FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
INF 390.1
Unique Number #24670
Dr. Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas at Austin
Fall 2003
Class time:
Wednesday
1:00 – 4:00 PM
Place:
SZB 546
Office:
SZB 570
Office hrs:
Wednesday 10:00 – 11:00 AM
Thursday 1:00 – 2:00 PM
By appointment other times
Telephone:
(512) 471-3746 (Direct line)
(512) 471-3821 (Main iSchool office)
Internet:
pdoty@ischool.utexas.edu
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm
Class URL:
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~inf390pd/fa2003
TA:
Elena Demidova
edemidova@hotmail.com
Office hours: TBA
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the course
3
Student collaboration
3
Expectations of student performance
4
Analysis 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
Selected important federal cases
29
Additional sources
31
"Reference" Texts
Reports
Governmental and Commercial Serial Sources of Government Information
Journals and Other Serial Sources on Information Policy and Government Information
Newspapers
Other Specific Electronic Sources
Print Sources on Networking
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
2
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
The purpose of INF 390.1, Federal Information Policy, is to provide 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, and we will examine key information
policy areas, as well as the structures and processes involved in the formulation of federal
information policies. Students will develop a critical understanding of and gain experience with
a variety of policy analysis approaches and techniques. The class will give special attention to the
contribution of Information Studies as a discipline to policy formation and analysis.
Federal information policy is concerned with two kinds of information policies: (1) policies that
control government information, i.e., information that government and government-sponsored
entities at the federal level generate, collect, store, distribute, and so on; and (2) policies that
control how information is distributed in society, e.g., policies related to “intellectual property,”
privacy, freedom of expression, media regulation, intellectual freedom, contracts, torts, and
equity of information access. INF 390.1 emphasizes this second kind of information policy. A
special focus will be electronic information, including those policies related to the National
Information Infrastructure. The course will also explore the concept of the knowledge or
information commons and what that concept means in the context of public policy.
INF 390.1 aims (a) to increase students' knowledge of major federal information policies and how
to track their development, (b) to improve students' ability to analyze critically the implications
of federal policies for managing information as well as for life in public and private venues, and
(c) to 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 three areas in information policy: privacy, “intellectual property” (especially
copyright, including the interaction of copyright and privacy in digital environments), and
the relationship of the Congress and the federal courts, particularly the 2003 Supreme Court
decision declaring the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) constitutional
2.
Emphasize the relationships among information policy and various information technologies
and trends
3.
Identify major stakeholders in information policy and the relationships among them
4.
Develop skill in information policy analysis and explore how various disciplines can
contribute to the policy analysis process
5.
Explore a variety of approaches to understanding public policy
6.
Become acquainted with print and electronic sources of government information and
government information policy, especially legal information
7.
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
8.
Communicate, in both written and oral form, in a collegial and scholarly atmosphere.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
3
STUDENT COLLABORATION
The instructor encourages collaboration and collegiality among the students enrolled in the
course from the iSchool and elsewhere, and assignments are partially designed to foster
cooperative work among students and across disciplines.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
4
EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENT 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 his or her responsibility to
arrange with another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets. The
assignments presume that students are familiar with all material discussed in class and in
the required readings.
•
Read all material prior to class; students are expected to use the course readings to
inform their classroom participation and their writing assignments. 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.
•
Educate themselves and their peers. Your successful completion of your degree program
and your participation in the community of scholars depend upon your willingness to
demonstrate initiative, creativity, and responsibility. Your participation in the
professional and personal growth of your colleagues is essential to their success and your
own. Such collegiality is at the heart of professional practice, especially among policy
analysts, so several assignments in this course are designed to encourage collaboration.
•
Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour of classroom instruction, i.e., about
10-12 hours per week for the course
•
Participate in all class discussions
•
Hand in all assignments fully and on time -- late assignments will not be accepted except
in the particular circumstances noted below
•
Be responsible with collective property, especially books and other material on reserve
•
Ask for any explanation and 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 I do
not do email at home and that I try to stay home two days a week. It may be several
days after you send email before I even see it.
Academic or scholastic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, will not be
tolerated and will incur the most severe penalties, including failure for the course.
If there is any concern about behavior that may be academically dishonest, please consult the
instructor. Students are also encouraged to refer to the UT General Information Bulletin,
Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and the brochure Texas is the Best . . . HONESTLY! (1988)
by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
5
ANALYSIS 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:
•
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 the evidence used to support an assertion does so.
•
Identify and explore the specific real-world, practical, social, and intellectual implications
of courses of action.
