FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
INF 390N.1/COM 386
Unique Number #28130/05481
Dr. Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas at Austin
Fall 2009
Class time: Thursday
Place:
UTA 1.204
Office:
UTA 5.448
12:00 N – 3:00 PM
Office hrs: Tuesday 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM
By appointment other times
Telephone: 512.471.3746 – direct line
512.471.2742 – iSchool receptionist
512.471.3821 – main iSchool office
Internet:
pdoty@ischool.utexas.edu
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/
Class URL: http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Doty_Philip/2009/fall/INF390N1/
TA:
Shelley E. Rowland
srowland@ischool.utexas.edu
Monday 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM, UTA 5.428 (seminar room)
Tuesday 7:00 PM – 8:00 PM Gmail Chat, shelleyrowland@gmail.com
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the course
3
Students’ collaboration
3
Expectations of students’ performance
4
Analysis and holism in reading, writing, and presenting
5
Standards for written work
6
Editing conventions
10
Grading
11
Texts and other tools
12
List of assignments
13
Outline of course
14
Schedule
16
Assignments
21
Suggestions for writing policy analysis
24
References
27
References in the schedule and assignments
Selected federal cases
"Reference" texts
Reports
Governmental and commercial serial sources of government information
Journals and other serial sources on information policy and government information
Newspapers
Other electronic sources
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
2
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
INF 390N.1, Federal Information Policy, provides an overview of U.S. federal information policy
and its implications for society. We will consider the federal information policy system within the
broader context of public policy, key information policy areas, and the structures and processes
involved in the formulation of federal information policies. Students will develop a critical
understanding of a variety of approaches to policy analysis and a variety of policy analysis
techniques. The class will give special attention to the contribution of Information Studies as a
discipline to policy formation and analysis.
Federal information policy comprises two major kinds of information policies: (1) policies that
control government information, i.e., information that the federal government and governmentsponsored entities generate, collect, “store,” and distribute; and (2) policies that control how
information is distributed in society, e.g., policies related to “intellectual property,” privacy,
surveillance and national security, freedom of expression, media regulation, intellectual freedom,
contracts, classification of information, the use of categories such as “sensitive but unclassified”
information, torts, and equity of information access. INF 390N.1 emphasizes this second kind of
information policy. A special focus will be electronic information, including those policies
related to privacy, surveillance, and freedom of information since the events of September 11,
2001.
INF 390N.1 will (a) increase students' knowledge of major federal information policies and how
to track their development, (b) improve students' ability to analyze critically the implications of
federal policies for managing information as well as for activities in public and private venues,
and (c) enhance students' ability to influence the policy system as professionals and private
citizens.
Thus, students will:
1.
Develop skill in information policy analysis and explore how various disciplines can
contribute to the analysis of public policy
2. Explore a variety of approaches to understanding public policy
3. Concentrate on several areas in information policy: the foundations of information policy,
policy as the expression and collision of values, privacy, surveillance and security, the
growing use of information classification and the category of “sensitive but unclassified”
information, and freedom of information, particularly since 9/11/2001
4. Examine the use of what some have called “rights talk” (Glendon, 1991)
5. Consider the seductive nature of the “argument culture” and how we can avoid its
limitations and obscuring logic and locutions, especially those related to so-called “debate”
(Tannen, 1998)
6. Explore the relationships among information policy and various information technologies
and trends
7. Identify major stakeholders in information policy and the relationships among them
8. Become acquainted with print and electronic sources of government information and
government information policy, especially legal information
9. Conduct research related to an information policy area of their choice; although U.S. federal
policy is the focus of the course, students are encouraged to engage information policy issues
at the international, state, and local level as their interests dictate
10. Communicate, in both written and oral form, in a collegial and scholarly atmosphere.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
3
STUDENTS’ COLLABORATION
The instructor encourages collaboration and collegiality among the students enrolled in the
course from the iSchool and elsewhere, and assignments are designed in part to foster
cooperative work among students and across disciplines.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
4
EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE
Students are expected to be involved, creative, and vigorous participants in class discussions and
in the overall conduct of the class. In addition, students are expected to:
•
Attend all class sessions. If a student misses a class, it is her responsibility to arrange with
another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets.
•
Read all material prior to class. Students are expected to use the course readings to inform
their classroom participation and their writing. Students must integrate what they read with
what they say and write. This last imperative is essential to the development of professional
expertise and to the development of a collegial professional persona.
•
Educate themselves and their peers. Successful completion of graduate programs and
participation in professional life depend upon a willingness to demonstrate initiative and
creativity. Participation in the professional and personal growth of colleagues is essential to
one’s own success as well as theirs. Such collegiality is at the heart of scholarship, so some
assignments are designed to encourage collaboration.

Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour in the classroom; therefore, a 3-credit
graduate hour course requires a minimum of 10-12 hours per week of work outside the
classroom.
•
Participate in all class discussions.
•
Complete all assignments on time. Late assignments will not be accepted except in the
limited circumstances noted below. Failure to complete any assignment on time will result in
a failing grade for the course.
•
Be responsible with collective property, especially books and other material on reserve.
•
Ask for help from the instructor or the teaching assistant, either in class, during office hours,
on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate way. Email is especially
appropriate for information questions, but the instructor limits access to email outside the
office. Unless there are compelling privacy concerns, it is always wise to send an additional
copy of any email intended for the instructor to the TA who has access to email more
regularly.
Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, is intolerable and will
incur severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is concern about behavior that
may be academically dishonest, consult the instructor. Students should refer to the UT General
Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and Texas is the Best . . .
HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.
The instructor is happy to provide all appropriate accommodations for students with
documented disabilities. The University’s Office of the Dean of Students at 471.6259, 471.4641
TTY, can provide further information and referrals as necessary.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
5
ANALYSIS AND HOLISM IN READING, WRITING, AND PRESENTING
Students in this class must be analytic in their reading of others' work, in their own writing, and
in their presentations. What follows are suggestions for developing analytic and critical methods
of thinking and communication. These suggestions are also indications of what you should
expect from the writing and speaking of others.
At the same time, however, please remember that a holistic, integrative understanding of context
must always complement depth of analysis.

First and foremost, maximize clarity – be clear, but not simplistic or patronizing.

Remember that writing is a form of thinking, not just a medium to "display" the results of
thinking; make your thinking engaging, reflective, and clear.

Provide enough context for your remarks that your audience can understand them but not so
much that your audience's attention or comprehension is lost.

Be specific.

Avoid jargon, undefined terms, undefined acronyms, colloquialisms, clichés, and vague
language.

Give examples.

Be critical, not dismissive, of others' work; be skeptical, not cynical.

Answer the difficult but important "how?," "why?," and “so what?” questions.

Support assertions with evidence.

Make explicit why evidence used to support an assertion does so.

Identify and explore the specific practical, social, and intellectual implications of courses of
action.

Be evaluative. Synthesize and internalize existing knowledge without losing your own
critical point of view.

