature review, or formal peer review. Policy
analysts constantly review each other’s work in a collegial but rigorous way.
The first model is based on one offered by Charles R. McClure, with my own modifications
added. Other analysts and topics may demand different approaches:
•
Abstract
•
Introduction
Importance of specific topic
Definition of key terms
Key stakeholders
Key policy areas needing analysis and resolution
•
Overview of current knowledge
Evaluative review of the literature about the topic, including print and electronic sources
•
Existing policy instruments related to the topic
The most important legislative, judicial, and regulatory policy instruments
Ambiguities, conflicts, problems, and contradictions related to the instruments
•
Key issues
Underlying assumptions
Effects on and roles of key stakeholders
Conflicts among key values
Implications of issues
•
Conclusions and recommendations
Recommendations
Rationale for recommendations
Implications and possible outcomes of specific courses of action
•
References
APA style
All sources cited in the paper.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
35
Bardach (2000) is the source for the second approach to doing policy analysis, and he identifies
eight steps in policy analysis. In a way reminiscent of Majchrzak (1984), Bardach focuses the first
two thirds of his book A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective
Problem Solving on this “eightfold path” (using his words):

Define the problem

Assemble some evidence

Construct the alternatives (for action)

Select the criteria

Project the outcomes

Confront the trade-offs

Decide!

Tell your story.
Despite his somewhat misplaced emphasis on problem solving (see, e.g., Schön, 1993) and the
implicit linearity he ascribes to policy analysis, his book is very useful for understanding the
importance of (1) narrative in the process of policy analysis, (2) iteration in analysis, and (3)
clarity in argumentation. Bardach also gives some important insights into the contributions of
econometric analysis to policy studies.
The third model is based primarily on the work of William Dunn, with contributions from the
work of Ray Rist on qualitative policy research methods, Emery Roe on narrative policy analysis,
and Donald Schön on generative metaphor. I avoid the rhetoric of problems and problem
solving deliberately; see, e.g., Doty (2001b).
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
36
Elements of the policy issue paper (adapted from Dunn, 1994, with material from Rist, 1994;
Roe, 1994; and Schön, 1993)
Element
Examples of Evaluative Criteria
Executive summary
Are recommendations highlighted?
Background of the issue or dilemma
Are all the important terms clearly defined?
Description of the social dilemma
Outcomes of earlier efforts to address the
dilemma
Are all appropriate dimensions described?
Are prior efforts clearly assessed?
Scope and severity of the conflict
Assessment of past policy efforts
Significance of the conflict
Need for analysis
Why is the social conflict important?
What are the major assumptions and questions
to be considered?
Issue statement
Definition of the issue
Major stakeholders
Goals and objectives
Measures of effectiveness
Potential “solutions” or new understandings
Is the issue clearly stated?
Are all major stakeholders identified and
prioritized?
Is the approach to analysis clearly specified?
Are goals and objectives clearly specified?
Are major value conflicts identified and
described?
Policy alternatives
Description of alternatives
Comparison of future outcomes
Externalities
Constraints and political feasibility
Are alternatives compared in terms of costs and
effectiveness?
Are alternatives systematically compared in
terms of political feasibility?
Policy recommendations
Criteria for recommending alternatives
Descriptions of preferred alternative(s)
Outline of implementation strategy
Limitations and possible unanticipated
outcomes
Are all relevant criteria clearly specified?
Is a strategy for implementation clearly
specified?
Are there adequate provisions for monitoring
and evaluating policies, particularly
unintended consequences?
References
Appendices
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
37
REFERENCES
Many required readings are available online, as indicated below and in the class schedule. Some of
the course readings are in the Course Documents section of the BlackBoard site (CD).
Some of the readings, on the other hand, require you to be logged in with your UT EID through the
UT libraries. Those journals are usually available online for only part of their publication run;
further, UT often has more than one arrangement through which to get these journals online, so
there may be more than one URL for each journal. Feel free to explore the various online journal
packages – the more familiar you are with such arrangements, the better researcher you will be.
I.
References in the schedule and assignments
Abbate, Janet. (2000). Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Original work published
1999)
Agre, Philip E. (1997a). Introduction. In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and
privacy: The new landscape (pp. 1-28). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Agre, Philip E. (1997b). Beyond the mirror world: Privacy and the representational practices of
computing. In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape
(pp. 29-61). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Agre, Philip E., & Rotenberg, Marc. (Eds.). (1997). Technology and privacy: The new landscape.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Allen, David S. (1995). The Supreme Court and the creation of an (in)active public sphere. In
David S. Allen & Robert Jensen (Eds.), Freeing the first amendment: Critical perspectives on freedom of
expression (pp. 93-113). New York: New York University. CD
Aufderheide, Patricia. (1999). Background. In Communications policy and the public interest: The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Chapter 1, pp. 5-36). New York: Guilford. CD
Bailey, Stuart G.M., & Caidi, Nadia. (2005). How much is too little? Privacy and smart cards in
Hong Kong and Ontario. Journal of Information Science, 31(5), 354-364. Also available at
http://jis.sagepub.com/content/vol31/issue5/
Ball, Kirstie. (2006). Organization, surveillance and the body: Towards a politics of resistance.
In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 296-317). Portland,
OR: Willan.
Bardach, Eugene. (2000). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective
problem solving. New York: Chatham House.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
38
Barker, Anne N. (2005). Executive Order no. 13,233: A threat to government accountability.
Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 4-19. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4FH03P22&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AZ-MsSWYVW-UUA-U-AACEAWYDYVAACZDUECYV-YZYBDDUD-AZU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=3&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232005%23999779998%23575912!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=b273ac650c360900509ddfef71a2ef9c
Bowers, Stacey L. (2006). Privacy and library records. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(4),
377-383. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/science//journal/00991333
Browne, Mairéad. (1997a). The field of information policy: 1. Fundamental concepts. Journal of
Information Science, 23(4), 261-275. Also available at
http://jis.sagepub.com/content/vol23/issue4/
Browne, Mairéad. (1997b). The field of information policy: 2. Redefining the boundaries and
methodologies. Journal of Information Science, 23(5), 339-351. Also available at
http://jis.sagepub.com/content/vol23/issue5/
Burkert, Herbert. (1997). Privacy-enhancing technologies: Typology, critique, vision. In Philip E.
Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 125-142).
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bush, George W. (2007). President Bush commends Congress on passage of intelligence
legislation. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070805.html
Caidi, Nadia, & Ross, Anthony. (2005). Information rights and national security. Government
Information Quarterly, 22(4), 663-684. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4HX47DX1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-WV-MsSAYZW-UUA-U-AACEUAUDVAAACZCEACVA-YBWWDVCA-WVU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=8&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232005%23999779995%23619639!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=aa2b680ee456d27e9df52b728c90581d
Chen, Hsinchun, & Xu, Jennifer. (2006). Intelligence and security informatics. In Blaise Cronin
(Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (vol. 40, pp. 229-289). Also available at
http://ai.arizona.edu/go/intranet/papers/Intelligence_and_Security_Informatics.pdf
Cohn, Marjorie. (2007). FISA revised: A blank check for domestic spying. Jurist: Legal News and
Research. Available at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/08/fisa-revised-blank-check-fordomestic.php
Davies, Simon G. (1997). Re-engineering the right to privacy: How privacy has been transformed
for a right to a commodity. In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The
new landscape (pp. 143-165). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Dearstyne, Bruce W. (2005). Fighting terrorism, making war: Critical insights in the
management of information and intelligence. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 170-186.
Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4GCopyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
39
4FR4BY0-1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-WA-MsSWYWW-UUW-U-AACEAWYDZVAACZDUECZV-YZYBZEYV-WAU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=6&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232005%23999779997%23599273!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=2d68151353f796ca111abd9cc30abf54
Doty, Philip. (1998). Why study information policy? Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 39(1), 58-64. CD
Doty, Philip. (2001a). Digital privacy: Toward a new politics and discursive practice. In Martha
E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 115-245).
Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD
Dreiser, Theodore. (1994). Sister Carrie (John C. Berkey, Alice M. Winters, James L.W. West, &
Neda M. Westlake, eds.). New York: Penguin Books. (Original published 1900, 1981)
Dror, Yehezkel. (1984). On becoming more of a policy scientist. Policy Studies Review, 4(1), 13-21.
CD
Dunn, William N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Easton, David. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Elmer, Greg, & Opel, Andy. (2006). Pre-empting panoptic surveillance: Surviving the inevitable
war on terror. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 139159). Portland, OR: Willan.
Executive Office of the President. Office of the Press Secretary. (2007). Fact sheet: The Protect
America Act of 2007. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070806-5.html
Feinberg, Lotte E. (2002). Homeland security: Implications for information policy and practice –
First appraisal. Government Information Quarterly, 19(3), 265-288. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-46F6FS25&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AB-MsSAYWA-UUW-U-AACYEYDZCWAACZCZYVCW-YWCEZCUE-ABU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=5&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232002%23999809996%23330024!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=bae9483fd0c11c8aa27991d0a7bed77b
Feinberg, Lotte E. (2004). FOIA, federal information policy, and information availability in a
post-9/11 world. Government Information Quarterly, 21(4), 439-460. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4DN9TWB1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AW-MsSWYVW-UUW-U-AACEUVWZDEAACZZWBVDE-YVCWZYAZ-AWU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=5&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232004%23999789995%23535674!&_cdi=6542&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_u
serid=108429&md5=e35d15793ff5186be7f9cd0bb2442648
Firestone, Charles M., & Schement, Jorge Reina. (Eds.). (1995). Toward an information Bill of
Rights & Responsibilities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
40
Fraser, Nancy. (1989). Foucault on modern power: Empirical insights and normative
confusions. In Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory (pp. 1734). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. CD
Fraser, Nancy. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually
existing democracy. In Craig Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109-142).
Cambridge, MA: MIT. CD
Gandy, Oscar H. (2006). Quixotics unite! Engaging the pragmatists on rational discrimination.
In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 318-336). Portland,
OR: Willan.
Gellman, Robert. (1997). Does privacy law work? In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.),
Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 193-219). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Gellman, Robert. (2002). Perspectives on privacy and terrorism: All is not lost – yet. Government
Information Quarterly, 19(3), 255-264. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6542&_auth=y&_acct=C0000043
78&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7ca77beaef49608d529efd76eaebec91&chu
nk=19#19
Glendon, Mary Ann. (1991). Rights talk: The impoverishment of political discourse. New York: The
Free Press.
Haggerty, Kevin D. (2006). Tear down the walls: On demolishing the panopticon. In David
Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 23-45). Portland, OR: Willan.
Haggerty, Kevin D., & Ericson, Richard V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. British Journal of
Sociology, 51(4), 605-622. Also available at http://www.blackwellsynergy.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/toc/bjos/51/4
Hier, Sean P., Walby, Kevin, & Greenberg, Josh. (2006). Supplementing the panoptic paradigm:
Surveillance, moral governance and CCTV. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The
panopticon and beyond (pp. 230-244). Portland, OR: Willan.
Horwitz, Robert Britt. (1991). The irony of regulatory reform : The deregulation of American
telecommunications. New York: Oxford University.
Jaeger, Paul T., Bertot, John Carlo, McClure, Charles R., & Langa, Lesley A. (2006). The policy
implications of Internet connectivity in public libraries. Government Information Quarterly, 23(1),
123-141. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4HVDN5S1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-WB-MsSAYZA-UUW-U-AACEUUDEBWAACZCYYDBW-YBAWDWWV-WBU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=13&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542
%232006%23999769998%23624433!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVer
sion=0&_userid=108429&md5=09eb0a1f319fbc55ec3d7f1777e4d60e
Jaeger, Paul T., & Burnett, Gary. (2005). Information access and exchange among small worlds in
a democratic society: The role of policy in shaping information behavior in the post-9/11 United
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
41
States. Library Quarterly, 75(4), 464-495. Also available at
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/LQ/journal/contents/v75n4.html
Knezo, Genevieve J. (2004). “Sensitive but unclassified” and other federal security controls on scientific
and technical information: History and current controversy. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service. Also available at http://www.thememoryhole.org/crs/morereports/RL31845.pdf
Knezo, Genevieve J. (2006). “Sensitive but unclassified” information and other controls: Policy and
options for scientific and technical information. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Also available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL33303.pdf
Koskela, Hille. (2006). “The other side of surveillance”: Webcams, power and agency. In David
Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 163-181). Portland, OR: Willan.
Lapham, Lewis H. (2004). Gag rule: On the suppression of dissent and the stifling of democracy. New
York: Penguin Books.
Lessig, Lawrence. (2001). Controlling the wires (and hence the content layer). In The future of
ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world (Chapter 11, pp. 177-217 and 311-324). New
York: Random House.
Los, Maria. (2006). Looking into the future: Surveillance, globalization and the totalitarian
potential. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 69-94).
Portland, OR: Willan.
Lyon, David. (2006a). The search for surveillance theories. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing
surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 3-20). Portland, OR: Willan.
Lyon, David. (Ed.). (2006b). Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond. Portland, OR:
Willan.
Majchrzak, Ann. (1984). Methods for policy research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
National Research Council. Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging
Information Infrastructure. (2000). The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age.
Washington, DC: National Academy. Available at
http://www.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/
NRENAISSANCE Committee. Computer Science and Technology Board. Commission on
Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications. National Research Council. (1994). Principles
and practice. In Realizing the information future: The Internet and beyond (Chapter 4, pp. 148-171).
Washington, DC: National Academy. Available at
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/rtif/toc/chapter4/
Overman, E. Sam, & Cahill, Anthony G. (1990). Information policy: A study of values in the
policy process. Policy Studies Review, 9(4), 803-818. Also available at
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=7&sid=6a0603377d4a-4f93-af21-e31e3ca055d8%40SRCSM1
Protect America Act of 2007. (2007). Available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01927:
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
42
Regan, Priscilla M. (2004). Old issues, new context: Privacy, information collection, and
homeland security. Government Information Quarterly, 21(4), 481-497. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4DKD4V51&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AW-MsSWYVW-UUW-U-AACEUVWZDEAACZZWBVDE-YVCWZYAZ-AWU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=7&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232004%23999789995%23535674!&_cdi=6542&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_u
serid=108429&md5=94f83ec4b698690bba93f2a2ecd2f0d9
Relyea, Harold C. (2002). Homeland security and information. Government Information Quarterly,
19(3), 213-223. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6542&_auth=y&_acct=C0000043
78&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7ca77beaef49608d529efd76eaebec91&chu
nk=19#19
Rist, Ray C. (1997). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In Norman K.
Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1001-1016).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. CD
Roberts, Alasdair. (2004). ORCON creep: Information sharing and the threat to government
accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 21(3), 249-267. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4CJVKR21&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AB-MsSAYZW-UUA-U-AACEABUZAEAACZDAAVAE-YZEUEBZD-ABU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232004%23999789996%23513371!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=48f431962284e9baa6411d8f968c0152
Roe, Emery. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Rosen, Jeffrey. (2000). Epilogue: What is privacy good for? In The unwanted gaze: The destruction
of privacy in America (pp. 196-234 and 257-260). Random House: New York. CD
Rowlands, Ian. (1996). Understanding information policy: Concepts, frameworks and research
tools. Journal of Information Science, 22(1), 13-25. CD
Samarajiva, Rohan. (1997). Interactivity as though privacy mattered. In Philip E. Agre & Marc
Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 277-309). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Schön, Donald A. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social
policy. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 137-163). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University. CD
Seifert, Jeffrey W. (2004). Data mining and the search for security: Challenges for connecting the
dots and databases. Government Information Quarterly, 21(4), 461-480. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4DN9TWB2&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AW-MsSWYVW-UUW-U-AACEUVWZDEAACZZWBVDE-YVCWZYAZ-AWU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=6&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232004%23999789995%23535674!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=7fd885761e616d3f622c346afbc4659e
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
43
Seifert, Jeffrey W., & Relyea, Harold C. (2004). Do you know where your information is in the
homeland security era? Government Information Quarterly, 21(4), 399-405. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4DNB4YM1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AW-MsSWYVW-UUW-U-AACEUVWZDEAACZZWBVDE-YVCWZYAZ-AWU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=2&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232004%23999789995%23535674!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=41ec58c673af7d0953466ef0cd54b380
Shay, Lisa A. (1989). The great debate over unclassified information: National security versus
scientific freedom. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(3), 139-148. Also available
at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=1989&isnumber=1372&Submit32=Go+To+Is
sues
Strickland, Lee S. (2003). Civil liberties vs. intelligence collection: The secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court speaks in public. Government Information Quarterly, 20(1), 1-12. Also
available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4805BSD1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-Z-MsSAYWA-UUW-U-AACEABAUVZAACZDAAYVZ-YZEWCDAU-ZU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232003%23999799998%23393133!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=415c6c0601f1fb3d8e8499fce9fe8b29
Taddeo, Laura. (2006). Information access post September 11: What librarians need to know.
Library Philosophy and Practice, 9(1). Available at
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/lpp.htm
Tannen, Deborah. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York:
Random House.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it
threatens creativity. New York: New York University.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2004). The anarchist in the library: How the clash between freedom and control
is hacking the real world and crashing the system. New York: Basic Books.
Warren, Samuel D., & Brandeis, Louis D. (1985). The right to privacy. In Deborah G. Johnson &
John W. Snapper (Eds.), Ethical issues in the use of computers (pp. 172-183). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing. (Original work published 1890) Also available at
http://www.estig.ipbeja.pt/~ac_direito/privacy.pdf
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
44
II. Selected U.S. Supreme Court and other federal cases
American Library Association and Civil Action Inc., et al. v. United States, et al. (No. 01-1303IN);
Multnomah County Public Library, et al. and Civil Action Inc. v. United States, et al. (No. 01-1322)
(United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia) [May 2002}
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0415P.HTM [be sure to see U.S. v. ALA
et al., 2003, the Supreme Court CIPA case]
American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. Reno, American Library Association et al. v. United States
Department of Justice et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
Philadelphia) 929 F. Supp. 824, 830-849 (ED Pa. [June] 1996)
http://www.ciec.org/decision_PA/decision_text.html
American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia et al. v. Zell Miller et al. 1:96-cv-2475-MHS (United States
District Court Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta) {June 1997]
http://www.aclu.org/court/aclugavmiller.html
American Library Association et al. v. Pataki (United States District Court Southern District of New
York in Manhattan) 97 Civ. 0222 (LAP) [June 1997]
http://www.aclu.org/court/nycdadec.html
American Library Association and Civil Action Inc., et al. v. United States, et al. (No. 01-1303IN);
Multnomah County Public Library, et al. and Civil Action Inc. v. United States, et al. (No. 01-1322)
(United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia) [May 2002}
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0415P.HTM [be sure to see U.S. v. ALA
et al., 2003, the Supreme Court CIPA case]
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc. (2nd Circuit) 60 F.3d 913 (1994)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/60_F3d_913.htm
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union 535 U.S. (2001a) [majority opinion]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-1293P.ZO
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union 535 U.S. (2001b) [dissent]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-1293P.ZD
Ashcroft, et al. v. Free Speech Coalition, et al. (00-795) 198 F.3d 1083, affirmed.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
Basic Books et al v. Kinko’s Graphics (United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in Manhattan) 758 F. Supp. 1522 (1991)
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/basicbooks.html
Church of Scientology v. U.S. 506 U.S. 9 (1992)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-946.ZO.html
Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft (case determining the constitutionality of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
Extension Act) 537 U.S. xx (2003) [the page number will be determined when the volume is
printed]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html [Ginsburg’s majority opinion, Stevens’
dissent, and Breyer’s dissent can all be found there]
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
45
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/499us340.htm
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/381us479.htm
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgibin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+389+u!2Es!2E+347!3A]^[group+citemenu!3A]^[level+ca
se+citation!3A]^[group+notes!3A]/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?
Lochner v. New York 98 U.S. 45 (1905)
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgibin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5BGroup+198+U.S.+45:%5D(%5BLevel+Case+Citation:%5D
%7C%5BGroup+citemenu:%5D)/doc/%7B@1%7D/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only
New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001a) [majority opinion]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-201.ZS.html
New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001b) [dissent]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZD
Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgibin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+277+u!2Es!2E+438!3A]^[group+citemenu!3A]^[level+ca
se+citation!3A]^[group+notes!3A]/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?
Reno et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
http://www.cyber-rights.org/censorship/acludecf.htm
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-line Communication Services, et al. 907 F. Supp. 1361
(1995) (United States District Court for the Northern District of California)
http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/netcom.txt
Religious Technology Center v. Lerma 908 F. Supp. 1362 (1995) (United States District Court of the
Eastern District of Virginia)
http://gozips.uakron.edu/~dratler/cyberlaw/materials/rtclerma.htm
Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.N.E.T., et al. 907 F. Supp. 1468 (1995) (United States District
Court for the District of Colorado)
http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/rtc-fact.html
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=118&page=394
Sony Corp., et al. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., et al. 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=464&invol=417
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corporation of America 480 F. Supp. 429, 432 (United States
District Court for Central California) (1979)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
46
United States v. ALA et al. [Children’s Internet Protection Act case] 537 U.S. xx (2003) [read the
majority opinion by Rehnquist, the two concurring opinions by Kennedy and Breyer, and the two
dissenting opinions by Stevens and Souter]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02361 [and see ALA et al. V. U.S. et al. and the Multnomah district court decision above]
III. "Reference" Texts
Abrahamson, Jeffrey B., Arterton, F. Christopher, & Orren, Gary R. (1988). The electronic
commonwealth: The impact of new media technologies on democratic politics. New York: BasicBooks.
Abrams, Floyd. (2005). Speaking freely: Trials of the First Amendment. New York: Viking.
Allen, David S. (1995). The Supreme Court and the creation of an (in)active public sphere. In
David S. Allen & Robert Jensen (Eds.), Freeing the First Amendment: Critical perspectives on freedom
of expression (pp. 93-113). New York: New York University.
Allen, David S., & Jensen, Robert. (Eds.). (1995). Freeing the First Amendment: Critical perspectives
on freedom of expression. New York: New York University.
Alternatives for restructuring the Depository Library Program. (1995, December 5).
Administrative Notes, 16, 23-59.
American Library Association. Commission on Freedom and Equality of Access to Information.
(1986). Freedom and equality of access to information. Chicago: American Library Association.
American Library Association. (2001a). UCITA (the Uniform Computer Information
Transactions Act): Concerns for libraries and the public.
http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/index.html
American Library Association. (2001b). UCITA 101: What you should know about the Uniform
Computer Information Transactions Act. http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/ucita101.html
American Library Association. (2001c). Problems with a non-negotiated contract.
http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/contract.html
Andersen, David F., & Dawes, Sharon S. (1991). Government information management: A primer
and casebook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Archives and electronic records. (1993). Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science,
20(1).