•
Synthesize and internalize existing knowledge without losing your own critical point of
view -- be evaluative.
•
Identify the specific criteria against which assessments of others' work and options for
action will be measured.
See the Standards for Written Work and the assignment descriptions in this syllabus for further
explanations and examples.
Also please remember that depth of analysis must always be complemented by a holistic,
integrative understanding of context.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
6
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK
Review the standards for written work both before and after writing; they are used to evaluate
your 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.
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.
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.
Certain assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and references.
It is particularly important in professional schools such as the iSchool 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 policy analysts ordinarily use APA. Familiarity with standard formats is
essential for understanding others' work and for preparing submissions to journals, professional
conferences, and the like. You may also consult the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.) and http://webster.commnet.edu/apa/apa_index.htm (a
useful if non-canonical source).
Never 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, a better choice would
be a specialized dictionary or subject-specific encyclopedia. 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 the spell checker in your word processing package to review your documents, but be aware
that spell checking dictionaries: do not include most proper nouns, including names; omit most
technical terms; include very 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 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 390.1). If you have any questions
about these standards, I will be pleased to discuss them with you at any time.
Remember, every assignment must include a title page with
•
The title of the assignment
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
7
•
Your name
•
The date
•
The class number.
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
8
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)
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 professionallevel written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14,
15, 18, 20, 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. Ordinarily, 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; similarly avoid using “content”
as a noun.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .*
9.
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.
10.
Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing.
11.
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
number; i.e., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is a
singular form, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the
referent or the pronoun must change in number.
12.
“If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller."
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
9
13.
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."
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
10
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)
14.
Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad.
15.
Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers
will not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them.
16.
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.
17.
Avoid use of "valid," "parameter," "bias," "reliability," and "paradigm," except in limited
technical ways. These are important research terms and should be used with care and
precision.
18.
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 :-(.
19.
"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.
20.
*The passive voice should generally not be used.*
21.
"Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more.
22.
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.
23.
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
date viewed
place to find the source
(who?)
(what?)
(when?)
(when?)
(where? how?).
See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed., pp. 213214, 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
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
11
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)
24.
"Cite" is a verb, "citation" is a noun; similarly, "quote" is a verb, "quotation" is a noun.
25.
*PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*
26.
Use double quotation marks (“abc.”), not single quotation marks (‘xyz.’), as a matter of
course. Single quotation marks are to be used only to indicate quotations within
quotations.
27.
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, section number,
and/or other directional cues, e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”
28.
As ≠ because.
29.
Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."
30.
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.
31.
“Impact” is a noun.
32.
Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.”
33.
Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,”
“participants,” and “informants” are preferred terms.
34.
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 – August 2003
12
SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENT 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 is missing)
j
journal
lc
make into lower case
lib'ship
librarianship
org, org’l
organization, organizational
Q
question
REF?
what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer?
sp
spelling
w/
with
w.c.?
word choice?
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
13
GRADING
The grading system for this class includes the grades of:
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD
F
Extraordinarily high achievement
Superior
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Barely satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unacceptable
Unacceptable and failing.
Please see the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the
notice in the student orientation packets for explanations of this system. Students should consult
the iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/information.html) and the
Graduate School Catalogue (e.g., http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad0103/ch1/ch1a.html#nature and http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad0103/ch1/ch1b.html#student) for more on standards of work. The University of Texas does not use
the +/- grading system that we do at the School of Information; UT accepts only full letter grades.
Therefore, for example, a B- and B+ final grade at the iSchool both translate to a final grade of B
at the University level.
A grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. In this class, the
grade of A is reserved for students who demonstrate not only a command of the concepts and
techniques discussed but also an ability to synthesize and integrate them in a professional
manner and communicate them effectively.
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 very 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 90 points and the highest point
total in the class is 98, the student earns 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 earns an A. This system will be
further explained throughout the semester.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
14
TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS
There are five required texts for this class. Agre & Rotenberg, Majchrzak, and Vaidhyanathan
can be purchased at the University Coop on Guadalupe, while the National Research Council
report is available on the Web. The reading packet is available only from University Duplicating
Service at the Graduate School of Business, GSB 3.136 (471-8281). All of the required readings
will be on Reserve at PCL, including a copy of the National Research Council report.
The required texts are:
Agre, Philip E., & Rotenberg, Marc. (Eds.). (1997). Technology and privacy: The new landscape.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
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 Press. Available at:
http://www.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it
threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press.
A packet of readings.