Identify the specific criteria against which others' work and options for action will be
assessed.
See the Standards for Written Work, Suggestions for Writing Policy Analysis, and the assignment
descriptions in this syllabus for further explanations and examples.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
6
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK
You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity, clarity, grammar, spelling, and
organization in your written work for this class, and, to that end, I offer the following remarks.
Review these standards both before and after writing; I use them to evaluate your work.
Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what 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 mutually reinforcing.
Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Recall that writing is a form of inquiry, a
way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. Theodore Dreiser’s
Sister Carrie shows how this process of composition and thought works (1994, p. 144):
Hurstwood surprised himself with his fluency. By the natural law which governs all effort,
what he wrote reacted upon him. He began to feel those subtleties which he could find
words to express. With every word came increased conception. Those inmost breathings
which thus found words took hold upon him.
We need not adopt Dreiser’s breathless metaphysics or naturalism to understand the point.
All written work for the class must be done on a word-processor and double-spaced, with 1"
margins all the way around and in either 10 or 12 pt. font.
Some writing assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and
references. It is particularly important in professional schools such as the School of Information
that notes and references are impeccably done. Please use APA (American Psychological
Association) standards. There are other standard bibliographic and note formats, for example, in
engineering and law, but social scientists and a growing number of humanists use APA.
Familiarity with standard formats is essential for understanding others' work and for preparing
submissions to journals, funding agencies, professional conferences, and the like. You may also
want to consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.).
Do not use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in
graduate school or in professional writing. If you want to use a reference source to
define a term, use a specialized dictionary such as The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy or
subject-specific encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
The best alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the term
sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature.
Use a standard spell checker, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries have systematic
weaknesses: they exclude most proper nouns, e.g., personal and place names; they omit most
technical terms; they omit most foreign words and phrases; and they 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 390N.1 or COM 386). If
you have any questions about standards, I will be pleased to discuss them at any time.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
7
Remember, every assignment must include a title page with:
•
•
•
•
The title of the assignment
Your name
The date
The class number – INF 390N.1 or COM 386.
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 professional
written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16,
19, 21, and 25 (some have more than one error):
1. Staple all papers for this class in the upper left-hand corner. Do not use covers, binders, or
other means of keeping the pages together.
2. Number all pages after the title page. Notes and references do not count against page limits.
3. Use formal, academic prose. Avoid colloquial language, *you know?* It is essential in
graduate work and in professional communication to avoid failures in diction – be serious
and academic when called for, be informal and relaxed when called for, and be everything in
between as necessary. For this course, avoid words and phrases such as "agenda," "problem
with," "deal with," "handle," "window of," "goes into," "broken down into," "viable," and
"option."
4. Avoid clichés. They are vague, *fail to "push the envelope," and do not provide "relevant
input."*
5. Avoid computer technospeak like "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except
when using such terms in specific technical ways.
6. Avoid using “content” as a noun.
7. Do not use the term "relevant" except in its information retrieval sense. Ordinarily, it is a
colloquial cliché, but it also has a strict technical meaning in information studies.
8. Do not use "quality" as an adjective; it is vague, cliché, and colloquial. Instead use "highquality," "excellent," "superior," or whatever more formal phrase you deem appropriate.
9. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .*
10. Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms
entail major philosophical, epistemological controversy. Avoid terms such as "facts,"
"factual," "proven," and related constructions for similar reasons.
11. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing.
12. Be circumspect in using the term "this," especially in the beginning of a sentence. *THIS* is
often a problem because the referent is unclear. Pay strict attention to providing clear
referents for all pronouns. Especially ensure that pronouns and their referents agree in
number; e.g., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is
singular, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the referent
or the pronoun must change in number.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
8
13. "If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller."
14. Put "only" in its appropriate place, near the word it modifies. For example, it is appropriate
in spoken English to say that "he only goes to Antone's" when you mean that "the only place
he frequents is Antone's." In written English, however, the sentence should read "he goes
only to Antone's."
15. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad.
16. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will
not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them.
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
9
17. Avoid misplaced modifiers; e.g., it is inappropriate to write the following sentence: As
someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, it was important for me to attend the
lecture. The sentence is inappropriate because the phrase "As someone interested in the
history of Mesoamerica" is meant to modify the next immediate word, which should then,
obviously, be both a person and the subject of the sentence. It should modify the word "I" by
preceding it immediately. One good alternative for the sentence is: As someone interested in
the history of Mesoamerica, I was especially eager to attend the lecture.
18. Avoid use of "valid," "parameter," "bias," "reliability," and "paradigm," except in limited
technical ways. These are important research terms and should be used with precision.
19. Remember that the words "data," "media," "criteria," "strata," and "phenomena" are all
PLURAL forms. They *TAKES* plural verbs. If you use any of these plural forms in a
singular construction, e.g., "the data is," you will make the instructor very unhappy :-(.
20. "Number," "many," and "fewer" are used with plural nouns (a number of horses, many
horses, and fewer horses). “Amount," "much," and "less" are used with singular nouns (an
amount of hydrogen, much hydrogen, and less hydrogen). Another useful way to make this
distinction is to recall that "many" is used for countable nouns, while "much" is used for
uncountable nouns.
21. *The passive voice should generally not be used.*
22. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more.
23. Generally avoid the use of honorifics such as Mister, Doctor, Ms., and so on when referring to
persons in your writing, especially when citing their written work. Use last names and dates
as appropriate in APA.
24. There is no generally accepted standard for citing electronic resources. If you cite them, give
an indication, as specifically as possible, of:
-
responsibility
title
date of creation
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. 213-214,
231, and 268-281) for a discussion of citing electronic material and useful examples. Also see
Web Extension to American Psychological Association Style (WEAPAS) at
http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE for more guidance.
25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*
26. Citation, quotation, and reference are nouns; cite, quote, and refer to are verbs.
27. Use double quotation marks (“abc.”), not single quotation marks (‘xyz.’), as a matter of
course. Single quotation marks are to be used to indicate quotations within quotations.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
10
28. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page
or other digital source, provide at least the paragraph number and/or other directional cues,
e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”
29. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because.
30. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
11
31. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" is used in a technical way to
identify sources of public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to topics
about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT synonymously with general
terms such as "area," "topic," or the like.
32. On a related note, avoid the locution of “public debate.” Such a locution makes a series of
faulty assumptions:
- It presumes that a public policy issue has only two “sides.” There are usually three or four
or more perspectives on any topic of public dissensus that merit consideration. “Debate”
hides this complexity.
- “Debate” implies that one “side” and only one “side” can be correct; that presumption
ignores the fact that the many perspectives on a public policy issue have contributions to
make to its resolution.
- “Debate” implies that there can be and will be one and only one “winner.” This
presumption naively ignores the fact that some public policy issues are intractable, that
these issues are often emergent as are their resolutions, and that compromise is success
rather than failure or “surrender.”
33. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.”
34. Avoid the use of “etc.” – it is awkward, colloquial, and vague.
35. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,”
“participants,” and “informants” are preferred terms and have been for decades.
36. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary, but, if you must use them, use endnotes not
footnotes.
37. Please adhere to these orthographic (spelling) conventions:
- Web with a capital “W.”
- Web site, two words, with a capital “W.”
- Internet with a capital “I” to indicate the TCP/IP-compliant computer network with a
shared address convention. Otherwise, internet with a lower-case “i” simply means any of
the many millions of networks of networks.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
12
SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS
Symbol Meaning
#
number OR insert a space; the 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 means that the verb or subject of the sentence is missing
ITAL
italicize
j
journal
lc
make into lower case
lib'ship
librarianship
org, org’l
organization, organizational
PL
plural
Q
question
Q’naire
questionnaire
REF?
what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer?
RQ
research question
sp
spelling
SING
singular
w/
with
w.c.?
word choice?
The instructor also uses check marks to indicate that the writer has made an especially good
point. Wavy lines indicate that usage or reasoning is suspect.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
13
GRADING
Grades for this class include:
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CF
Extraordinarily high achievement
Superior
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Barely satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unacceptable and failing.
not recognized by the University
4.00
3.67
3.33
3.00
2.67
2.33
2.00
1.67
0.00.
See the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in
the School of Information student orientation packet for explanations of this system. Consult the
iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/general_info.php) and the Graduate
School Catalogue (e.g., http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad0709/ch01/ch01a.grad.html#The-Nature-and-Purpose-of-Graduate-Work and
http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad07-09/ch01/ch01b.grad.html#Student-Responsibility)
for more on standards of work. While the University does not accept the grade of A+, the