Aufderheide, Patricia. (1999). The shaping of the 1996 Act. Chapter 2 in Communications policy
and the public interest: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (pp. 37-60). New York: Guilford.
Aufderheide, Patricia. (1999). The public interest beyond the Act. Chapter 5 in Communications
policy and the public interest: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (pp. 104-109). New York: Guilford.
Ballard, Steven C., Brosz, Allyn R., & Parker, Larry B. (1981). Social science and social policy:
Roles of the applied researcher. In John G. Grumm & Stephen L. Wasby (Eds.), The analysis of
policy impact (pp. 179-188). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
47
Bender, David R., Kadec, Sarah T., & Morton, Sandy I. (1991). National information policies:
Strategies for the future. SLA [Special Libraries Association] Occasional Papers Series, Number 2.
Special Libraries Association.
Benedikt, Michael. (Ed.). (1991). Cyberspace: First steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bennett, Colin, & Grant, Rebecca. (Eds.). (1999). Visions of privacy: Policy choices for the digital age.
Toronto: University of Toronto.
Bennett, Tony. (1992). Putting policy into cultural studies. In Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson,
& Paula Treicher (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 23-37). New York: Routledge.
Benoît, Gerald. (2002). Data mining. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science
and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 265-310). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Berners-Lee, Tim. (1999). Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World
Wide Web by its inventor. San Francisco: Harper.
Bertot, John Carlo, & McClure, Charles R. (1996). The Clinton administration and the National
Information Infrastructure (NII). In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea
(Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 19-44). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bertot, John Carlo, McClure, Charles R., Ryan, Joe, & Beachboard, John. (1996). Federal
Information Resource Management: Integrating information and technology. In Peter Hernon,
Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 105135). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Black's law dictionary (7th ed.) (1999). St. Paul, MN: West.
http://www.palkauf.com/tools/black's_law_dictionary.htm
Blacksburg Electronic Village. (1994). Vision Statement. Blacksburg, VA: Author.
Boyle, James. (1996). Shamans, software, & spleens: Law and the construction of the information
society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Branscomb, Anne Wells. (1994). Who owns information? From privacy to public access. New York:
BasicBooks.
Braunstein, Yale M. (1981). The functioning of information markets. In Jane H. Yurow and
Helen A. Shaw (Eds.), Issues in information policy (pp. 57-74). Washington, DC: National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brin, David. (1998). The transparent society: Will technology force us to choose between privacy and
freedom? Reading, MN: Perseus.
Bromley, Daniel W. (Ed.). (1992). Making the commons work: Theory, practice, and policy. San
Francisco: ICS Press.
Brucker, Herbert. (1949). Freedom of information. New York: Macmillan.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
48
Brush, Stephen B. (1993). Indigenous knowledge of biological resources and intellectual
property rights: The role of anthropology. American Anthropologist, 95(3), pp. 653-686.
Burger, Robert H. (1993). Information policy: A framework for evaluation and policy research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Buttler, Dwayne K., & Crews, Kenneth D. (2002). Copyright protection and technological reform
of library services: Digital change, practical applications, and congressional action. In
Tomas A. Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical challenges in the
new information era (pp. 257-274). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Carey, James W. (1988). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin
Hyman. Especially the Introduction, pp. 1-9.
Cavazos, Edward A., & Morin, Gavino. (1994). Cyberspace and the law: Your rights and duties in the
on-line world. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Chartrand, Robert. (1986). Legislating information policy. Bulletin of the American Society for
Information Science, 12(5), 10.
Christians, Clifford. (1989). A theory of normative technology. In Edmund F. Byrne & Joseph V.
Pitt (Eds.), Technological transformation: Contextual and conceptual implications (pp. 123-139).
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Christians, Clifford. (1995). The problem of universals in communication ethics. The Public, 2(2),
59-69.
Christians, Clifford G., & Hammond, Leon. (1986). Social justice and a community information
utility. Communication, 9(2), 127-149.
Civille, Richard. (1995). The Internet and the poor. In Brian Kahin (Ed.), Public access to the
Internet (pp. 175-207). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Coates, Joseph F. (1978). What is a public policy issue? In Kenneth R. Hammond (Ed.),
Judgment and decision in public policy formation (pp. 33-69). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Cohen, Mark A. (2002). Transparency after 9/11: Balancing the “right-to-know” with the need
for security. Available at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/vcems/papers/post9-11.pdf
Connors, Thomas James. (2002). Papers of the president or of the presidency: Who owns
presidential records? Some recent history and a challenge. portals: Libraries and the Academy, 2(4),
653-657. Also available at
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v002/2.4connors.pdf
Considine, Mark. (1994). Public policy: A critical approach. South Melbourne, Australia:
Macmillan.
Cook, Terry. (1995). It's 10 o'clock: Do you know where your data are? Technology Review, 98(1),
48-53. Also available: www: http://www.techreview.com/articles/dec94/cook.html
Cox, Allan B. (1995, July). An overview of geographic information systems. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 21(4), 237-249.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
49
Crapanzano, Vincent. (2000). Serving the word: Literalism in America from the pulpit to the bench.
New York: The New Press.
Crawford, Rick. (1996). Computer-assisted crises. In George Gerbner, Hamid Mowlana, &
Herbert I. Schiller (Eds.), Invisible crises: What conglomerate control of media means for America and the
world (pp. 47-81). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Crews, Kenneth D. (1995). Copyright law and information policy planning: Public rights of use
in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Government Information, 22(2), 87-99.
Cross, Harold L. (1953). The people's right to know: Legal access to public records and proceedings.
New York: Columbia University.
Dam, Kenneth W., & Lin, Herbert S. (Eds.). (1996). Cryptography's role in securing the information
society. Committee to Study National Cryptography Policy, National Research Council. Washington,
DC: National Academy.
Davies, Philip H.J. (2002). Intelligence, information technology, and information warfare. In
Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 313-352).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
de Leon, Peter. (1993). Democracy and the policy sciences: Aspirations and operations. Policy
Studies Journal, 22(21), 200-212.
de Leon, Peter. (1994). Reinventing the policy sciences: Three steps back to the future. Policy
Sciences, 27(1), 77-95.
Denning, Dorothy E., & Lin, Herbert S. (Eds.). (1994). Rights and responsibilities of participants in
networked communities. Steering Committee on Rights and Responsibilities of Participants in
Networked Communities; Computer Science and Technology Board; Commission on Physical
Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications; National Research Council. Washington, DC: National
Academy.
Dervin, Brenda. (1994). Information <---> democracy: An examination of underlying
assumptions. In Leah A. Lievrouw (Ed.), Information resources and democracy [Special issue]
(pp. 369-385). Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6).
Dizard, Wilson. (1989). The coming information age: An overview of technology, economics, and
politics (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
Dizard, Wilson. (1994). Old media, new media: Mass communications in the Information Age. New
York: Longman.
Dobuzinskis, Laurent. (1992). Modernist and postmodernist metaphors of the policy process:
Control and stability vs. chaos and reflexive understanding. Policy Sciences, 25(4), 355-380.
Doctor, Ronald. (1994). Seeking equity in the National Information Infrastructure. Internet
Research, 4(3), 9-22.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
50
Doty, Philip. (2001b). Policy analysis and networked information: “There are eight million
stories . . . .” In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information
services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 213-253). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Du, Jia, Jiang, Tingting, & Ma, Feicheng. (2004). An evaluation of the construction of information
laws and regulations in China with recommendations for improvement. Journal of Information
Science, 30(4), 321-336.