Additional texts are valuable:
Burger, Robert H. (1993). Information policy: A framework for evaluation and policy research.
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., & 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 Press.
Lessig, Lawrence. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New
York: Random House.
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.
The course Web site, as well as direct email messages, will be used to inform students of changes
in the course schedule, discuss assignments, and so on. Both means can be used by all course
participants to communicate with each other, pass along information regarding interesting events
and resources, and the like. Students will also need to be familiar with basic Internet navigation
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
15
tools including a recent Web browser in order to identify and use sources of and about federal
information policy.
You may find Declan McCullagh's mailing list Politech (http://www.politechbot.com/) especially
useful this semester, and I encourage you to subscribe or review its archives over the next several
months.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
16
LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS
Additional information about each assignment will be provided by the instructor. 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%
Essay on Schön (1993) (3-4 pp.)
SEP 17, in class
10
Analysis of USA PATRIOT Act (6 pp.)
OCT 22, in class
15
Topic for information policy paper GRP or IND
OCT 22, in class
-----
Analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) and Vaidhyanathan NOV 5, in class
(2001) (4-5 pp.)
10
Choice of presentation date
NOV 5, in class
-----
Analysis of Supreme Court CIPA decision (5 pp.)
NOV 19, in class
10
Presentation on information policy paper GRP or IND
NOV 19, 26
DEC 3, in class
----
Draft of information policy paper
GRP or IND
NOV 26, in class
-----
Critique of another student team's draft policy
paper (3-4 pp.)
DEC 3, in class
15
Final draft of information policy paper
(20-25 pp.) GRP or IND
DEC 12, FRI
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 not be accepted unless
three criteria are met:
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.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
17
OUTLINE OF COURSE
Meeting
Date
Topics
Unit 1: Introduction to the Study of Information Policy
1
Aug 27
Introduction to the course
Introduction to public policy and information policy
2
Sep 3
Approaches to policy analysis and information policy
3
Sep 10
Locating information policy sources
Modified Final Judgment (MFJ)
1934 Communications Act
1996 Telecommunications Act
4
Sep 17
Introduction to the National Information Infrastructure: History
of the Internet and other national nets
DUE:
5
Essay on Schön (1993) (3-4 pp.) (10%)
Sep 24
National Information Infrastructure continued: Visions and
models
“Rights talk”
Transcending the “argument culture”
6
Oct 1
Introduction to privacy
Public/private spheres
7
Oct 8
Privacy Act, matching, and surveillance
Gendered discussions of privacy
8
Oct 15
Privacy in digital environments
Transaction-generated information
Privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs): Promises and
limitations
Unit 2: Privacy
Unit 3: “Intellectual Property”
9
Oct 22
Introduction to “intellectual property”
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
18
Copyright and fair use
DUE:
Analysis of USA PATRIOT Act (6 pp.) (15%)
DUE:
Policy paper topic
10
Oct 29
“Intellectual property” in digital environments, Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and copyrighting
databases
Trusted systems and their critique
Moral rights of creators
11
Nov 5
“Intellectual property” discussion
Rights in digital “revisions”?: New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al.
12
Nov 12
DUE:
Analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) and
Vaidhyanathan (2001) (4-5 pp.) (10%)
DUE:
Choice of presentation date
Privacy and copyright
UCITA -- the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act
Unit 4: Presentations of Students' Research
13
Nov 19
Communications Decency Act (CDA), Child Online Protection
Act (COPA), and the Children’s Internet Protection Act
(CIPA): Congress and the Courts
Policy paper presentations
DUE:
14
Nov 26
Policy paper presentations
DUE:
15
Dec 3
Draft of information policy paper
Course evaluation
Policy paper presentations
Summary discussion
DUE:
Dec 12
Analysis of U.S. v. ALA et al. [CIPA decision] (2003) (5
pp.) (10%)
Critique of other students’ draft (3-4 pp.) (15%)
Friday, 3:00 PM
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
19
DUE:
Policy paper (20-25 pp.) (30%)
SCHEDULE
The following schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as we progress through the semester.