instructor may assign the grade to students whose work is extraordinary.
The grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. The instructor
reserves the grade of A for students who demonstrate 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, successfully informing the work of other students.
The grade of incomplete (X) is reserved for students in extraordinary circumstances and must be
negotiated with the instructor before the end of the semester. See the former Dean's
memorandum of August 13, 1991, available from the main iSchool office.
The instructor uses points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. He uses an arithmetic – not
a proportional – algorithm to determine points on any assignment. For example, 14/20 points on
an assignment does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is roughly
equivalent to a B. If any student's semester point total ≥ 90 (is equal to or greater than 90), then
s/he will have earned an A of some kind. If the semester point total ≥ 80, then s/he will have
earned at least a B of some kind. Whether these are A+, A, A-, B+, B, or B- depends upon the
comparison of point totals for all students. For example, if a student earns a total of 90 points and
the highest point total in the class is 98, the student would earn an A-. If, on the other hand, a
student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 91, then the student would earn
an A. This system will be further explained throughout the semester.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
14
TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS
There are four required texts for this class; all can be purchased at the University Coop on
Guadalupe. Many of the other readings are available online, and those readings that are neither
textbooks nor available from online subscriptions are available in the Course Documents section
of the course Blackboard site. As many of the required readings as possible will be on Reserve at
PCL.
The required texts are:
Abbate, Janet. (2000). Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Original work published
1999)
Lyon, David. (Ed.). (2006b). Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond. Portland, OR:
Willan.
Majchrzak, Ann. (1984). Methods for policy research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Solove, Daniel J., & Schwartz, Paul M. (2009). Privacy, information, and technology (2nd ed.).
Austin: Wolters Kluwer.
All the texts address political questions and, thus, are inherently controversial and value-laden.
One of the major goals of the course is to help students move beyond the simplistic “here’s my
personal opinion . . .” to a more analytic, historical, and theoretically grounded understanding of
information conflicts and politics. For example, reductive and colloquial notions of political
left/right and liberal/conservative are inadequate to give us scholarly perspective on questions
of information policy. Such notions are out of place in this class.
Additional valuable texts include:
Agre, Philip E., & Rotenberg, Marc. (Eds.). (1997). Technology and privacy: The new landscape.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Braman, Sandra. (2006). Change of state: Information, policy, and power. Cambridge, MA:
MIT.
Burger, Robert H. (1993). Information policy: A framework for evaluation and policy research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Easton, David. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1987). Federal information policies in the 1980s: Conflicts
and issues. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Hernon, Peter, McClure, Charles R., & Relyea, Harold. (Eds.). (1996). Federal information
policies in the 1990s: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Horwitz, Robert Britt. (1991). The irony of regulatory reform : The deregulation of American
telecommunications. New York: Oxford University.
Lapham, Lewis H. (2004). Gag rule: On the suppression of dissent and the stifling of democracy.
New York: Penguin Books.
Lessig, Lawrence. (1999b). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
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.
Waldo, James, Liu, Herbert S., & Millett, Lynette I. (Eds.). (2007). Engaging privacy and
information technology in a digital age [sic]. Committee on Privacy in the Information Age
{sic]. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy. Also available
at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11896&page=R1
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
15
Williams, Robert V., & Lipetz, Ben-Ami. (Eds.). (2005). Covert and overt: Recollecting and
connecting intelligence service and information science. ASIST monograph series. Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Blackboard and direct email messages will be used to inform students of changes in the course
schedule, discuss assignments, and the like. You will also find Declan McCullagh's mailing list
Politech (http://www.politechbot.com/) especially useful, and you should subscribe to it and
begin reviewing its archives by the second class of the semester.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
16
LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS
The instructor will provide additional information about each assignment. Written assignments
should 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%
Schön (1993) (3-4 pp.)
SEP 17, in class
10
Analysis of FISA Amendment Act of 2007 (6 pp.)
OCT 22, in class
15
Topic for information policy paper GRP or IND
OCT 29, in class
-----
Surveillant assemblage and surveillance theory (6 pp.)
NOV 5, in class
20
Draft of information policy paper
GRP or IND
NOV 19, in class
-----
Presentation on information policy paper GRP or IND
DEC 3, in class
-----
Review of another team's draft policy paper
(3-4 pp.)
DEC 3, in class
15
Final draft of information policy paper
(18-20 pp.) GRP or IND
DEC 8, TUE
3:00 PM
30
All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructor reserves the right to issue a course
grade of F if any assignment is not completed. Late assignments will be accepted only if:
1.
At least 24 hours before the date due, the instructor gives explicit permission to the student to
hand the assignment in late.
2.
At the same time, a specific date and time are agreed upon for the late submission.
3.
The assignment is then submitted on or before the agreed-upon date and time.
The first criterion can be met only in the most serious of health, family, or personal situations.
All of your assignments should adhere to the standards for written work; should be clear,
succinct, and specific; and should be explicitly grounded in the readings, class discussions, and
other sources as appropriate. You will find it particularly useful to write multiple drafts of your
papers.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
17
OUTLINE OF COURSE
Meeting
Date
Topics
Unit 1: Introduction to the Study of Information Policy and the National Information Infrastructure
1
AUG 27
Introduction to the course – Review of the syllabus
Introduction to public policy and information policy
2
SEP 3
Foundations of policy analysis and information policy
3
SEP 10
Locating information policy sources
Brief history of the modern administrative state and U.S.
telecommunications
Modified Final Judgment (MFJ)
1934 Communications Act
1996 Telecommunications Act
4
SEP 17
Introduction to the National Information Infrastructure I:
History of the Internet and other national nets
“Rights talk”
Transcending the “argument culture”
DUE:
5
SEP 24
Schön (1993) (3-4 pp., double-spaced) (10%)
National Information Infrastructure II: Visions, models, and the
so-called “information commons”
Unit 2: Privacy and Surveillance
6
OCT 1
Privacy I – Introduction and overview
History in the U.S.
1974 Privacy Act – history and context
7
OCT 8
Privacy II – Current controversies and theories
Public/private spheres – an acceptable model?
Gendered discussions of privacy: U.S. Supreme Court and
privacy
Computer matching and surveillance
USA PATRIOT Act/Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA)
Library and other records
8
OCT 15
Privacy III – Historical and evolving legal perspectives
9
OCT 22
Surveillance I – Analytics beyond the panopticon
Introduction
The surveillant assemblage
CCTV
Surveillance and totalitarianism
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
18
DUE:
Analysis of FISA Amendment Act of 2007 (6 pp.) (15%)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
19
10
OCT 29
Surveillance II – Theories in practice
The so-called “war on terror”
Web cams
Surveillance and the body
DUE:
Topic for information policy paper
Unit 3: Freedom of Information, Intelligence, and Information Science
11
NOV 5
Freedom of Information I – History and post-9/11 questions
General concepts
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
FOIA and electronic information
Classification of information
E.O. 13233, E.O. 13489, and the secrecy of presidential
records
DUE:
Surveillant assemblage and surveillance theory (6 pp.)
(20%)
12
NOV 12
Freedom of Information II – “Sensitive but unclassified”
History
Current uses and conflicts
13
NOV 19
Security information
Intelligence and information science
DUE:
14
Draft of information policy paper
NOV 26
No class – Happy Thanksgiving!
DEC 3
Course evaluation
Policy paper presentations
Summary discussion
DUE:
DEC 8
Review of another team’s draft (3-4 pp.) (15%)
Tuesday, 3:00 PM
DUE:
Policy paper (18-20 pp.) (30%)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
20
SCHEDULE
The following schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as we progress through the semester.
CD indicates that a reading is in the Course Documents section of the class Blackboard site, while
AS identifies Additional Sources that are optional.
DATE
TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND REQUIRED READINGS
Unit 1: Introduction to the Study of Information Policy and the National Information Infrastructure
AUG 27
Introduction to the course – Review of the syllabus
Introduction to public policy and information policy
READ: Braman (1990) CD
Doty (1998) CD
McClure & Jaeger (2008) online
Schön (1993) CD
AS:
SEP 3
Burger (1993), Chapters 1 and 2
Coates (1978)
Overman & Cahill (1990) online
Rist (1997) CD
Foundations of policy analysis and information policy
READ: Braman (2006) 1, 3 and Bibliographic Essay (pp. 329-335 and 346-349) CD
Dror (1984) CD
Majchrzak (1984), all – and be sure to read the (contested!) Policy
Research Glossary
AS:
SEP 10
Burger (1993), Chapter 6
Doty (2001b)
Dye (1995), Chapters 1, 2, and 13
Lessig (2001), 1-4
National Research Council (2000), Appendix D (“Information Economics:
A Primer”) online
Locating information policy sources
Brief history of the modern administrative state and U.S. telecommunications
Modified Final Judgment (MFJ)
1934 Communications Act
1996 Telecommunications Act
READ: Abbate (2000), Introduction and 1
Aufderheide (1999), 1 CD
Braman (2003) online
Browne (1997a) CD
Browne (1997b) CD
Rowlands (1996) CD
Communication Act of 1934/appropriate parts of the USC, passim
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (PL 104-104) (read/retrieve, passim)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
21
AS:
Aufderheide (1999), 2 and 5
Braman (2006), pp. 177-187 and 380-382)
Congressional Research Service (2001)
Hernon et al. (1999), 1, 12, and passim
Horwitz (1991), Preface, 1-4 [skim]
Lessig (2001), 5 and 6
Robinson (1998), 1, 2, and passim
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
22
SEP 17
Introduction to the National Information Infrastructure I: History of the Internet
and other national nets
“Rights talk”
Transcending the “argument culture”
READ: Abbate (2000), 2 and 3
Barabási (2003) CD
National Research Council (2000), Appendix C (“Networks: How the
Internet Works”) online
NTIA Web site -- http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
SEP 24
AS:
Bertot and McClure (1996)
Glendon (1991), passim
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Web site
Internet Society (ISOC) Web site
Lessig (2001), 7 and 8
McClure and Ryan (1996)
Tannen (1998), passim
DUE:
Essay on Schön (1993) (3-4 pp., double-spaced) (10%)
National Information Infrastructure II: Visions, models, and the so-called
“information commons”
READ: Abbate (2000), 4, 5, and 6
AS:
DoC NTIA (1993) (retrieve)
GAO (1994)
Lessig (2001), 9 and 10
NRENAISSANCE Committee (1994), 4 (“Principles and Practice”)
Unit 2: Privacy and Surveillance
OCT 1
Privacy I – Introduction and overview
History in the U.S.
1974 Privacy Act – history and context
Facilitated discussion
READ: Agre (1997a) CD
Solove & Schwartz (2009), 1 (pp. 1-76), 4B2, 3, 4, and 5(d) (pp. 411-433,
433-436, 437-439, and 467-469)
Warren & Brandeis (1890/1985) online
Waldo et al. (2007), Executive Summary online
Privacy Act (5 USC 552a)
AS:
Agre (1997b) CD
Allen (1995) CD
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
23
Burkert (1997) CD
Gellman (1996a)
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Relyea (2001)
Raab & Mason (2005)
Rosen (2000) CD
Warren & Dearnley (2005)
OCT 8
Privacy II – Current controversies and theories
Public/private spheres – an acceptable model?
Gendered discussions of privacy: U.S. Supreme Court and privacy
Computer matching and surveillance
USA PATRIOT Act/Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
Library and other records
Facilitated discussion
READ: USA PATRIOT Act (PL 107-56)(retrieve) § 215
Bowers (2006) online
Fraser (1992) CD
Gellman (1997) CD
McGaw (1989) CD
Regan (2004) online
Relyea (2002) online
Seifert & Relyea (2004) online
AS:
OCT 15
Bailey & Caidi (2005) online
Caidi & Ross (2005) online
Davies (1997) CD
Doty (2001a) CD
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (PL 99-508)(retrieve)
Gellman (2002) online
Jaeger et al. (2006) online
Lessig (1999b)
Mart (2004)
Minow & Lipinski (2003), 5 (“Library Records and Privacy”)
Samarajiva (1997) CD
Stefik (1999b)
Strickland (2003) online
Waldo et al. (2007), 8 (“Libraries and Privacy”) online
Privacy III – Historical and evolving legal perspectives
READ: Braman (2006), 5 and Bibliographic Essay pp. 352-369 CD
Solove & Schwartz (2009), 3A2 (pp. 243-244 and 249-264) and 3B (pp.
301-359)
AS:
Braman (2006), pp. 126-138
Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
24
OCT 22
Surveillance I – Analytics beyond the panopticon
Introduction
The surveillant assemblage
CCTV
Surveillance and totalitarianism
READ: Lyon (2006a)
Haggerty (2006)
Haggerty & Ericson (2000) online
Hier et al. (2006)
Los (2006)
Waldo et al. (2007), Appendix A (“A Short History of Surveillance and
Privacy in the United States) online
DUE:
OCT 29
Analysis of FISA Amendment Act of 2007 (6 pp.) (15%)
Surveillance II – Theories in practice
The so-called “war on terror”
Web cams
Surveillance and the body
READ: Elmer & Opel (2006)
Ball (2006)
Solove & Schwartz (2009), 2B1, 2, 4, and 5 (pp. 138-140, 153-156, and 156158), 2D (pp. 192-241) and 4E (pp. 507-526)
AS:
Gandy (2006)
Koskela (2006)
DUE:
Topic for information policy paper
Unit 3: Freedom of Information, Intelligence, and Information Science
NOV 5
Freedom of Information I – History and post-9/11 questions
General concepts
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
FOIA and electronic information
Classification of information
E.O. 13233, E.O. 13489, and the secrecy of presidential records
READ: Solove & Schwartz (2009), 3A2 (pp. 249-264)
Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552, as amended by PL 104-231,
110 Stat. 3048)[see the EPIC Web site as well as the U.S. Code]
E-FOIA [see the EPIC Web site]
E.O. 13233 (“Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act,” 66
FR 214, 56025-56029) online
E.O. 13489 (“Presidential Records,” 74 FR 15, 4669-4671) online
Barker (2005) online
Feinberg (2004) online
FBI’s FOIA and privacy site (http://foia.fbi.gov/)
Part of the EPIC Web site (http://www.epic.org/open_gov/)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
25
NOV 12
AS:
Connors (2002) online
Gaidos (2006) online
Roberts (2004) online
Shuler (2007) online
Due:
Surveillant assemblage and surveillance theory (6 pp.) (20%)
Freedom of Information II – “Sensitive but unclassified”
History
Current uses and conflicts
READ: Knezo (2004) online
Knezo (2006) online
Taddeo (2006) online
AS:
Cohen (2002) online
Shay (1989) online
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
26
NOV 19
Security information
Intelligence and information science
READ: Dearstyne (2005) online
Feinberg (2002) online
Fraser (1989) CD
Jaeger & Burnett (2005) online
Seifert (2004) online
Strickland (2005b) CD
Warner (2005) CD
Williams (2005) CD
AS:
Benoît (2002)
Chen & Xu (2006) online
Davies (2002)
Richards (2005)
Strickland (2005a) online
DUE:
Draft of information policy paper
Unit 3: Presentations of Students' Research
NOV 26
No class – Happy Thanksgiving!
DEC 3
Course evaluation
Policy paper presentations
Summary discussion
READ: Braman (2006), 9
DUE:
DEC 8
Review of another team’s draft (3-4 pp.) (15%)
Tuesday, 3:00 PM
DUE:
Policy paper (18-20 pp.) (30%)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
27
ASSIGNMENTS
Please consult the sections in this syllabus on (1) Analysis and Holism in Reading, Writing, and
Presenting and (2) Standards for Written Work before and after doing the assignments. I use
those criteria, as well as others, in evaluating your work.
Essay on Schön (1993) -- Due September 17 (10%)
At the 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 focused approach to the study of public policy? (2 pp.)
Given the material we have read and discussed by this point in the semester, 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 formulate
your response in the specific context 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 FISA Amendment Act (Protect America Act) – Due October 22 (15%)
The Protect America Act of 2007 (PL 110-55) was signed into law on August 5, 2007, to amend the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Using the text of the act, President Bush’s press
release statement (Bush, 2007), the fact sheet (Executive Office of the President, 2007), Solove &
Schwartz (passim, 2009), and Marjorie Cohn’s editorial critiquing the act (Cohn, 2007), please
answer the following questions in six (6) double-spaced pages:
1.
In your opinion, what is the primary rationale for the act presented by its proponents? (2 pp.)
2.
What critiques do Solove & Schwartz and Cohn make of the act? (2 pp.)
3.
What is your evaluation of rationales for and against the act? (2 pp.)
Each student will write responses of 6 double-spaced pages to these questions. Feel free to use
any other sources you regard as appropriate to help you make your argument in this paper,
whether they are things we have read in class, class discussions, or any other material you regard
as helpful. Be sure to recall that each actor and each organization has its own point of view that
we must regard with care as well as skepticism.
Surveillant assemblage and surveillance theory – Due November 5 (20%)
Scholars and commentators in many disciplines and from many perspectives have reacted to
Kevin Haggerty and Richard Ericson’s paper on the surveillant assemblage (2000). Please use the
essay and other sources you find useful to address the following questions:
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
28
1.
What is the surveillant assemblage? What are its theoretical roots? What are its implications
for surveillance practice? (3 pp.)
2.
Using the essays in Theorizing Surveillance, especially David Lyons’ introduction (2006a), and
other readings you consider appropriate, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the
surveillant assemblage as a theory of surveillance? You may want to consider especially the
concept of what Haggerty & Ericson, 2006, pp. 611-614, call the “monitored body.” (3 pp.)
Be wary of accepting any arguments uncritically or unskeptically, whether from Haggerty &
Ericson, Foucault, Deleuze, or anyone else, including me.
Your paper should be 6 double-spaced pages long, as well as sufficiently analytic, holistic, and
grounded in the specifics of the sources you use.
Information Policy Paper – Due various dates
Every student will be a member of a self-selected, two-member research team. The size of the
class may, however, dictate single-student papers. Each two-student team will ideally consist of
students enrolled in different degree programs. The team will write a paper about a U.S. federal,
local, state, or international information policy issue, theme, actor, information service, or agency
of interest to the students. The main goals of this assignment are to (1) identify a difficulty in
government information policy (often an issue, i.e., an area of contention and dissensus) of
interest to the students, (2) explain the topic and its context clearly and thoroughly, and (3)
offer well-founded, clearly described recommendations to resolve any conflicts among
actors and the implications of implementing those recommendations. See the description of the
paper below for more information.
Topic – Each team will clear the proposed topic with the instructor by October 29. In
addition to your own knowledge and acquaintance with information policy issues, you may find
a number of resources of value to you in identifying a topic for your paper: discussion with the
instructor and your colleagues (both inside and outside of the class), reading ahead in the
syllabus to identify upcoming topics, the mass media, class readings and all the sources in the
syllabus, Web and other Internet sources, and the bibliographies of what you read.
Draft – Due November 19. Each team will submit a draft of the information policy paper
on November 19. The draft will consist of the same parts as the final draft of the paper described
below. Submit two or three copies of this draft – one for each student peer editor and one for the
instructor.
Review of another student team's draft of the paper – Due December 3 (15%). Each
individual student will review the draft of one other student team and submit two or three copies
of a three- to four-page, double-spaced review of the paper: one to each student who wrote the
draft and one to the instructor. Be specific in your critique – what works in the draft? What does
not? Why or why not? What specific suggestions can you offer for improvement to the paper,
whether about the topic, the argument, definitions, sources, composition, citations, lay-out, and
so on? Each student must offer recommendations in the spirit of engaged critique, not dismissive
cynicism.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
29
Presentation – December 3. The students in each team will make a 15-20 minute oral
presentation on the subject of their paper. Each student will do roughly half of the presentation.
While the presentation will be informal and ungraded, you should plan to use visuals and
handouts as appropriate; both Wintel and Mac computers will be available, as will an Internet
connection and a LitePro. Each student peer editor will act as respondent to another student
team's presentation. The presentations will be on December 3.
Final draft – Due Tuesday, December 8, 3:00 PM (30%). This is a final paper of 18-20
double-spaced pages that considers any approved topic in government information policy. Your
paper should focus on analysis and contextualization. Remember to look at the syllabus section
on Analysis and Holism in Reading, Writing, and Presenting as well as the section on Standards
for Written Work. Put two copies of your policy paper in an envelope with the instructor’s name
on it and give the envelope to the iSchool receptionist on the fifth floor of UTA no later than 3:00
PM on Tuesday, December 8. The receptionist will make note of the time of the submission.
Post the final draft of your paper on the appropriate Blackboard forum by 3:00 PM on Tuesday,
December 8.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
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 models
to guide your own writing as your study of policy and policy analysis progresses beyond this
semester. The models are also useful for evaluating the work of others. Such evaluations are
common in policy studies, whether for critique, literature review, or formal peer review. Policy
analysts constantly review each other’s work in a collegial but rigorous way.
The first model is based on one offered by Charles R. McClure, with my own modifications
added. Other analysts and topics may demand different approaches:
•
Abstract
•
Introduction
Importance of specific topic
Definition of key terms
Key stakeholders
Key policy areas needing analysis and resolution
•
Overview of current knowledge
Evaluative review of the literature about the topic, including print and electronic sources
•
Existing policy instruments related to the topic
The most important legislative, judicial, and regulatory policy instruments
Ambiguities, conflicts, problems, and contradictions related to the instruments
•
Key issues
Underlying assumptions
Effects on and roles of key stakeholders
Conflicts among key values
Implications of issues
•
Conclusions and recommendations
Recommendations
Rationale for recommendations
Implications and possible outcomes of specific courses of action
•
References
APA style
All sources cited in the paper.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
31
Bardach (2000) is the source for the second approach to doing policy analysis, and he identifies
eight steps in policy analysis. In a way reminiscent of Majchrzak (1984), Bardach focuses the first
two thirds of his book A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective
Problem Solving on this “eightfold path” (using his words):