Dye, Thomas R. (1995). Understanding public policy (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Eisenbeis, Kathleen M. (1995). Privatizing government information: The effects of policy on access to
LANDSAT satellite data. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.
Eisenschitz, Tamara S. (1993). Information transfer policy: Issues of control and access. London:
Library Association Publishing.
Feyerabend, Paul. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London: Verso.
Flamm, Kenneth. (1987). Targeting the computer: Government support and international competition.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Flamm, Kenneth. (1988). Creating the computer: Government, industry and high technology.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Fraser, Nancy. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Forester, Tom, & Morrison, Perry. (1994). Computer ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Freedman, Warren. (1987). The right of privacy in the computer age. New York: Quorum Books.
Friedman, Neal J., & Richards, Robert D. (1994). Communications law: Regulation of the electronic
mass media. Author.
Gaidos, Katherine. (2006). Access to vice presidential records in the aftermath of Executive
Order 13,233: From haphazard past to uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly, 24(1),
2-28. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/science//journal/0740624X
Gandy, Oscar. (1993). The panoptic sort: A personal economy of personal information. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Gandy, Oscar. (1996). Coming to terms with the panoptic sort. In David Lyon & Elia Zuriek
(Eds.), Computers, surveillance, & privacy (pp. 132-155). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota.
Gellman, Robert. (1996a). Privacy. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea
(Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 137-163). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gellman, Robert. (1996b). The new EFOIA law: One person's view. Email communication.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
51
Gilroy, Angele A. (1995, July). Telecommunications regulatory reform. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 21(4), 309-315.
Ginsburg, Jane C. (1993). Copyright without walls?: Speculations on literary property in the
library of the future. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 53-73).
Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Goldman, Alvin I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Grossman, Lawrence R. (1995). The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the electronic age.
New York: Viking.
Grumm, John G., & Wasby, Stephen L. (1981). The analysis of policy impact. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath.
Guba, Egon G. (1984). The effects of definitions of policy on the nature and outcomes of policy
analysis. Educational Leadership, 42(2), 63-70.
Habermas, Jürgen. (1991). The structural transformation of the pubic sphere: An inquiry into a
category of bourgeois society (trans. Thomas Burger & Friedrich Lawrence). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Hadden, Susan. Democracy on the electronic frontier. In Gary Chapman (Ed.), The end of the
frontier: Science and technology policy for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Hagen, Ingunn. (1992). Democratic communication: Media and social participation. In Janet
Wasko and Vincent Mosco (Eds.), Democratic communication in the information age (pp. 16-27).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hamilton, Ann, & Saylor, V. Louise. (1994). Lobbying in the information age: Professional
guidance for a new decade. Library Administration and Management, 8(1), 43-48.
Harris, Michael A., & Hannah, Stan A. (1993). Into the future: The foundations of library and
information services in the post-industrial era. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hayes, Robert M. (Ed.). (1985). Introduction. Libraries and the information economy of California
(pp. 1-49). Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles.
Hefner, Katie, & Lynn, Matthew. (1996). Where wizards stay up late: The origins of the Internet.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Heim, Kathleen. (1986). National information policy and a mandate for oversight by the
information professions. Government Publications Review, 13(1), 21-37.
Hernon, Peter. (1991). Government information policy principles. Government Information
Quarterly 8(4), 393-399.
Hernon, Peter. (1994). Information life cycle: Its place in the management of U.S. government
information resources. Government Information Quarterly, 11(2), 143-170.
Hernon, Peter. (1996). Government information policy in a time of uncertainty and change. In
Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the
1990s (pp. 1-18). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
52
Hernon, Peter, & Lopez, Xavier R. (1996). Geographic information systems. In Peter Hernon,
Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 233257). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1987). Federal information policies in the 1980s: Conflicts and
issues. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1991). United States information policies. In Wendy
Schipper & M. Cunningham (Eds.), National and international information policies (pp. 3-48).
Philadelphia, PA: National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services.
Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1993). Electronic U.S. government information: Policy
issues and directions. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology
(pp. 45-110). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (1995). Government publishing: Past to present. Government
Information Quarterly, 12(3), 309-330.
Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (1991). Information policy. In Encyclopedia of Library and
Information Science, 48, Supplement 11, 176-204. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hernon, Peter, Relyea, Harold C., Dugan, Robert E., & Cheverie, Joan F. (2002). United States
government information: Policies and sources. Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Hernon, Peter, Shuler, John A., & Dugan, Robert E. (1999). U.S. government on the Web: Getting
the information you need. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Hernon, Peter, & Shuler, John A. (1996). The Depository Library Program: Another component
of the access puzzle shifting to electronic formats. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, &
Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 259-278). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Hogwood, B.W., & Gunn, L.A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Holden, Stephen H., & Hernon, Peter. (1996). An executive branch perspective on managing
information resources. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal
information policies in the 1990s (pp. 83-104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
The information gap: How computers and other new communication technologies affect the
social distribution of power. (1989). Journal of Communication, 39(3).
Information Industry Association. (1994). Telecommunications infrastructure objectives and
implementation principles. Journal of Government Information, 21(3), 189-194.
Information Infrastructure Task Force. Information Policy Working Committee. Working Group
on Intellectual Property Rights. (1995, September). Intellectual property and the National
Information Infrastructure: The report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/ipnii/ [Lehman Report]
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
53
Information Infrastructure Task Force. Information Policy Committee. Working Group on
Privacy. (1995, June 6). Privacy and the National Information Infrastructure: Principles for providing
personal information.
gopher://ntia1.ntia.doc.gov:70/HO/papers/documents/files/niiprivprin_final.html
Jacobstein, J. Myron, & Mersky, Roy. (1990). Fundamentals of legal research (5th ed.). Westbury,
NY: The Foundation Press.
Jansen, Sue Curry. (1991). Censorship: The knot that binds power and knowledge. New York:
Oxford University.
Jones, Charles O. (1984). An introduction to the study of public policy (3rd ed.). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Kahin, Brian. (1991). Information policy and the Internet. Government Publications Review, 18(5),
451-472.
Kahin, Brian. (Ed.). (1992). Building information infrastructure. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kahin, Brian. (Ed.). (1993). Information infrastructure sourcebook. Cambridge, MA: Center for
Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Kahin, Brian. (Ed.). (1995). Public access to the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Kahin, Brian, & Nesson, Charles. (1997). Borders in cyberspace: Information policy and the Global
Information Infrastructure. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
King, Donald W., Roderer, Nancy K., & Olsen, Harold A. (Eds.). (1983). Key papers in the
economics of information. White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications.
Kingdon, John W. (1995). Agenda setting. In Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.),
Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 105-113). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kingma, Bruce R. (1996). The economics of information: A guide to economic and cost-benefit analysis
for information professionals. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Krol, Ed. (1993). RFC [Request for Comments] 1462: FYI on What is the Internet?
Krol, Ed. (1994). The whole Internet: User's guide & catalog (2nd ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly &
Associates.
Krug, Judith F. (2002). Censorship and controversial material in museums, libraries, and
archives. In Tomas A. Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical
challenges in the new information era (pp. 59-68). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Lamberton, Donald M. (1984). The economics of information and organization. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 3-30). White Plains, NY:
Knowledge Industry Publications.
Lancaster, F.W., & Burger, Robert H. (1990). Macroinformatics, microinformatics and
information policy. In D.J. Foskett (Ed.), The information environment: A world view: Studies in
honour of Professor A.I. Mikhailov (pp. 149-158). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
54
Landow, George P. (1992). Access to the text and the author's right (copyright). In Hypertext:
The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology (pp. 196-201). Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University.