DATE
TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND REQUIRED READINGS
Unit 1: Introduction to the Study of Information Policy
AUG
27
Introduction to the course -- Review of the syllabus
Introduction to public policy and information policy
READ: Rist (1994)
Schön (1993)
AS:
SEP
3
Burger (1993), Chapters 1 and 2
Coates (1978)
Approaches to policy analysis and information policy
READ: Dror (1984)
Majchrzak (1984), all -- and be sure to read the (contested!) Policy
Research Glossary
National Research Council (2000), Appendix D online
http://www.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/
AS:
10
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
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
20
1996 Telecommunications Act
READ: Aufderheide (1999), 1
Browne (1997a)
Browne (1997b)
Doty (1998)
Rowlands (1996)
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
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 – August 2003
21
SEP
17
Introduction to the National Information Infrastructure: History of the Internet
and other national nets
Sharing the commons
READ: IITF Web site -- http://iitf.doc.gov/
National Research Council (2000), Appendix C online
NTIA Web site -- http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
24
AS:
Abbate (1999), passim
Bertot and McClure (1996)
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Web site
Internet Society (ISOC) Web site
Lessig (2001), 7 and 8
McClure and Ryan (1996)
DUE:
Essay on Schön (1993) (3-4pp., double-spaced) (10%)
National Information Infrastructure continued: Visions and models
Sharing the commons -- continued
“Rights talk”
Transcending the “argument culture”
READ: NRENAISSANCE Committee (1994), 4
AS:
DoC NTIA (1993) (retrieve)
GAO (1994)
Glendon (1991), passim
Lessig (2001), 9 and 10
Tannen (1998), passim
Unit 2: Privacy
OCT
1
Introduction to privacy
Public/private spheres
READ: Agre (1997a)
Agre (1997b)
Warren & Brandeis (1890)
AS:
Gellman (1996a)
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Relyea (2001)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
22
OCT
8
Privacy continued: Privacy Act, matching, and surveillance
Gendered discussions of privacy
READ: Privacy Act (5 USC 552a)
Burkert (1997)
Davies (1997)
Fraser (1992)
Relyea (2003) online
Gellman (2003) online
AS:
15
Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
Lessig (1999a)
Stefik (1999a)
Privacy continued: Privacy in digital environments
Transaction-generated information
Privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs): Promises and limitations
READ: Doty (2001) [handout]
Gellman (1997)
Samarajiva (1997)
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (PL 99-508)(retrieve)
AS:
Minow & Lipinski (2003), 5 (“Library Records and Privacy”)
Stefik (1999b)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 118 U.S.
394 (1886)
Unit 3: “Intellectual Property”
22
Introduction to “intellectual property”
Copyright and fair use
READ: 1976 Copyright Act, especially review section on Fair Use (retrieve)
Lessig (2001), 11
National Research Council (2000), Preface, Executive Summary, and 1
online
UT System Counsel Georgia Harper's site on copyright -- start at
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/gkhbio2.htm
Vaidhyanathan (2001), Acknowledgements, Introduction, and 1
AS:
Lessig (1999b)
Miller and Davis (1990), 19 and 23
OTA (1986b), 1-3, 7, and 8
Stefik (1999c)
DUE:
Analysis of USA PATRIOT Act (6 pp.) (15%)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
23
DUE:
Topic for information policy paper
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
24
OCT
29
“Intellectual property” in digital environments, the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA), and copyrighting databases
Trusted systems and their critique
Moral rights of creators
READ: DMCA (PL 105-304)
National Research Council (2000), 3, 4, and Appendix G online
Vaidhyanathan (2001), 2, 5, and Epilogue
AS:
NOV
5
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
Basic Books et al v. Kinko’s Graphics 758 F. Supp. 1522 (Manhattan United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York)
(1991)
Church of Scientology v. U.S. 506 U.S. 9 (1992)
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc. 60 F.3d 913 (2nd Circuit) (1994)
Lessig (2001), 12-15
Litman (2001)
“Intellectual property” discussion
Rights in digital “revisions”?: New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al.
READ: National Research Council (2000), 2, 5, 6, and Appendix E online
Eldred v. Ashcroft [read majority and two dissenting opinions]
New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001a) [majority opinion]
New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001b) [dissent]
Vaidhyanathan (2001), skim 3 and 4
AS:
Nov
12
Lipinski (1998)
Minow & Lipinski (2003), 1 (“Libraries and Copyright”)
DUE:
Analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) and Vaidhyanathan (2001) (4-5
pp.) (10%)
DUE:
Choice of presentation date
Privacy and copyright
UCITA -- the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act
READ: ALA (2001a) UCITA site http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/index.html
(passim)
ALA (2001b)
ALA (2001c)
Lochner v. New York 98 U.S. 45 (1905)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
25
Unit 4: Presentations of Students' Research
Nov
19
Communications Decency Act (CDA), Child Online Protection Act (COPA), and
the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA): Congress and the Courts
Policy paper presentations
READ: ACLU et al. v. Reno, ALA et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice 929 F. Supp.