Define the problem

Assemble some evidence

Construct the alternatives (for action)

Select the criteria

Project the outcomes

Confront the trade-offs

Decide!

Tell your story.
Despite his somewhat misplaced emphasis on problem solving (see, e.g., Schön, 1993) and the
implicit linearity he ascribes to policy analysis, his book is very useful for understanding the
importance of (1) narrative in the process of policy analysis, (2) iteration in analysis, and (3)
clarity in argumentation. Bardach also gives some important insights into the contributions of
econometric analysis to policy studies.
The third model is on the next page and is based primarily on the work of William Dunn, with
contributions from the work of Ray Rist on qualitative policy research methods, Emery Roe on
narrative policy analysis, and Donald Schön on generative metaphor. I avoid the rhetoric of
problems and problem solving deliberately; see, e.g., Doty (2001b).
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
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 – July 2009
33
REFERENCES
Many required readings are available online, as indicated below and in the class schedule. Some of
the course readings are in the Course Documents section of the Blackboard site (CD).
Some of the readings, on the other hand, require you to be logged in with your UT EID through the
UT libraries. Those journals are usually available online for only part of their publication run;
further, UT often has more than one arrangement through which to get these journals online, so
there may be more than one URL for each journal. Feel free to explore the various online journal
packages – the more familiar you are with such arrangements, the better researcher you will be.
I.
References in the schedule and assignments
Abbate, Janet. (2000). Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Original work published
1999)
Agre, Philip E. (1997a). Introduction. In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and
privacy: The new landscape (pp. 1-28). Cambridge, MA: MIT. CD
Agre, Philip E., & Rotenberg, Marc. (Eds.). (1997). Technology and privacy: The new landscape.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Aufderheide, Patricia. (1999). Background. In Communications policy and the public interest: The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Chapter 1, pp. 5-36). New York: Guilford. CD
Ball, Kirstie. (2006). Organization, surveillance and the body: Towards a politics of resistance.
In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 296-317). Portland,
OR: Willan.
Barabási, Albert-László. (2003). The eleventh link: The awakening Internet. In Linked: How
everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life (pp.
143-159 and 264-267). New York: Plume, Penguin. (Original work published 2002) CD
Bardach, Eugene. (2000). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective
problem solving. New York: Chatham House.
Barker, Anne N. (2005). Executive Order no. 13,233: A threat to government accountability.
Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 4-19. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4FH03P22&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AZ-MsSWYVW-UUA-U-AACEAWYDYVAACZDUECYV-YZYBDDUD-AZU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=3&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232005%23999779998%23575912!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=b273ac650c360900509ddfef71a2ef9c
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
34
Bowers, Stacey L. (2006). Privacy and library records. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(4),
377-383. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/science//journal/00991333
Braman, Sandra. (1990). The unique characteristics of information policy and their U.S.
consequences. In Virgil L.P. Blake & Renee Tjoumas (eds.), Information literacies for the twenty-first
century (pp. 47-77). Boston: G.K. Hall. CD
Braman, Sandra. (2003). The long view. In Sandra Braman (Ed.), Communication researchers and
policy-making (pp. 11-31). Cambridge, MA: MIT. Also available at
http://www.uwm.edu/~braman/bramanpdfs/019_2003longview.pdf
Braman, Sandra. (2006). Change of state: Information, policy, and power. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Browne, Mairéad. (1997a). The field of information policy: 1. Fundamental concepts. Journal of
Information Science, 23(4), 261-275. CD
Browne, Mairéad. (1997b). The field of information policy: 2. Redefining the boundaries and
methodologies. Journal of Information Science, 23(5), 339-351. CD
Bush, George W. (2007). President Bush commends Congress on passage of intelligence
legislation. Available at http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070805.html
Cohn, Marjorie. (2007). FISA revised: A blank check for domestic spying. Jurist: Legal News and
Research. Available at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/08/fisa-revised-blank-check-fordomestic.php
Dearstyne, Bruce W. (2005). Fighting terrorism, making war: Critical insights in the
management of information and intelligence. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 170-186.
Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G4FR4BY0-1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-WA-MsSWYWW-UUW-U-AACEAWYDZVAACZDUECZV-YZYBZEYV-WAU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=6&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232005%23999779997%23599273!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=2d68151353f796ca111abd9cc30abf54
Doty, Philip. (1998). Why study information policy? Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 39(1), 58-64. CD
Doty, Philip. (2001a). Digital privacy: Toward a new politics and discursive practice. In Martha
E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 115-245).
Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD
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.
Dreiser, Theodore. (1994). Sister Carrie (John C. Berkey, Alice M. Winters, James L.W. West, &
Neda M. Westlake, eds.). New York: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1900, 1981)
Dror, Yehezkel. (1984). On becoming more of a policy scientist. Policy Studies Review, 4(1), 13-21.
CD
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
35
Dunn, William N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Easton, David. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Elmer, Greg, & Opel, Andy. (2006). Pre-empting panoptic surveillance: Surviving the inevitable
war on terror. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 139159). Portland, OR: Willan.
Executive Office of the President. Office of the Press Secretary. (2007). Fact sheet: The Protect
America Act of 2007. Available at http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070806-5.html
Feinberg, Lotte E. (2002). Homeland security: Implications for information policy and practice –
First appraisal. Government Information Quarterly, 19(3), 265-288. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-46F6FS25&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AB-MsSAYWA-UUW-U-AACYEYDZCWAACZCZYVCW-YWCEZCUE-ABU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=5&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232002%23999809996%23330024!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=bae9483fd0c11c8aa27991d0a7bed77b
Feinberg, Lotte E. (2004). FOIA, federal information policy, and information availability in a
post-9/11 world. Government Information Quarterly, 21(4), 439-460. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4DN9TWB1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AW-MsSWYVW-UUW-U-AACEUVWZDEAACZZWBVDE-YVCWZYAZ-AWU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=5&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232004%23999789995%23535674!&_cdi=6542&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_u
serid=108429&md5=e35d15793ff5186be7f9cd0bb2442648
Fraser, Nancy. (1989). Foucault on modern power: Empirical insights and normative
confusions. In Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory (pp. 1734). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. CD
Fraser, Nancy. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually
existing democracy. In Craig Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109-142).
Cambridge, MA: MIT. CD
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. CD
Glendon, Mary Ann. (1991). Rights talk: The impoverishment of political discourse. New York: The
Free Press.
Haggerty, Kevin D. (2006). Tear down the walls: On demolishing the panopticon. In David
Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 23-45). Portland, OR: Willan.
Haggerty, Kevin D., & Ericson, Richard V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. British Journal of
Sociology, 51(4), 605-622. Also available at http://www.blackwellsynergy.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/toc/bjos/51/4
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
36
Hier, Sean P., Walby, Kevin, & Greenberg, Josh. (2006). Supplementing the panoptic paradigm:
Surveillance, moral governance and CCTV. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The
panopticon and beyond (pp. 230-244). Portland, OR: Willan.
Horwitz, Robert Britt. (1991). The irony of regulatory reform : The deregulation of American
telecommunications. New York: Oxford University.
Jaeger, Paul T., & Burnett, Gary. (2005). Information access and exchange among small worlds in
a democratic society: The role of policy in shaping information behavior in the post-9/11 United
States. Library Quarterly, 75(4), 464-495. Also available at
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/lq/2005/75/4
Knezo, Genevieve J. (2004). “Sensitive but unclassified” and other federal security controls on scientific
and technical information: History and current controversy. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service. Also available at http://www.thememoryhole.org/crs/morereports/RL31845.pdf
Knezo, Genevieve J. (2006). “Sensitive but unclassified” information and other controls: Policy and
options for scientific and technical information. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Also available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL33303.pdf
Koskela, Hille. (2006). “The other side of surveillance”: Webcams, power and agency. In David
Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 163-181). Portland, OR: Willan.
Lapham, Lewis H. (2004). Gag rule: On the suppression of dissent and the stifling of democracy. New
York: Penguin Books.
Lessig, Lawrence. (2001). Controlling the wires (and hence the content layer). In The future of
ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world (Chapter 11, pp. 177-217 and 311-324). New
York: Random House.
Los, Maria. (2006). Looking into the future: Surveillance, globalization and the totalitarian
potential. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 69-94).
Portland, OR: Willan.
Lyon, David. (2006a). The search for surveillance theories. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing
surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 3-20). Portland, OR: Willan.
Lyon, David. (Ed.). (2006b). Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond. Portland, OR:
Willan.
Majchrzak, Ann. (1984). Methods for policy research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McClure, Charles R., & Jaeger, Paul T. (2008). Government information policy research:
Importance, approaches, and realities. Library & Information Science Research, 30(4), 257-264. Also
available at
http://www.lib.utexas.edu:9003/sfx_local/az?param_perform_value=searchTitle&param_type_
value=textSearch&param_chinese_checkbox_active=1&param_pattern_value=library+and+infor
mation+science+research
McGaw, Judith. (1989). No passive victims, no separate spheres: A feminist perspective on
technology's history. In Stephen Cutcliffe & Robert Post (Eds.), In context: History and the history
of technology (pp. 172-191). Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press. CD
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
37
National Research Council. Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging
Information Infrastructure. (2000). The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age.
Washington, DC: National Academy. Available at
http://www.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/
Regan, Priscilla M. (2004). Old issues, new context: Privacy, information collection, and
homeland security. Government Information Quarterly, 21(4), 481-497. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4DKD4V51&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AW-MsSWYVW-UUW-U-AACEUVWZDEAACZZWBVDE-YVCWZYAZ-AWU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=7&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232004%23999789995%23535674!&_cdi=6542&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_u
serid=108429&md5=94f83ec4b698690bba93f2a2ecd2f0d9
Relyea, Harold C. (2002). Homeland security and information. Government Information Quarterly,
19(3), 213-223. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6542&_auth=y&_acct=C0000043
78&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7ca77beaef49608d529efd76eaebec91&chu
nk=19#19
Roe, Emery. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Rowlands, Ian. (1996). Understanding information policy: Concepts, frameworks and research
tools. Journal of Information Science, 22(1), 13-25. CD
Schön, Donald A. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social
policy. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 137-163). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University. CD
Seifert, Jeffrey W. (2004). Data mining and the search for security: Challenges for connecting the
dots and databases. Government Information Quarterly, 21(4), 461-480. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4DN9TWB2&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AW-MsSWYVW-UUW-U-AACEUVWZDEAACZZWBVDE-YVCWZYAZ-AWU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=6&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232004%23999789995%23535674!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=7fd885761e616d3f622c346afbc4659e
Seifert, Jeffrey W., & Relyea, Harold C. (2004). Do you know where your information is in the
homeland security era? Government Information Quarterly, 21(4), 399-405. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4DNB4YM1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AW-MsSWYVW-UUW-U-AACEUVWZDEAACZZWBVDE-YVCWZYAZ-AWU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=2&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232004%23999789995%23535674!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=41ec58c673af7d0953466ef0cd54b380
Solove, Daniel J., & Schwartz, Paul M. (2009). Privacy, information, and technology (2nd ed.).
Austin: Wolters Kluwer.
Strickland, Lee S. (2005b). Knowledge transfer: Information science shapes intelligence in the
Cold War era. In Robert V. Williams & Ben-Ami Lipetz (Eds.), Covert and overt: Recollecting and
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
38
connecting intelligence service and information science (pp. 147-166). Medford, NJ: Information
Today. CD
Taddeo, Laura. (2006). Information access post September 11: What librarians need to know.
Library Philosophy and Practice, 9(1). Available at
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/lpp.htm
Tannen, Deborah. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York:
Random House.
Waldo, James, Liu, Herbert S., & Millett, Lynette I. (Eds.). (2007). Engaging privacy and
information technology in a digital age [sic]. Committee on Privacy in the Information Age {sic].
National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy. Also available at
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11896#toc
Warner, Michael. (2005). Wanted: A definition of ‘intelligence.’ In Robert V. Williams & BenAmi Lipetz (Eds.), Covert and overt: Recollecting and connecting intelligence service and information
science (pp. 199-209). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD
Warren, Samuel D., & Brandeis, Louis D. (1985). The right to privacy. In Deborah G. Johnson &
John W. Snapper (Eds.), Ethical issues in the use of computers (pp. 172-183). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing. (Original work published 1890) Also available at
http://www.estig.ipbeja.pt/~ac_direito/privacy.pdf
Williams, Robert V. (2005). The information science and intelligence service literature: An
overview. In Robert V. Williams & Ben-Ami Lipetz (Eds.), Covert and overt: Recollecting and
connecting intelligence service and information science (pp. 147-166). Medford, NJ: Information
Today. CD
Williams, Robert V., & Lipetz, Ben-Ami. (Eds.). (2005). Covert and overt: Recollecting and
connecting intelligence service and information science. ASIST monograph series. Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
II. Selected 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.loundy.com/CASES/ACLU_v_Miller.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.art.net/about/nycdaelam.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}
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
39
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0415P.HTM [be sure to see U.S. v. ALA
et al., 2003, the Supreme Court CIPA case]
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc. (2nd Circuit) 60 F.3d 913 (1994)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/60_F3d_913.htm