Lanham, Richard A. (1993). The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts. The
Extraordinary Convergence: Democracy, Technology, Theory, and the University Curriculum
(Chapter 4, pp. 98-119). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lapperrière, René. (1999). The “Quebec model” of data protection: A compromise between
laissez-faire and public control in a technological era. In Colin J. Bennett & Rebecca Grant (Eds.),
Visions of privacy: Policy choices for the digital age (pp. 182-196). Toronto: University of Toronto.
Lasswell, Harold. (1951). The policy orientation. In Daniel Lernet & Harold Lasswell (Eds.), The
policy sciences (pp. 3-15). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lessig, Lawrence. (1999a). Intellectual property. In Code and other laws of cyberspace (pp. 122-141
and 262-271). New York: Basic Books.
Lessig, Lawrence. (1999b). Privacy. In Code and other laws of cyberspace (pp. 142-163 and 271-275).
New York: Basic Books.
Levinson, Paul. (1997). The soft edge: A natural history and future of the information revolution.
London: Routledge.
Lievrouw, Leah A. (Ed.). (1994a). Information resources and democracy [Special issue]. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6).
Lievrouw, Leah A. (1994b). Information resources and democracy: Understanding the paradox.
In Leah A. Lievrouw (Ed.), Information resources and democracy [Special issue] (pp. 350-357).
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6).
Lindblom, Charles E. (1995). The science of “muddling through.” In Stella Z. Theodoulou &
Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 113-127). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall. Original published 1959.
Lindblom, Charles E., & Woodhouse, Edward J. (1993). The policy-making process (3rd ed.),
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lipinski, Tomas A. (1998). Information ownership and control. In Martha E. Williams (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 33, pp. 3-38). Medford, NJ: Information
Today.
Lipinski, Tomas A. (2002a). Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical challenges in
the new information era. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Lipinski, Tomas A. (2002b). Librarian’s guide to copyright for shared and networked resources.
Library Technology Reports: Expert Guides to Library Systems and Services. ALA TechSource
www.techsource.ala.org
Litman, Jessica. (2001). Digital copyright. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
55
Love, James P. (1992). The marketplace and electronic government information. Government
Publications Review, 19(4), 397-412.
Love, Jamie. (1994). Current issues and initiatives in the electronic dissemination of government
information. In Ann P. Bishop (Ed.), Emerging communities: Integrating networked information into
library services (pp. 192-206). Champaign, IL: Graduate School of Library and Information
Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Marchand, Donald A., & Kresslein, John C. (1988). Information resources management and the
public administrator. In J. Rabin & E.M. Jackowski (Eds.), Handbook of information resource
management (pp. 395-455).
Mart, Susan Nevelow. (2004). Protecting the lady from Toledo: Post-USA PATRIOT Act
electronic surveillance at the library. Law Library Journal, 96(3), 449-473.
Marvin, Carolyn. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in
the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University.
Mason, Marilyn Gell. (1983). The federal role in library and information services. White Plains, NY:
Knowledge Industry Publications.
Massant, Eric J. (1994). The role of libraries and the private sector: Policy principles for assuring
public access to U.S. federal government information: A viewpoint. Journal of Government
Information, 21(5), 383-390.
McClure, Charles R. (1996). Libraries and federal information policy. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 22, 214-218.
McClure, Charles R., Bishop, Ann P., Doty, Philip, & Rosenbaum, Howard. (1991). The National
Research and Education Network (NREN): Research and policy perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McClure, Charles R., & Hernon, Peter. (Eds.). (1989). United States scientific and technical
information policies: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McClure, Charles R., Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (Eds.). (1989). United States government
information policies: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McClure, Charles R., McKenna, Mary, Moen, William E., & Ryan, Joe. (1993). Toward a virtual
library: Internet and the National Research and Education Network. In Catherine Barr (Ed.), The
Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac (pp. 25-45). New Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker.
McClure, Charles R., & Ryan, Joe. (1996). Moving to the networked information environment:
New challenges and issues. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.),
Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 297-313). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McGaw, Judith. (1989). No passive victims, no separate spheres: A feminist perspective on
technology's history. In Stephen Cutcliffe & Robert Post (Eds.), In context: History and the history
of technology (pp. 172-191). Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press.
Miller, Arthur, & Davis, Michael H. (1990). Intellectual property: Patents, trademarks, and copyright
in a nutshell (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
56
Miller, Steven. (1995). Civilizing cyberspace: Policy, power, and the information superhighway. New
York: ACM.
Minow, Mary, & Lipinski, Tomas A. (2003). The library’s legal answer book. Chicago: American
Library Association.
Moen, William E., & McClure, Charles R. (1994). The Government Information Locator System
(GILS): Expanding research and development on the ANSI/NISO Z39.50 information retrieval standard.
Washington, DC and Syracuse, NY: United States Geological Survey and Syracuse University
School of Information Studies.
Morehead, Joe. (1999). Introduction to United States government information sources (6th ed.).
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Morrow, William L. (1990). Is this trip necessary? The policy dimensions of expertise. Policy
Studies Review, 9(4), 825-830.
Mosco, Vincent. (1996). The political economy of communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mosco, Vincent, & Wasko, Janet. (Eds.). (1988). The political economy of information. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin.
Nagel, Stuart S. (1988). Policy studies: Integration and evaluation. New York: Praeger.
Nakamura, R.T., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The politics of policy implementation. New York: St.
Martin’s.
National Academy of Public Administration. (1992). The archives of the future: Archival strategies
for the treatment of electronic databases. Washington, DC: Authors.
National Research Council. Committee for a Study on Promoting Access to Scientific and
Technical Data for the Public Interest. (1999). A question of balance: Private rights and the public
interest in scientific and technical databases. Washington, DC: National Academy.
Netanel, Neil W. (1996). Copyright and democratic civil society. Yale Law Journal, 106(2), 283387.
Ostrom, Elinor. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Parenti, Christian. (2003). The soft cage: Surveillance in America from slavery to the war on terror
[sic]. New York: Basic Books.
Patterson, L. Ray, & Lindberg, Stanley W. (1991). The nature of copyright: A law of users' rights.
Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
Paulos, John Allen. (1995). A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York: BasicBooks.
Especially pp. 69-71, 94, 154-156, and 157-159.
Perritt, Henry H. (1994). Public information in the National Information Infrastructure. Report to the
Regulatory Information Service Center, the General Services Administration, and to the
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
57
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget.
Phillips, David J. (1997). Cryptography, secrets, and the structuring of trust. In Philip E. Agre &
Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 243-276). Cambridge, MA:
MIT.
Pool, Ithiel de Solla. (1982). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Quarterman, John. (1990). The matrix: Computer networks and conferencing systems worldwide.
Bedford, MA: Digital Press.
Raab, Charles D., & Mason, David. (2005). Researching the origins of UK data protection.
Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 235-237.
Rachels, James. (1985). Why privacy is important. In Deborah G. Johnson & John W. Snapper
(Eds.), Ethical issues in the use of computers (Chapter 20, pp. 194-201). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Co. (Original published 1975)
Radin, Margaret. (1993). Reinterpreting property. Chicago: University of Chicago.
RAND Corporation. (1995). Universal access to email: Feasibility and societal implications. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND. http//www.rand.org:80/publications/MR/MR650
Raymond, Eric S. (1999). The cathedral & the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an
accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
Records, Melissa. (1995). Growing pains: An examination of the development of cataloging and access
standards for digital geospatial data. Manuscript.
Regan, Priscilla. (1995). Legislating privacy: Technology, social values, and public policy. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina.
Reichman, J.H., & Uhlir, Paul F. (1999). Database protection at the crossroads: Recent
developments and their impact on science and technology. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14(2),
799-821.
Relyea, Harold C. (1987). Public access through the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts.