824, 830-849 (ED Pa. [Philadelphia United States District Court
June] 1996)
ALA et al. v. Pataki 97 Civ. 0222 (LAP) (Manhattan United States District
Court) [June 1997]
ACLU of Georgia et al. v. Zell Miller et al. 1:96-cv-2475-MHS (Atlanta
United States District Court) {June 1997]
Reno et al. v. ACLU et al. 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
U.S. v. ALA (2003) read the majority opinion by Rehnquist, the two
concurring opinions by Kennedy and Breyer, and the two
dissenting opinions by Stevens and Souter
AS:
DUE:
Nov
26
3
12
Draft of information policy paper
Course evaluation
Policy paper presentations
Summary discussion
DUE:
Dec
Analysis of U.S. v. ALA et al. [CIPA decision] (2003) (5 pp.) (10%)
Policy paper presentations
DUE:
Dec
Minow & Lipinski (2003), 3 (“Filters and Other Restrictions on
Internet Access”)
Critique of other students’ draft (3-4 pp.) (15%)
Friday, 3:00 PM
DUE:
Policy paper (20-25 pp.) (30%)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
26
ASSIGNMENTS
Please consult the sections in this syllabus on (1) Analysis 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 Schön (1993) -- Due September 17 (10%)
At the very beginning of his essay, Schön asserts that metaphors are “central to the task of
accounting for our perspectives on the world” and that “[p]roblem settings are mediated . . . by
the ‘stories’ people tell about troublesome situations – stories in which they describe what is
wrong and what needs fixing” (1993, p. 138).
1.
2.
What, specifically, does Schön mean by these and related assertions? What are the strengths
and weaknesses of his narrative-sensitive approach to the study of public policy? (2 pp.)
Given the material we have read and discussed, what insights does Schön’s paper offer us
about U.S. federal information policy? (1-2 pp.)
You may find it useful to consider these questions in the framework of values and normative
questions in policy analysis, methodological conflicts and assumptions, and the struggle among
disciplinary approaches to policy studies, including information policy. be sure to
contextualize your response in the specifics of schön’s argument.
Each student will produce an essay 3-4 double-spaced pages long. Please be sure that your
paper is analytic, reflective, and specifically grounded in Schön and any other sources you use.
Analysis of USA PATRIOT Act – Due October 22 (15%)
Using Relyea (2002), which provides an introduction to homeland security and the 2002
Government Information Quarterly special issue on reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and
Gellman (2002), one of the papers in that issue, please consider the questions below. The
question involve the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, otherwise known as the USA PATRIOT Act,
PL 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001):
1.
In your opinion, what are the most important implications for information policy of Relyea’s
(2002) historical analysis of the concepts of national security and homeland security? What
relationship does his analysis have with the USA PATRIOT Act? In particular, you may
want to consider the “institutionalization of the national security concept” (p. 215 and passim)
and the evolving definition of homeland security. (2 pp.)
2.
What is your overall reaction to Gellman’s (2002) discussion of privacy and terrorism? In
particular, what implications, if any, does the critique of the Fair Information Practices in
Agre & Rotenberg (1997) inter alia have for Gellman’s analysis, which uses these practices as a
major lens for analysis? (2 pp.)
3.
What connections, if any, does Gellman’s discussion of the “zero privacy” approach and his
concern about the evolution of “statutorily protected statistical records” to administrative
records for law enforcement (p. 259) have with the USA PATRIOT Act? Especially consider
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
27
Title II (“Enhanced Surveillance Procedures”), § 215 (“Access to Records and Other Items
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”) of the Act. (2 pp.)
Each student will write responses to these questions 6 double-spaced pages long. Please be
certain to relate your analysis to both the broad scope and particular characteristics of federal
information policy.
In preparation for this assignment, you may find the Congressional Research Service report, The
USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis (2002), helpful. The same may be true for the analyses by
the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Library Association, and the American Civil
Liberties Union. If you use these resources, or any others, please be sure to recall that each
organization has its own point of view that we must regard with skepticism and selfconsciousness.
Analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) and Vaidhyanathan (2001) -- Due November 5 (10%)
On January 15, 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
Extension Act was constitutional (Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft, 2003). The Act increased the general
term of copyright from the life of the author + 50 years to the life of the author + 70 years.
Please answer the questions below as specifically and clearly as you can.