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union 535 U.S. (2001a) [majority opinion]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-1293P.ZO
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union 535 U.S. (2001b) [dissent]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-1293P.ZD
Ashcroft, et al. v. Free Speech Coalition, et al. (00-795) 198 F.3d 1083, affirmed.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
Basic Books et al v. Kinko’s Graphics (United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in Manhattan) 758 F. Supp. 1522 (1991)
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/basicbooks.html
Church of Scientology v. U.S. 506 U.S. 9 (1992)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-946.ZO.html
Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft (case determining the constitutionality of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
Extension Act) 537 U.S. xx (2003) [the page number will be determined when the volume is
printed]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html [Ginsburg’s majority opinion, Stevens’
dissent, and Breyer’s dissent can all be found there]
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.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/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZS.html
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://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZS.html
Reno et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
http://www.cyber-rights.org/censorship/acludecf.htm
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
40
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://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Religious_Tech._Ctr._v._Netcom_OnLine_Communications_Servs.%2C_Inc.
Religious Technology Center v. Lerma 908 F. Supp. 1362 (1995) (United States District Court of the
Eastern District of Virginia)
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/brinkema_rtc_washpost_083095.ruling
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://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/kane_rtc_factnet_091595_opinion.order
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=118&page=394
Sony Corp., et al. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., et al. 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=464&invol=417
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corporation of America 480 F. Supp. 429, 432 (United States
District Court for Central California) (1979)
United States v. ALA et al. [Children’s Internet Protection Act case] 537 U.S. xx (2003) [read the
majority opinion by Rehnquist, the two concurring opinions by Kennedy and Breyer, and the two
dissenting opinions by Stevens and Souter]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02361 [and see ALA et al. V. U.S. et al. and the Multnomah district court decision above]
III. "Reference" Texts
Abrahamson, Jeffrey B., Arterton, F. Christopher, & Orren, Gary R. (1988). The electronic
commonwealth: The impact of new media technologies on democratic politics. New York: BasicBooks.
Abrams, Floyd. (2005). Speaking freely: Trials of the First Amendment. New York: Viking.
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. CD
Allen, David S. (1995). The Supreme Court and the creation of an (in)active public sphere. In
David S. Allen & Robert Jensen (Eds.), Freeing the First Amendment: Critical perspectives on freedom
of expression (pp. 93-113). New York: New York University.
Allen, David S., & Jensen, Robert. (Eds.). (1995). Freeing the First Amendment: Critical perspectives
on freedom of expression. New York: New York University.
Alternatives for restructuring the Depository Library Program. (1995, December 5).
Administrative Notes, 16, 23-59.
American Library Association. Commission on Freedom and Equality of Access to Information.
(1986). Freedom and equality of access to information. Chicago: American Library Association.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
41
American Library Association. (2001a). UCITA (the Uniform Computer Information
Transactions Act): Concerns for libraries and the public.
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/copyrightb/ucita/ucita.cfm
American Library Association. (2001b). UCITA 101: What you should know about the Uniform
Computer Information Transactions Act.
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/copyrightb/ucita/ucita101.cfm
American Library Association. (2001c). Problems with a non-negotiated contract.
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/copyrightb/statelegislation/ucita/nonneg
otiated.cfm
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.
Bailey, Stuart G.M., & Caidi, Nadia. (2005). How much is too little? Privacy and smart cards in
Hong Kong and Ontario. Journal of Information Science, 31(5), 354-364. Also available at
http://jis.sagepub.com/content/vol31/issue5/
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.
Benedikt, Michael. (Ed.). (1991). Cyberspace: First steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bennett, Colin, & Grant, Rebecca. (Eds.). (1999). Visions of privacy: Policy choices for the digital age.
Toronto: University of Toronto.
Bennett, Tony. (1992). Putting policy into cultural studies. In Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson,
& Paula Treicher (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 23-37). New York: Routledge.
Benoît, Gerald. (2002). Data mining. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science
and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 265-310). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Berners-Lee, Tim. (1999). Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World
Wide Web by its inventor. San Francisco: Harper.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
42
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.
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.
Braman, Sandra. (2006). Change of state: Information, policy, and power. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Branscomb, Anne Wells. (1994). Who owns information? From privacy to public access. New York:
BasicBooks.
Braunstein, Yale M. (1981). The functioning of information markets. In Jane H. Yurow and
Helen A. Shaw (Eds.), Issues in information policy (pp. 57-74). Washington, DC: National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brin, David. (1998). The transparent society: Will technology force us to choose between privacy and
freedom? Reading, MN: Perseus.
Bromley, Daniel W. (Ed.). (1992). Making the commons work: Theory, practice, and policy. San
Francisco: ICS Press.
Brucker, Herbert. (1949). Freedom of information. New York: Macmillan.
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.
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. CD
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.
Caidi, Nadia, & Ross, Anthony. (2005). Information rights and national security. Government
Information Quarterly, 22(4), 663-684. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4HX47DX1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-WV-MsSAYZW-UUA-U-AACEUAUDVAAACZCEACVA-YBWWDVCA-WVU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=8&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
43
232005%23999779995%23619639!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=aa2b680ee456d27e9df52b728c90581d
Chen, Hsinchun, & Xu, Jennifer. (2006). Intelligence and security informatics. In Blaise Cronin
(Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (vol. 40, pp. 229-289). Also available at
http://ai.arizona.edu/go/intranet/papers/Intelligence_and_Security_Informatics.pdf
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.
Chandler, Alfred D., & Cortada, James W. (Eds.). (2003). A nation transformed by information:
How information shaped the United States from colonial times to the present. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University. (Original work published 2000)
Chartrand, Robert. (1986). Legislating information policy. Bulletin of the American Society for
Information Science, 12(5), 10.
Christians, Clifford. (1989). A theory of normative technology. In Edmund F. Byrne & Joseph V.
Pitt (Eds.), Technological transformation: Contextual and conceptual implications (pp. 123-139).
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Christians, Clifford. (1995). The problem of universals in communication ethics. The Public, 2(2),
59-69.
Christians, Clifford G., & Hammond, Leon. (1986). Social justice and a community information
utility. Communication, 9(2), 127-149.
Civille, Richard. (1995). The Internet and the poor. In Brian Kahin (Ed.), Public access to the
Internet (pp. 175-207). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Coates, Joseph F. (1978). What is a public policy issue? In Kenneth R. Hammond (Ed.),
Judgment and decision in public policy formation (pp. 33-69). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Cohen, Mark A. (2002). Transparency after 9/11: Balancing the “right-to-know” with the need
for security. Available at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/vcems/papers/post9-11.pdf
Connors, Thomas James. (2002). Papers of the president or of the presidency: Who owns
presidential records? Some recent history and a challenge. portals: Libraries and the Academy, 2(4),
653-657. Also available at
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v002/2.4connors.pdf
Considine, Mark. (1994). Public policy: A critical approach. South Melbourne, Australia:
Macmillan.
Cook, Terry. (1995). It's 10 o'clock: Do you know where your data are? Technology Review, 98(1),
48-53.
Cox, Allan B. (1995, July). An overview of geographic information systems. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 21(4), 237-249.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
44
Crapanzano, Vincent. (2000). Serving the word: Literalism in America from the pulpit to the bench.
New York: The New Press.
Crawford, Rick. (1996). Computer-assisted crises. In George Gerbner, Hamid Mowlana, &
Herbert I. Schiller (Eds.), Invisible crises: What conglomerate control of media means for America and the
world (pp. 47-81). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Crews, Kenneth D. (1995). Copyright law and information policy planning: Public rights of use
in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Government Information, 22(2), 87-99.
Cross, Harold L. (1953). The people's right to know: Legal access to public records and proceedings.
New York: Columbia University.
Dam, Kenneth W., & Lin, Herbert S. (Eds.). (1996). Cryptography's role in securing the information
society. Committee to Study National Cryptography Policy, National Research Council. Washington,
DC: National Academy.
Davies, Philip H.J. (2002). Intelligence, information technology, and information warfare. In
Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 313-352).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
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. CD
de Leon, Peter. (1993). Democracy and the policy sciences: Aspirations and operations. Policy
Studies Journal, 22(21), 200-212.
de Leon, Peter. (1994). Reinventing the policy sciences: Three steps back to the future. Policy
Sciences, 27(1), 77-95.
Denning, Dorothy E., & Lin, Herbert S. (Eds.). (1994). Rights and responsibilities of participants in
networked communities. Steering Committee on Rights and Responsibilities of Participants in
Networked Communities; Computer Science and Technology Board; Commission on Physical
Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications; National Research Council. Washington, DC: National
Academy.
Dervin, Brenda. (1994). Information <---> democracy: An examination of underlying
assumptions. In Leah A. Lievrouw (Ed.), Information resources and democracy [Special issue]
(pp. 369-385). Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6).
Dizard, Wilson. (1989). The coming information age: An overview of technology, economics, and
politics (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
Dizard, Wilson. (1994). Old media, new media: Mass communications in the Information Age. New
York: Longman.
Dobuzinskis, Laurent. (1992). Modernist and postmodernist metaphors of the policy process:
Control and stability vs. chaos and reflexive understanding. Policy Sciences, 25(4), 355-380.
Doctor, Ronald. (1994). Seeking equity in the National Information Infrastructure. Internet
Research, 4(3), 9-22.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
45
Du, Jia, Jiang, Tingting, & Ma, Feicheng. (2004). An evaluation of the construction of information
laws and regulations in China with recommendations for improvement. Journal of Information
Science, 30(4), 321-336.
Dye, Thomas R. (1995). Understanding public policy (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Eisenbeis, Kathleen M. (1995). Privatizing government information: The effects of policy on access to
LANDSAT satellite data. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.
Eisenschitz, Tamara S. (1993). Information transfer policy: Issues of control and access. London:
Library Association Publishing.
Feyerabend, Paul. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London: Verso.
Firestone, Charles M., & Schement, Jorge Reina. (Eds.). (1995). Toward an information Bill of
Rights & Responsibilities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
Flamm, Kenneth. (1987). Targeting the computer: Government support and international competition.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Flamm, Kenneth. (1988). Creating the computer: Government, industry and high technology.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Fraser, Nancy. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Forester, Tom, & Morrison, Perry. (1994). Computer ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Freedman, Warren. (1987). The right of privacy in the computer age. New York: Quorum Books.
Friedman, Neal J., & Richards, Robert D. (1994). Communications law: Regulation of the electronic
mass media. Author.
Gaidos, Katherine. (2006). Access to vice presidential records in the aftermath of Executive
Order 13,233: From haphazard past to uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly, 24(1),
2-28. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/science//journal/0740624X
Gandy, Oscar. (1993). The panoptic sort: A personal economy of personal information. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Gandy, Oscar. (1996). Coming to terms with the panoptic sort. In David Lyon & Elia Zuriek
(Eds.), Computers, surveillance, & privacy (pp. 132-155). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota.
Gandy, Oscar H. (2006). Quixotics unite! Engaging the pragmatists on rational discrimination.
In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 318-336). Portland,
OR: Willan.
Gellman, Robert. (1996a). Privacy. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea
(Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 137-163). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
46
Gellman, Robert. (1996b). The new EFOIA law: One person's view. Email communication.
Gellman, Robert. (2002). Perspectives on privacy and terrorism: All is not lost – yet. Government
Information Quarterly, 19(3), 255-264. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6542&_auth=y&_acct=C0000043
78&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7ca77beaef49608d529efd76eaebec91&chu
nk=19#19
Gilroy, Angele A. (1995, July). Telecommunications regulatory reform. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 21(4), 309-315.
Ginsburg, Jane C. (1993). Copyright without walls?: Speculations on literary property in the
library of the future. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 53-73).
Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Goldman, Alvin I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Grossman, Lawrence R. (1995). The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the electronic age.
New York: Viking.
Grumm, John G., & Wasby, Stephen L. (1981). The analysis of policy impact. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath.
Guba, Egon G. (1984). The effects of definitions of policy on the nature and outcomes of policy
analysis. Educational Leadership, 42(2), 63-70.
Habermas, Jürgen. (1991). The structural transformation of the pubic sphere: An inquiry into a
category of bourgeois society (trans. Thomas Burger & Friedrich Lawrence). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Hadden, Susan. Democracy on the electronic frontier. In Gary Chapman (Ed.), The end of the
frontier: Science and technology policy for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Hagen, Ingunn. (1992). Democratic communication: Media and social participation. In Janet
Wasko and Vincent Mosco (Eds.), Democratic communication in the information age (pp. 16-27).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hamilton, Ann, & Saylor, V. Louise. (1994). Lobbying in the information age: Professional
guidance for a new decade. Library Administration and Management, 8(1), 43-48.
Harris, Michael A., & Hannah, Stan A. (1993). Into the future: The foundations of library and
information services in the post-industrial era. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hayes, Robert M. (Ed.). (1985). Introduction. Libraries and the information economy of California
(pp. 1-49). Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles.