In Peter Hernon & Charles R. McClure, Federal information policies in the 1980's: Conflicts and issues
(pp. 52-82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Relyea, Harold C. (1989). Historical development of federal information policy. In Charles R.
McClure, Peter Hernon, and Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), United States government information policies:
Views and perspectives (pp. 25-48). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Relyea, Harold C. (1996a). Freedom of information revisited. In Peter Hernon, Charles R.
McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 183-210).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Relyea, Harold C. (1996b). National security information policy after the end of the Cold War.
In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the
1990s (pp. 165-182). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
58
Relyea, Harold C. (2001). Legislating personal privacy protection: The federal response. Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 27(1), 36-51.
Repo, Aatto J. (1987). Economics of information. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (pp. 3-35). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Rice, David A. (2002). Legal-technological regulation of information access. In
Tomas A. Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical challenges in the
new information era (pp. 275-294). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Rist, Ray C. (1994). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In Norman K.
Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 545-557). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Robertson, Lawrence S. (1981). Access to information. In Helen A. Shaw (Ed.), Issues in
information policy (pp. 19-32). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Robinson, Judith Schiek. (1998). Tapping the government grapevine: The user-friendly guide to U.S.
government information sources (3rd ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.
Rose, Lance. (1995). NetLaw: Your rights in the online world. Berkeley, CA: Osborne [McGrawHill].
Rosen, Jeffrey. (2000). The unwanted gaze: The destruction of privacy in America. Random House:
New York.
Rothenberg, Jeff. (1995). Ensuring the longevity of digital documents. Scientific American, 272(1),
42-47.
Rubin, Michael Rogers. (1983). Information economics and policy in the United States. Littleton, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Ryan, Joe. (1996). Guide to government information available on the Internet. Syracuse, NY: Ryan
Information Management.
Ryan, Joe, Haining, Sarah, & Persick, Michael. (1994). Keeping track of current developments in
federal information policy. Internet Research, 4(2), 67-81.
Ryan, Joe, McClure, Charles R., & Wigand, Rolf. (1994). Federal Information Resources
Management: New challenges for the nineties. Government Information Quarterly, 11(3), 301-314.
Sabatier, Paul A. (Ed.). (1999). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Samuelson, Pamela. (1996, January). The copyright grab. Wired, 4(1), 135-138.
Schaefer, Richard J. (1995). A theoretical and normative approach to national information
infrastructure policy. Internet Research, 5(2), 5-14.
Schiller, Dan. (1999). Digital capitalism: Networking the global market system. Cambridge, MA:
MIT.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
59
Schmidt, C. James. (1989). Rights for users of information: Conflicts and balances among
privacy, professional ethics, law, and national security. In Filomena Simora (Ed.), The Bowker
annual: Library and book trade almanac (pp. 83-90). New Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker.
Shattuck, Roger. (1996). Forbidden knowledge: From Prometheus to pornography. New York: St.
Martin’s.
Shuler, John A. (2007). Public policies and academic libraries – The shape of the next digital
divide. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(1), 141-143. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=
%23TOC%236556%232007%23999669998%23645027%23FLA%23&_cdi=6556&_pubType=J&view
=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=40ccac3777
98034e5254ef76210db335
Slack, Jennifer Daryl, & Fejes, Fred. (Eds.). (1987). Ideology of the information age. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Smith, Diane H. (Ed.). (1993). Management of government information resources in libraries.
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Sprehe, J. Timothy. (1987). OMB Circular No. A-130, The management of federal information
resources: Its origins and impact. Government Information Quarterly, 4(2), 189-196.
Sprehe, J. Timothy. (1994a). Federal information policy in the Clinton administration's first year.
Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 20(4), 20-25.
Sprehe, J. Timothy. (1994b). U.S. Office of Management and Budget no. circular A-130: Old and
new. Journal of Government Information, 21(3), 231-247.
Stefik, Mark. (1999a). The bit and the pendulum: Balancing the interests of stakeholders in
digital publishing. In The Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked
world (pp. 79-106 and 302-303). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Stefik, Mark. (1999b). The digital keyhole: Privacy rights and trusted systems. In The Internet
edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 197-231 and 305-307).
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Stefik, Mark. (1999c). The digital wallet and the copyright box: The coming arms race in trusted
systems. In The Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 5578 and 301-302). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Streeter, Thomas. (1995). Some thoughts on free speech, language, and the rule of law. In David
S. Allen & Robert Jensen (Eds.), Freeing the First Amendment: Critical perspectives on freedom of
expression (pp. 31-53). New York: New York University.
Strickland, Lee S. (2005). The information gulag: Rethinking openness in times of national
danger. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 546-572. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_cdi=6542&_pubType=J&_auth=
y&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=01cb66ff14ab1a7c8ee6
4d86be09e2fa&jchunk=22#22
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
60
Tanenbaum, Andrew. (2002). Computer networks (4th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.
Technology & the national interest. (1994). The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, LXXIV(2).
Theodoulou, Stella Z. (1995a). The contemporary language of public policy: A starting point. In
Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 1-9).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Theodoulou, Stella Z. (1995b). How public policy is made. In Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew
A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 86-96). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Theodoulou, Stella Z., & Cahn, Matthew A. (Eds.). (1995). Public policy: The essential readings.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Thibodeau, Kenneth. (1996). Managing archival records in the electronic age: Fundamental
challenges. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information
policies in the 1990s (pp. 279-295). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Trauth, Eileen M. (1986). An integrative approach to information policy research.
Telecommunications Policy, 10(1), 41-50.
U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. (1985). Circular A130: The management of federal information resources. Federal Register, 50(247), 52730-52751.
U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. (1994). Circular A130: The management of federal information resources. Federal Register, 59(41), 37906-37928.
U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. (1996). Circular A130: The management of federal information resources. Federal Register, 61(34), 6427ff.
Warren, Adam, & Dearnley, James. (2005). Data protection legislation in the United Kingdom:
From development to statute 1969-84. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 238-253.
Warwick, Shelly. (2002). Copyright for libraries, museums, and archives: The basics and
beyond. In Tomas A. Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical
challenges in the new information era (pp. 235-256). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Weingarten, F. W. (1989). Federal information policy development: The Congressional
perspective. In Charles R. McClure, Peter Hernon, & Harold Relyea (Eds.), United States
government information policies: Views and perspectives (pp. 77-99). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wildavsky, Aaron. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Wolpert, Samuel A., & Wolpert, Joyce Friedman. (1986). Economics of information. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Xue, Susan. (2005). Internet policy and diffusion in China, Malaysia and Singapore. Journal of
Information Science, 31(3), 238-250.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
61
Young, Peter R., & Williams, Jane. (1994). Libraries and the National Information Infrastructure.
In Catherine Barr (Ed.), The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac (pp. 33-49). New
Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker.