What is your overall evaluation of the Supreme Court decision? Why? Be sure to discuss
what you regard as the most important strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ and
defendant’s arguments. (2 pp.)

One of the major elements of Vaidhyanathan’s (2001) argument is that we have made
copyright protection too “thick,” i.e., we protect already created works too zealously and
thereby inhibit the creation of future works. What is your reaction to Vaidhyanathan’s
analysis in light of Eldred v. Ashcroft? (2-3 pp.)
Be as specific as possible in addressing these questions and feel free to use other course readings,
discussions, and other resources as appropriate in making your paper as persuasive as possible.
You may find parts of the 1995 NII Task Force White Paper on IP, National Research Council
(2000), Lessig (2001), and Aufderheide (1999) particularly useful.
Your paper should be 4-5 double-spaced pages long, as well as sufficiently analytic, holistic, and
grounded in the specifics of the Supreme Court case, Vaidhyanathan, and your other sources.
Analysis of U.S. v. ALA et al. [CIPA case] (2003) – Due November 19 (10%)
One way of investigating policy problems is to examine important policy instruments carefully.
Similarly, a useful way to understand national policy of all kinds is to consider the adversarial
and cooperative relationships among the various branches of government. With an eye to these
two approaches, please address the following questions about the Children’s Internet Protection
Act (CIPA) and the June 2003 Supreme Court decision (U.S. v. ALA et al.) overturning the district
court decision that found the Act unconstitutional on its face:

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General, arguing for the
government, said that the government would ensure that (adult) patrons’ requests to
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
28
disable filters would be promptly and unquestioningly honored (see transcript of the oral
argument, pp. 4-5 and 11). Does this concession by government vitiate the Supreme
Court’s majority opinion, especially given Souter’s dissent? Why or why not? (2 pp.)

What do you make of the question of the Internet as a “public forum”? Ground your
argument in the specifics of the case, including the overturned district court decision
(ALA and Civil Action et al. v. U.S. et al. and Multnomah Public Library et. al and Civil Action
v. U.S. et al.). (1 p.)

In your opinion, does the majority opinion adequately address the question of
overblocking and underblocking? Why or why not? Be sure to consider both Stevens’
dissent and Souter’s discussion of selection in public libraries. (2 pp.)
Each student will produce an essay of 5 double-spaced pages addressing the questions above.
Because you must cover so much material in a short essay, be sure to be succinct, direct, and on
point. Also be sure to ground your argument in the specifics and context of the law and related
court cases. In preparation for this assignment, you might it useful to consult CPPA, CIPA,
COPA: Which is Which? at http://www.ala.org/cgi-bin/reghtml.cgi, a useful summary by the
American Library Association. Of course, please keep in mind the ALA’s positions with regard
to these statutes. The summer 2003 NTIA report on CIPA and technology protection measures as
well as Lessig (2001, pp. 184-187) may also interest you.
Information Policy Paper
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 them. 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 student team will clear the proposed topic with the instructor by October
22. 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 Additional Sources
in this syllabus, Web and other Internet sources, and the bibliographies of what you read.
Draft -- Due November 26. Each student team will submit an initial draft of the
information policy paper on November 14. The draft will consist of the same parts as the final
draft of the paper described below. At least two copies of this draft are to be submitted -- one for
each student peer editor and one for the instructor.
Critique of another student team's draft of the paper -- Due December 3 (15%). Each
individual student will review the draft of one other student team and submit at least two copies
of a three- to four-page, double-spaced critique 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
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
29
not? Why or why not? What specific suggestions can you offer for improvement to the paper,
whether about the topic, the argument, definitions, sources, composition, citations, lay-out, and
so on?
Presentation -- November 19, November 26, and December 3 -- each team of two
students will be responsible for making a 25-30 minute oral presentation on the subject of their
paper. Each student will do roughly half of the presentation. You should plan to use visuals and
handouts as appropriate; please let me know in advance if we have to arrange for viewing using
a computer and projection device. Each student peer editor will act as respondent to another
student team's presentation. The dates for the presentations are November 19 and 26 and
December 5. Please notify the instructor of your preference for presentation dates no later than
Wednesday, November 5.
Final draft -- Due Friday, December 12, 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 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 Friday, December 12.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
30
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 to guide
your own writing as your study of policy analysis progresses beyond this semester’s work, but
they are also useful for evaluating the work of others. Such evaluations are very common in
policy studies, whether one is doing so for the purposes of critique, literature review, or peer
review. Policy analysts constantly review each others’ work in a collegial but demanding way.