Hefner, Katie, & Lynn, Matthew. (1996). Where wizards stay up late: The origins of the Internet.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Heim, Kathleen. (1986). National information policy and a mandate for oversight by the
information professions. Government Publications Review, 13(1), 21-37.
Hernon, Peter. (1991). Government information policy principles. Government Information
Quarterly 8(4), 393-399.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
47
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.
Hernon, Peter, & Lopez, Xavier R. (1996). Geographic information systems. In Peter Hernon,
Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 233257). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1987). Federal information policies in the 1980s: Conflicts and
issues. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1991). United States information policies. In Wendy
Schipper & M. Cunningham (Eds.), National and international information policies (pp. 3-48).
Philadelphia, PA: National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services.
Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1993). Electronic U.S. government information: Policy
issues and directions. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology
(pp. 45-110). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (1995). Government publishing: Past to present. Government
Information Quarterly, 12(3), 309-330.
Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (1991). Information policy. In Encyclopedia of Library and
Information Science, 48, Supplement 11, 176-204. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hernon, Peter, Relyea, Harold C., Dugan, Robert E., & Cheverie, Joan F. (2002). United States
government information: Policies and sources. Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Hernon, Peter, Shuler, John A., & Dugan, Robert E. (1999). U.S. government on the Web: Getting
the information you need. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Hernon, Peter, & Shuler, John A. (1996). The Depository Library Program: Another component
of the access puzzle shifting to electronic formats. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, &
Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 259-278). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Hogwood, B.W., & Gunn, L.A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Holden, Stephen H., & Hernon, Peter. (1996). An executive branch perspective on managing
information resources. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal
information policies in the 1990s (pp. 83-104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hosein, Ian. (2004). The sources of laws: Policy dynamics in a digital and terrorized world. The
Information Society, 20(3), 187-199.
The information gap: How computers and other new communication technologies affect the
social distribution of power. (1989). Journal of Communication, 39(3).
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
48
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/go/com/doc/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. http://aspe.hhs.gov/datacncl/niiprivp.htm
Jacobstein, J. Myron, & Mersky, Roy. (1990). Fundamentals of legal research (5th ed.). Westbury,
NY: The Foundation Press.
Jaeger, Paul T., Bertot, John Carlo, McClure, Charles R., & Langa, Lesley A. (2006). The policy
implications of Internet connectivity in public libraries. Government Information Quarterly, 23(1),
123-141. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4HVDN5S1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-WB-MsSAYZA-UUW-U-AACEUUDEBWAACZCYYDBW-YBAWDWWV-WBU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=13&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542
%232006%23999769998%23624433!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVer
sion=0&_userid=108429&md5=09eb0a1f319fbc55ec3d7f1777e4d60e
Jansen, Sue Curry. (1991). Censorship: The knot that binds power and knowledge. New York:
Oxford University.
Jones, Charles O. (1984). An introduction to the study of public policy (3rd ed.). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Kahin, Brian. (1991). Information policy and the Internet. Government Publications Review, 18(5),
451-472.
Kahin, Brian. (Ed.). (1992). Building information infrastructure. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kahin, Brian. (Ed.). (1993). Information infrastructure sourcebook. Cambridge, MA: Center for
Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Kahin, Brian. (Ed.). (1995). Public access to the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Kahin, Brian, & Nesson, Charles. (1997). Borders in cyberspace: Information policy and the Global
Information Infrastructure. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
King, Donald W., Roderer, Nancy K., & Olsen, Harold A. (Eds.). (1983). Key papers in the
economics of information. White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications.
Kingdon, John W. (1995). Agenda setting. In Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.),
Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 105-113). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kingma, Bruce R. (1996). The economics of information: A guide to economic and cost-benefit analysis
for information professionals. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
49
Krol, Ed. (1993). RFC [Request for Comments] 1462: FYI on What is the Internet?
Krol, Ed. (1994). The whole Internet: User's guide & catalog (2nd ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly &
Associates.
Krug, Judith F. (2002). Censorship and controversial material in museums, libraries, and
archives. In Tomas A. Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical
challenges in the new information era (pp. 59-68). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Lamberton, Donald M. (1984). The economics of information and organization. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 3-30). White Plains, NY:
Knowledge Industry Publications.
Lancaster, F.W., & Burger, Robert H. (1990). Macroinformatics, microinformatics and
information policy. In D.J. Foskett (Ed.), The information environment: A world view: Studies in
honour of Professor A.I. Mikhailov (pp. 149-158). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Landow, George P. (1992). Access to the text and the author's right (copyright). In Hypertext:
The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology (pp. 196-201). Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University.
Lanham, Richard A. (1993). The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts. The
Extraordinary Convergence: Democracy, Technology, Theory, and the University Curriculum
(Chapter 4, pp. 98-119). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lapperrière, René. (1999). The “Quebec model” of data protection: A compromise between
laissez-faire and public control in a technological era. In Colin J. Bennett & Rebecca Grant (Eds.),
Visions of privacy: Policy choices for the digital age (pp. 182-196). Toronto: University of Toronto.
Lasswell, Harold. (1951). The policy orientation. In Daniel Lernet & Harold Lasswell (Eds.), The
policy sciences (pp. 3-15). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lessig, Lawrence. (1999a). Intellectual property. In Code and other laws of cyberspace (pp. 122-141
and 262-271). New York: Basic Books.
Lessig, Lawrence. (1999b). Privacy. In Code and other laws of cyberspace (pp. 142-163 and 271-275).
New York: Basic Books.
Levinson, Paul. (1997). The soft edge: A natural history and future of the information revolution.
London: Routledge.
Lievrouw, Leah A. (Ed.). (1994a). Information resources and democracy [Special issue]. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6).
Lievrouw, Leah A. (1994b). Information resources and democracy: Understanding the paradox.
In Leah A. Lievrouw (Ed.), Information resources and democracy [Special issue] (pp. 350-357).
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6).
Lindblom, Charles E. (1995). The science of “muddling through.” In Stella Z. Theodoulou &
Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 113-127). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall. (Original work published 1959)
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
50
Lindblom, Charles E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. In Democracy and the market system
(pp. 237-259). Oslo: Scandinavian Press.
Lindblom, Charles E., & Woodhouse, Edward J. (1993). The policy-making process (3rd ed.),
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lipinski, Tomas A. (1998). Information ownership and control. In Martha E. Williams (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 33, pp. 3-38). Medford, NJ: Information
Today.
Lipinski, Tomas A. (2002a). Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical challenges in
the new information era. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Lipinski, Tomas A. (2002b). Librarian’s guide to copyright for shared and networked resources.
Library Technology Reports: Expert Guides to Library Systems and Services. ALA TechSource
www.techsource.ala.org
Litman, Jessica. (2001). Digital copyright. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Love, James P. (1992). The marketplace and electronic government information. Government
Publications Review, 19(4), 397-412.
Love, Jamie. (1994). Current issues and initiatives in the electronic dissemination of government
information. In Ann P. Bishop (Ed.), Emerging communities: Integrating networked information into
library services (pp. 192-206). Champaign, IL: Graduate School of Library and Information
Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Marchand, Donald A., & Kresslein, John C. (1988). Information resources management and the
public administrator. In J. Rabin & E.M. Jackowski (Eds.), Handbook of information resource
management (pp. 395-455).
Mart, Susan Nevelow. (2004). Protecting the lady from Toledo: Post-USA PATRIOT Act
electronic surveillance at the library. Law Library Journal, 96(3), 449-473.
Marvin, Carolyn. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in
the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University.
Mason, Marilyn Gell. (1983). The federal role in library and information services. White Plains, NY:
Knowledge Industry Publications.
Massant, Eric J. (1994). The role of libraries and the private sector: Policy principles for assuring
public access to U.S. federal government information: A viewpoint. Journal of Government
Information, 21(5), 383-390.
Mayer-Schonberger, Viktor, & Lazer, David. (Eds.). (2007). Government and information
technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
51
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.
Minow, Mary, & Lipinski, Tomas A. (2003). The library’s legal answer book. Chicago: American
Library Association.
Moen, William E., & McClure, Charles R. (1994). The Government Information Locator System
(GILS): Expanding research and development on the ANSI/NISO Z39.50 information retrieval standard.
Washington, DC and Syracuse, NY: United States Geological Survey and Syracuse University
School of Information Studies.
Morehead, Joe. (1999). Introduction to United States government information sources (6th ed.).
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Morrow, William L. (1990). Is this trip necessary? The policy dimensions of expertise. Policy
Studies Review, 9(4), 825-830.
Mosco, Vincent. (1996). The political economy of communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mosco, Vincent, & Wasko, Janet. (Eds.). (1988). The political economy of information. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin.
Muir, Adrienne, & Oppenheim, Charles. (2002). National information policy developments
worldwide I: Electronic government. Journal of Information Science, 28(3), 173-186.
Muir, Adrienne, & Oppenheim, Charles. (2002). National information policy developments
worldwide II: Universal access – Addressing the digital divide. Journal of Information Science,
28(4), 263-273.
Nagel, Stuart S. (1988). Policy studies: Integration and evaluation. New York: Praeger.
Nakamura, R.T., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The politics of policy implementation. New York: St.
Martin’s.
National Academy of Public Administration. (1992). The archives of the future: Archival strategies
for the treatment of electronic databases. Washington, DC: Authors.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
52
National Research Council. Committee for a Study on Promoting Access to Scientific and
Technical Data for the Public Interest. (1999). A question of balance: Private rights and the public
interest in scientific and technical databases. Washington, DC: National Academy.
Netanel, Neil W. (1996). Copyright and democratic civil society. Yale Law Journal, 106(2), 283387.
NRENAISSANCE Committee. Computer Science and Technology Board. Commission on
Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications. National Research Council. (1994). Principles
and practice. In Realizing the information future: The Internet and beyond (Chapter 4, pp. 148-171).
Washington, DC: National Academy. Available at
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/rtif/toc/chapter4/ (change to
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4755&page=148)
Ostrom, Elinor. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Overman, E. Sam, & Cahill, Anthony G. (1990). Information policy: A study of values in the
policy process. Policy Studies Review, 9(4), 803-818. Also available at
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=7&sid=6a0603377d4a-4f93-af21-e31e3ca055d8%40SRCSM1
Parenti, Christian. (2003). The soft cage: Surveillance in America from slavery to the war on terror
[sic]. New York: Basic Books.
Patterson, L. Ray, & Lindberg, Stanley W. (1991). The nature of copyright: A law of users' rights.
Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
Paulos, John Allen. (1995). A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York: BasicBooks.
Especially pp. 69-71, 94, 154-156, and 157-159.
Perritt, Henry H. (1994). Public information in the National Information Infrastructure. Report to the
Regulatory Information Service Center, the General Services Administration, and to the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget.
Phillips, David J. (1997). Cryptography, secrets, and the structuring of trust. In Philip E. Agre &
Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 243-276). Cambridge, MA:
MIT.
Pool, Ithiel de Solla. (1982). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Protect America Act of 2007. (2007). Available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01927:
Quarterman, John. (1990). The matrix: Computer networks and conferencing systems worldwide.
Bedford, MA: Digital Press.
Raab, Charles D., & Mason, David. (2005). Researching the origins of UK data protection.
Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 235-237.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
53
Rachels, James. (1985). Why privacy is important. In Deborah G. Johnson & John W. Snapper
(Eds.), Ethical issues in the use of computers (Chapter 20, pp. 194-201). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Co. (Original published 1975)
Radin, Margaret. (1993). Reinterpreting property. Chicago: University of Chicago.
RAND Corporation. (1995). Universal access to email: Feasibility and societal implications. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND. http://www.rand.org:80/publications/MR/MR650
Raymond, Eric S. (1999). The cathedral & the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an
accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
Records, Melissa. (1995). Growing pains: An examination of the development of cataloging and access
standards for digital geospatial data. Manuscript.
Regan, Priscilla. (1995). Legislating privacy: Technology, social values, and public policy. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina.
Reichman, J.H., & Uhlir, Paul F. (1999). Database protection at the crossroads: Recent
developments and their impact on science and technology. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14(2),
799-821.
Relyea, Harold C. (1987). Public access through the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts.
In Peter Hernon & Charles R. McClure, Federal information policies in the 1980's: Conflicts and issues
(pp. 52-82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Relyea, Harold C. (1989). Historical development of federal information policy. In Charles R.
McClure, Peter Hernon, and Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), United States government information policies:
Views and perspectives (pp. 25-48). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Relyea, Harold C. (1996a). Freedom of information revisited. In Peter Hernon, Charles R.
McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 183-210).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Relyea, Harold C. (1996b). National security information policy after the end of the Cold War.
In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the
1990s (pp. 165-182). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Relyea, Harold C. (2001). Legislating personal privacy protection: The federal response. Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 27(1), 36-51.