Yurow, Jane H., Shaw, Helen A. (1981). Issues in information policy. Washington, DC: National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
IV. Reports (be sure to review required class readings; all OTA reports are available online)
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. (1982). Public sector/private sector
interaction in providing information services. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Congressional Research Service. (2001). Federal statutes: What they are and where
to find them. http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/information/info-16.pdf
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986a). Federal government information
technology: Management, security, and congressional oversight. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986b). Intellectual property rights in an age of
electronics and information. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
http://www.wws.Princeton.EDU/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1987). Defending secrets, sharing data.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Informing the nation: Federal information
dissemination in an electronic age. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1989). Copyright & home copying: Technology
challenges the law. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1990a). Critical connections: Communication for
the future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1990b). Helping America compete: The role of
federal scientific and technical information. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1993). Making government work : Electronic
delivery of federal services. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1994). Electronic enterprises: Looking to the
future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1994). Information security and privacy in
network environments. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers & technology: Making the
connection. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
62
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Telecommunications technology and
Native Americans: Opportunities and challenges. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Wireless technologies and the National
Information Infrastructure. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
(1993). The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for action. Washington, DC: GPO.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1990). Computers and privacy. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Information superhighway: Issues affecting development.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
V. Governmental and Commercial Serial Sources of Government Information
Code of Federal Regulations
Congressional Digest
Congressional Information Service
Congressional Quarterly
Congressional Record
C[ongressional] Q[uarterly] Weekly Reports
Federal Register
Supreme Court Reporter
U.S. Code
U.S. Code and Congressional and Administrative News
U.S. Code Annotated
United States Supreme Court Reports
VI. Journals and Other Serial Sources on Information Policy and Government Information
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
Atlantic Monthly
The Bowker Annual: Library and Book Trade Almanac
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
63
Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science
Communications Yearbook
Electronic Public Information Newsletter
EPIC [Electronic Privacy Information Center] Alert
ERIC
EDUCAUSE Review
Federal Computer Week
Government Computer News
Government Information Quarterly
Government Technology
Harpers
Information, Communication, and Society
Information Management Review
Information Processing and Management
The Information Society
Internet Research: Electronic Networks Applications and Policy (formerly Electronic Networking:
Research, Applications, and Policy)
Internet World
Journal of Academic Librarianship (especially its Information Policy column)
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (formerly the Journal of the
American Society for Information Science)
Journal of Communication
Journal of Government Information: An International Review of Policy, Issues and Resources (formerly
Government Publications Review and now merged with Government Information Quarterly)
Journal of Information Science
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
Journal of Policy Research
The Journal of Politics
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
64
Knowledge
Knowledge in Society
Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy
Philosophy and Public Affairs
Policy Sciences
Policy Studies Journal
Policy Studies Review
Privacy Journal
Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting
Public Administration Review
Public Affairs Information Service
Research Policy
Sage Yearbook of Politics and Public Policy
Science
Scientific American
Science and Public Policy
Serials Review
Technology Review
Telecommunications Policy
Utne Reader
Wired
VII.
Newspapers
Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/
New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/
Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/
Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
65
VIII. Other Electronic Sources -- Remember that these sites and the information there are
extremely volatile.
Alliance for Public Technology (APT) http://apt.org/apt/index.html
Americans Communicating Electronically (ACE): http://www.sbaonline.sba.gov/ace/
(U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers http://www.usace.army.mil/
AskERIC http://ericir.syr.edu
Austin home page http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/
(University of California) Berkeley Center for Law & Technology
http://www.law.berkeley.edu:80/institutes/bclt/
(U.S.) Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including the World Factbook
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia
Chapel Hill home page http://www.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us/
Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) http://www.cni.org/
(United States) Code http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) http://www.cpsr.org/dox/home.html
(U.S.) Congressional Research Service (CRS) http://www.cnie.org/nle/crs_main.html
Copyright – there are lots of other valuable links, but see
Center for the Study of the Public Domain http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/index.html
Copyright and Fair Use (Stanford U.) http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
Copyright Clearance Center http://www.copyright.com/
Copyright Management Center http://www.iupui.edu/~copyinfo
Creative Commons http://www.creativecommons.org/
Georgia Harper's home page on copyright and other “IP” topics
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/gkhbio2.htm
Library of Congress Copyright Office http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/
Public Knowledge Project http://www.pkp.ubc.ca/index.html
Cornell University, Computer Policy & Law Program http://www.cornell.edu/CPL/
Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute http://fatty.law.cornell.edu
Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI): http://www.cnri.reston.va.us
(U.S.) Department of Commerce (DoC) http://www.doc.gov
(U.S.) Department of Justice (DoJ) http://www.usdoj.gov/
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
66
EDUCAUSE (formerly EDUCOM and CAUSE) http://www.educause.edu
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) http://www.eff.org
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC): http://www.epic.org/
(U.S.) Federal Communication Commission (FCC) http://www.fcc.gov
Federal Depository Library Program report: Final Report to Congress: Study to Identify
Measures for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/rep_cong/efdlp.html
(U.S.) Federal Register http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html
Findlaw http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/
(U.S.) General Accounting Office (GAO) http://www.gao.gov/
(U.S.) Geological Survey (USGS) http://info.er.usgs.gov
Government Information Locator System (GILS) http://www.usgs.gov/gils/index.html
Government Printing Office http://www.access.gpo.gov/
Government Technology http://www.govtech.net
High-Performance Computing and Communication (HPCC) Program information
http://www.ccic.gov/pub/flier96/major_tech.html
(Harvard University) Information Infrastructure Project http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/
Illinois Institute of Technology Institute for Science, Law, and Technology
http://www.kentlaw.edu/islt/
Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) http://iitf.doc.gov
“Intellectual property” http://infeng.pira.co.uk/IE/top007.htm
http://www.ipmag.com/archive.html
Institute for Technology Assessment (ITA) http://www.mtppi.org/ita/index.htm
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) http://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us
Internet Society http://info.isoc.org/
Library of Congress Marvel (Machine-Assisted Realization of the Virtual Electronic Library)
http://lcweb.loc.gov/homepage/lchp.html
U.S. Congress Thomas system for full text of selected bills http://thomas.loc.gov/
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
67
Library of Congress LOCIS (Library of Congress Information System):
http://moondog.usask.ca/hytelnet/us3/us373.html
Maps
Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU) http://www.cs.cmu.edu:8001/Web/maps.html
North Carolina
Texas http://www.texas.gov/maps.html
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Map_collection/Map_collection.html
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) Map Vision
http://mapweb.parc.xerox.com/map
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) http://www.nas.edu/
National Academy Press (NAP) http://www.nap.edu/
(U.S.) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
http://hypatia.gsfc.nasa.gov/NASA_homepage.html
National Information Infrastructure: Servers with comprehensive sources
http://www.cuny.edu/links/nii.html
(U.S.) National Information Infrastructure Virtual Library http://nii.nist.gov/
National Science Foundation (NSF) http://www.nsf.gov
National Security Agency (NSA) http://www.nsa.gov:8080
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) FedWorld http://www.fedworld.gov
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
http://www.ntia.doc.gov
(U.S.) Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) http://www.ota.nap.edu -- see Institute for
Technology Assessment -- and Princeton University archive of OTA reports
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/
Telecommunications and Information Policy Institute http://www.utexas.edu/research/tipi/
Texas
General home page: http://www.texas.gov
Texas State Government: http://www.state.tx.us/Government/
Department of Commerce: http://www.tded.state.tx.us/
Department of Information Resources (DIR) http://info.texas.gov
General Services Commission: www: http://www.spgsc.texas.gov/
Higher Education Coordinating Board http://info.thecb.texas.gov
Legislative Reference Library: (512) 463-1251, (800) 253-9693
Natural Resource Conservation Commission: http://www.state.tx.us/agency/582.html
Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund: http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/21cp/TIF.html
Texas Education Agency (TEA) http://www.tea.state.tx.us/
Texas Legislative Service (a for-profit info provider):
http://www/lawlib.uh.edu/txdxn/bills.html
Texas Legislature: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/#top
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
68
Texas State Library: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/
Window on State Government http://www.window.texas.gov/
University of Michigan http://www.lib.umich.edu/
Documents Center
Federal Gov’t Resources on the Web http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/federal.html
University of North Carolina http://www.lib.unc.edu/
Academic Affairs Library (main system) http://www.lib.unc.edu/aboutmain.html
Government documents http://www.lib.unc.edu/reference/docs/
University of Texas Libraries http://www.lib.utexas.edu/
Government information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/
U.S. Gov’t Reference Titles http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/us.html
International Gov’t Information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/world.html
Texas Government Information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/texas.html
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2007
69