The first model is based on one offered by Charles R. McClure, with my own modifications
added. Particular 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 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 – August 2003
31
Bardach (2000) is the source for the second approach to doing policy analysis. His book is
entitled A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving.
As such, the first two thirds of his book focuses on this “eightfold path,” in a way somewhat
reminiscent of Majchrzak (1984), one of the course’s main texts. Bardach identifies eight steps in
policy analysis (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 the rhetoric of problem solving (see, e.g., Schön,
1993) and an implicit linearity he uses to characterize policy analysis, his book is very useful for
understanding the overwhelming importance (1) of narrative in the process of policy analysis, (2)
of iteration in analysis, and (3) of 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 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, e.g., Doty (2001b).
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
32
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 – August 2003
33
REFERENCES
Agre, Philip E. (1997a). Introduction. In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and
privacy: The new landscape (pp. 1-28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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 Press.
Agre, Philip E., & Rotenberg, Marc. (Eds.). (1997). Technology and privacy: The new landscape.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. Reno, American Library Association et al. v. U.S. 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. (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
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]
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
Aufderheide, Patricia. (1999). Background. In Communications policy and the public interest: The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Chapter 1, pp. 5-36). New York: Guilford.
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 – August 2003
34
Browne, Mairéad. (1997a). The field of information policy: 1. Fundamental concepts. Journal of
Information Science, 23(4), 261-275.
Browne, Mairéad. (1997b). The field of information policy: 2. Redefining the boundaries and
methodologies. Journal of Information Science, 23(5), 339-351.
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 Press.
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 Press.
Doty, Philip. (1998). Why study information policy? Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 39(1), 58-64.
Doty, Philip. (2001a). Digital privacy: Towards 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.
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.
Dror, Yehezkel. (1984). On becoming more of a policy scientist. Policy Studies Review, 4(1), 13-21.
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 Press.
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]
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 Press.
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 Press.
Gellman, Robert. (2002). Perspectives on privacy and terrorism: All is not lost – yet. Government
Information Quarterly, 19(3), 255-264.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6542&_auth=y&_acct=C0000043
78&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7ca77beaef49608d529efd76eaebec91&c
hunk=19#19
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
35
Horwitz, Robert Britt. (1991). The irony of regulatory reform : The deregulation of American
telecommunications. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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
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 Press. http://www.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/
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
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 Press.
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/rtif/toc/chapter4/
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 Press.
Relyea, Harold C. (2002). Homeland security and information. Government Information Quarterly,
19(3), 213-223.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6542&_auth=y&_acct=C0000043
78&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7ca77beaef49608d529efd76eaebec91&c
hunk=19#19
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.
Rowlands, Ian. (1996). Understanding information policy: Concepts, frameworks and research
tools. Journal of Information Science, 22(1), 13-25.
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
Press.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
36
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 Press.
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]
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it
threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press.
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)
SELECTED IMPORTANT U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER FEDERAL CASES
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, 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
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
37
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]
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)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
38
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)
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]
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Here are a few suggestions for other sources valuable to the study of government information
policy, electronic information, and electronic networking. These sources, and others just as
valuable, can be found in major academic, law, and policy libraries in the regular shelves, in
Government Document Collections, on CD-ROM, on the Web, online, and so on. Be creative, be
responsive to the benefits of serendipity, and use your own and others' expertise when doing
research. You will find that Congressional Information Service publications; PAIS materials;
reports by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, the Congressional Research
Service, and the General Accounting Office; hearings before Congressional committees; and
material published by the individual mission agencies very useful as well. Also consult LEXIS
and the World Wide Web for legal material, Congressional reports, pending bills, and the like.
"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.
Alternatives for restructuring the Depository Library Program. (1995, December 5).
Administrative Notes, 16, 23-59.
American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. Reno, American Library Association et al. v. U.S. 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
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
39
American Library Association. Commission on Freedom and Equality of Access to Information.
(1986). Freedom and equality of access to information. Chicago: American Library Association.
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.
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.
Bennett, Colin, & Grant, Rebecca. (Eds.). (1999). Visions of privacy: Policy choices for the digital age.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Bennett, Tony. (1992). Putting policy into cultural studies. In Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson,
& Paula Treicher (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 23-37). New York: Routledge.
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 Press.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
40
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 Press.
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 Press.
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 Press.
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 Press.
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.
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 Press.
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 Press.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
41
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 Press.
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.
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.
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.
Forester, Tom, & Morrison, Perry. (1994). Computer ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
42
Gandy, Oscar. (1993). The panoptic sort: A personal economy of personal information. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
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 Press.
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.
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 Press.
Glendon, Mary Ann. (1991). Rights talk: The impoverishment of political discourse. New York: The
Free Press.
Grossman, Lawrence R. (1995). The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the electronic age.
New York: Viking.
Hadden, Susan. (in press). 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 Press.
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.
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 – August 2003
43
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 and 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.
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]
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
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
44
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 Press.
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 Press.
Kahin, Brian, & Nesson, Charles. (1997). Borders in cyberspace: Information policy and the Global
Information Infrastructure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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 Press.
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.
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 Press.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
45
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 Press.
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
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.
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 Press.
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.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
46
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).
Marvin, Carolyn. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in
the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Miller, Arthur, & Davis, Michael H. (1990). Intellectual property: Patents, trademarks, and copyright
in a nutshell (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
Miller, Steven. (1995). Civilizing cyberspace: Policy, power, and the information superhighway. New
York: ACM Press.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
47
Mosco, Vincent, & Wasko, Janet. (Eds.). (1988). The political economy of information. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Nagel, Stuart S. (1988). Policy studies: Integration and evaluation. New York: Praeger.
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 Press.
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 Press.
Overman, E. Sam, & Cahill, Anthony G. (1990). Information policy: A study of values in the
policy process. Policy Studies Review, 9(4), 803-818.
Patterson, L. Ray, & Lindberg, Stanley W. (1991). The nature of copyright: A law of users' rights.
Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
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
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget.
Pool, Ithiel de Solla. (1982). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
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 Press.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
48
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.
Relyea, Harold C. (2001). Legislating personal privacy protection: The federal response. Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 27(1), 36-51.
Reno et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
http://www.cyber-rights.org/censorship/acludecf.htm
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 Press.
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 Press.
Roe, Emery. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Rose, Lance. (1995). NetLaw: Your rights in the online world. Berkeley, CA: Osborne [McGrawHill].
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.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
49
Ryan, Joe. (1996). Guide to government information available on the Internet. Syracuse, NY: Ryan
Information Management Press.
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 Press.
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.
Schmidt, C. James. (1989). Rights for users of information: Conflicts and balances among
privacy, professional ethics, law, national security. In Filomena Simora (Ed.), The Bowker annual:
Library and book trade almanac (pp. 83-90). New Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker.
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 Press.
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 Press.
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 Press.
Tannen, Deborah. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York:
Random House.
Technology & the national interest. (1994). The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, LXXIV(2).
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
50
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.
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 Press.
Wolpert, Samuel A., & Wolpert, Joyce Friedman. (1986). Economics of information. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
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.
Reports (be sure to review required class readings as well; 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.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
51
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.
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.
Governmental and Commercial Serial Sources of Government Information
Code of Federal Regulations
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
52
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
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
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
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
53
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)
Journal of Information Science
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
Journal of Policy Research
The Journal of Politics
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
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
54
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
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
Other Specific 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
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
55
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/
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
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
56
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/
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/
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
57
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
North Carolina
General home page: http://www.ncgov.com/html/basic/index.html
Agency Records: http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/archives/arch/histstat.htm
Government records: http://www.ncgov.com/asp/subpages/intention.asp?P=2&I=78
NC Legislature: http://www.ncgov.com/asp/subpages/intention.asp?P=2&I=82
Spanish resources: http://www.ncgov.com/asp/subpages/intention.asp?P=2&I=75
(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: gopher: capitol.tlc.texas.gov
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 General Libraries http://www.lib.utexas.edu/
Government information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
58
More Gov’t Information 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
Villanova University
Internet Legal Research Compass http://vls.law.vill.edu/compass/
Federal Court Locator http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/fedcourt.html
Federal Web Navigator http://lawnt.law.vill.edu/fedweb/
State court Locator http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/statecourt/index.htm
Print Sources on Networking
Abbate, Janet. (1999). Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Benedikt, Michael. (Ed.). (1991). Cyberspace: First steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Berners-Lee, Tim. (1999). Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World
Wide Web by its inventor. San Francisco: Harper.
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 Press.
Hefner, Katie, & Lynn, Matthew. (1996). Where wizards stay up late: The origins of the Internet.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Levinson, Paul. (1997). The soft edge: A natural history and future of the information revolution.
London: Routledge.
Quarterman, John. (1990). The matrix: Computer networks and conferencing systems worldwide.
Bedford, MA: Digital Press.
Tanenbaum, Andrew. (2002). Computer networks (4th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003
59