Repo, Aatto J. (1987). Economics of information. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (pp. 3-35). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Rice, David A. (2002). Legal-technological regulation of information access. In
Tomas A. Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical challenges in the
new information era (pp. 275-294). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Rist, Ray C. (1994). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In Norman K.
Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 545-557). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
54
Roberts, Alasdair. (2004). ORCON creep: Information sharing and the threat to government
accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 21(3), 249-267. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4CJVKR21&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AB-MsSAYZW-UUA-U-AACEABUZAEAACZDAAVAE-YZEUEBZD-ABU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232004%23999789996%23513371!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=48f431962284e9baa6411d8f968c0152
Robertson, Lawrence S. (1981). Access to information. In Helen A. Shaw (Ed.), Issues in
information policy (pp. 19-32). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Robinson, Judith Schiek. (1998). Tapping the government grapevine: The user-friendly guide to U.S.
government information sources (3rd ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.
Rose, Lance. (1995). NetLaw: Your rights in the online world. Berkeley, CA: Osborne [McGrawHill].
Rosen, Jeffrey. (2000). Epilogue: What is privacy good for? In The unwanted gaze: The destruction
of privacy in America (pp. 196-234 and 257-260). Random House: New York. CD
Rosen, Jeffrey. (2000). The unwanted gaze: The destruction of privacy in America. Random House:
New York.
Rothenberg, Jeff. (1995). Ensuring the longevity of digital documents. Scientific American, 272(1),
42-47.
Rubin, Michael Rogers. (1983). Information economics and policy in the United States. Littleton, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Ryan, Joe. (1996). Guide to government information available on the Internet. Syracuse, NY: Ryan
Information Management.
Ryan, Joe, Haining, Sarah, & Persick, Michael. (1994). Keeping track of current developments in
federal information policy. Internet Research, 4(2), 67-81.
Ryan, Joe, McClure, Charles R., & Wigand, Rolf. (1994). Federal Information Resources
Management: New challenges for the nineties. Government Information Quarterly, 11(3), 301-314.
Sabatier, Paul A. (Ed.). (1999). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview.
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.
CD
Samuelson, Pamela. (1996, January). The copyright grab. Wired, 4(1), 135-138.
Schaefer, Richard J. (1995). A theoretical and normative approach to national information
infrastructure policy. Internet Research, 5(2), 5-14.
Schiller, Dan. (1999). Digital capitalism: Networking the global market system. Cambridge, MA:
MIT.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
55
Schmidt, C. James. (1989). Rights for users of information: Conflicts and balances among
privacy, professional ethics, law, and national security. In Filomena Simora (Ed.), The Bowker
annual: Library and book trade almanac (pp. 83-90). New Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker.
Shattuck, Roger. (1996). Forbidden knowledge: From Prometheus to pornography. New York: St.
Martin’s.
Shay, Lisa A. (1989). The great debate over unclassified information: National security versus
scientific freedom. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(3), 139-148. Also available
at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=1989&isnumber=1372&Submit32=Go+To+Is
sues
Shuler, John A. (2007). Public policies and academic libraries – The shape of the next digital
divide. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(1), 141-143. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=
%23TOC%236556%232007%23999669998%23645027%23FLA%23&_cdi=6556&_pubType=J&view
=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=40ccac3777
98034e5254ef76210db335
Slack, Jennifer Daryl, & Fejes, Fred. (Eds.). (1987). Ideology of the information age. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Smith, Diane H. (Ed.). (1993). Management of government information resources in libraries.
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Sprehe, J. Timothy. (1987). OMB Circular No. A-130, The management of federal information
resources: Its origins and impact. Government Information Quarterly, 4(2), 189-196.
Sprehe, J. Timothy. (1994a). Federal information policy in the Clinton administration's first year.
Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 20(4), 20-25.
Sprehe, J. Timothy. (1994b). U.S. Office of Management and Budget no. circular A-130: Old and
new. Journal of Government Information, 21(3), 231-247.
Starr, Joan. (2004). Libraries and national security: an historical review. First Monday, 9(12).
Available at http://firstmonday.org/
Stefik, Mark. (1999a). The bit and the pendulum: Balancing the interests of stakeholders in
digital publishing. In The Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked
world (pp. 79-106 and 302-303). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Stefik, Mark. (1999b). The digital keyhole: Privacy rights and trusted systems. In The Internet
edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 197-231 and 305-307).
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Stefik, Mark. (1999c). The digital wallet and the copyright box: The coming arms race in trusted
systems. In The Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 5578 and 301-302). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
56
Streeter, Thomas. (1995). Some thoughts on free speech, language, and the rule of law. In David
S. Allen & Robert Jensen (Eds.), Freeing the First Amendment: Critical perspectives on freedom of
expression (pp. 31-53). New York: New York University.
Strickland, Lee S. (2003). Civil liberties vs. intelligence collection: The secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court speaks in public. Government Information Quarterly, 20(1), 1-12. Also
available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4805BSD1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-Z-MsSAYWA-UUW-U-AACEABAUVZAACZDAAYVZ-YZEWCDAU-ZU&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%
232003%23999799998%23393133!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=0&_userid=108429&md5=415c6c0601f1fb3d8e8499fce9fe8b29
Strickland, Lee S. (2005a). The information gulag: Rethinking openness in times of national
danger. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 546-572. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_cdi=6542&_pubType=J&_auth=
y&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=01cb66ff14ab1a7c8ee6
4d86be09e2fa&jchunk=22#22
Tanenbaum, Andrew. (2002). Computer networks (4th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.
Technology & the national interest. (1994). The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, LXXIV(2).
Theodoulou, Stella Z. (1995a). The contemporary language of public policy: A starting point. In
Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 1-9).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Theodoulou, Stella Z. (1995b). How public policy is made. In Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew
A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 86-96). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Theodoulou, Stella Z., & Cahn, Matthew A. (Eds.). (1995). Public policy: The essential readings.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Thibodeau, Kenneth. (1996). Managing archival records in the electronic age: Fundamental
challenges. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information
policies in the 1990s (pp. 279-295). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Trauth, Eileen M. (1986). An integrative approach to information policy research.
Telecommunications Policy, 10(1), 41-50.
Turow, Joseph. (2005). Audience construction and culture production: Marketing surveillance
in the digital age [sic}. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 597(1), 103121.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
57
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it
threatens creativity. New York: New York University.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2004). The anarchist in the library: How the clash between freedom and control
is hacking the real world and crashing the system. New York: Basic Books.
Warren, Adam, & Dearnley, James. (2005). Data protection legislation in the United Kingdom:
From development to statute 1969-84. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 238-253.
Warwick, Shelly. (2002). Copyright for libraries, museums, and archives: The basics and
beyond. In Tomas A. Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical
challenges in the new information era (pp. 235-256). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Weingarten, F. W. (1989). Federal information policy development: The Congressional
perspective. In Charles R. McClure, Peter Hernon, & Harold Relyea (Eds.), United States
government information policies: Views and perspectives (pp. 77-99). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wildavsky, Aaron. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Wolpert, Samuel A., & Wolpert, Joyce Friedman. (1986). Economics of information. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Xue, Susan. (2005). Internet policy and diffusion in China, Malaysia and Singapore. Journal of
Information Science, 31(3), 238-250.
Young, Peter R., & Williams, Jane. (1994). Libraries and the National Information Infrastructure.
In Catherine Barr (Ed.), The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac (pp. 33-49). New
Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker.
Yurow, Jane H., Shaw, Helen A. (1981). Issues in information policy. Washington, DC: National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
IV. Reports (be sure to review required class readings; all OTA reports are available online)
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. (1982). Public sector/private sector
interaction in providing information services. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Congressional Research Service. (2001). Federal statutes: What they are and where
to find them. http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/information/info-16.pdf
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986a). Federal government information
technology: Management, security, and congressional oversight. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986b). Intellectual property rights in an age of
electronics and information. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1986/8610_n.html
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1987). Defending secrets, sharing data.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
58
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.
V. Governmental and Commercial Serial Sources of Government Information
Code of Federal Regulations
Congressional Digest
Congressional Information Service
Congressional Quarterly
Congressional Record
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
59
C[ongressional] Q[uarterly] Weekly Reports
Federal Register
Supreme Court Reporter
U.S. Code
U.S. Code and Congressional and Administrative News
U.S. Code Annotated
United States Supreme Court Reports
VI. Journals and Other Serial Sources on Information Policy and Government Information
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
Atlantic Monthly
The Bowker Annual: Library and Book Trade Almanac
Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science
Communication Law and Policy
Communications Yearbook
Electronic Public Information Newsletter
EPIC [Electronic Privacy Information Center] Alert
ERIC
EDUCAUSE Review
Federal Computer Week
Government Computer News
Government Information Quarterly
Government Technology
Harpers
Information, Communication, and Society
Information Management Review
Information Polity
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
60
Information Processing and Management
The Information Society
Internet Research: Electronic Networks Applications and Policy (formerly Electronic Networking:
Research, Applications, and Policy)
Internet World
Journal of Academic Librarianship (especially its Information Policy column)
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (formerly the Journal of the
American Society for Information Science)
Journal of Communication
Journal of Government Information: An International Review of Policy, Issues and Resources (formerly
Government Publications Review and now merged with Government Information Quarterly)
Journal of Information Science
Journal of Information Technology and Politics
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
Research Policy
Sage Yearbook of Politics and Public Policy
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
61
Science
Scientific American
Science and Public Policy
Serials Review
Technology Review
Telecommunications Policy
Utne Reader
Wired
VII.
Newspapers
Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/
New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/
Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/
Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com
VIII. Other Electronic Sources -- Remember that these sites and the information there are
extremely volatile.
Alliance for Public Technology (APT) http://apt.org
(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/
Center for Democracy & Technology http://opencrs.com/ (CRS reports)
(U.S.) Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including the World Factbook
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia
Chapel Hill home page http://www.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us/
Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) http://www.cni.org/
(United States) Code http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
62
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) http://cpsr.org/
(U.S.) Congressional Research Service (CRS) see Center for Democracy and Technology
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/
Creative Commons http://www.creativecommons.org/
Georgia Harper's Copyright Crash Course http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/index.html
Library of Congress Copyright Office http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/
Public Knowledge Project http://pkp.sfu.ca/
Cornell University, Computer Policy & Law Program http://ucpl.cornell.edu/
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.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html
(U.S.) Federal Register http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/
Findlaw http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/
(U.S.) General Accounting Office (GAO) http://www.gao.gov/
(U.S.) Geological Survey (USGS) http://www.usgs.gov/
Government Information Locator System (GILS) http://www.usgs.gov/gils/index.html
Government Printing Office http://www.access.gpo.gov/
Government Technology http://www.govtech.net
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
63
(Harvard University) Information Infrastructure Project
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/9/harvard_information_infrastructure_project.html
Illinois Institute of Technology Institute for Science, Law, and Technology
http://www.kentlaw.edu/islt/
Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) http://www.ibiblio.org/nii/NII-Task-Force.html
Institute for Technology Assessment (ITA) http://www.mghita.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=67
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) http://www.ietf.org/
Internet Society http://www.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://www.loc.gov/catalog/locisint.html
Maps
Texas http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/index.html
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) http://www.nas.edu/
National Academy Press (NAP) http://www.nap.edu/
(U.S.) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
http://hypatia.gsfc.nasa.gov/NASA_homepage.html
National Information Infrastructure: Servers with comprehensive sources
http://www.cuny.edu/links/nii.html
(U.S.) National Information Infrastructure Virtual Library http://nii.nist.gov/
National Science Foundation (NSF) http://www.nsf.gov
National Security Agency (NSA) http://www.nsa.gov
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) FedWorld http://www.fedworld.gov
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
http://www.ntia.doc.gov
(U.S.) Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
-- see Institute for Technology Assessment -- and Princeton University archive of OTA reports
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/
Telecommunications and Information Policy Institute http://www.utexas.edu/research/tipi/
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
64
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: http://www.spgsc.texas.gov/
Higher Education Coordinating Board http://info.thecb.texas.gov
Legislative Reference Library: (512) 463-1251, (800) 253-9693
Natural Resource Conservation Commission: http://www.state.tx.us/agency/582.html
Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund: http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/21cp/TIF.html
Texas Education Agency (TEA) http://www.tea.state.tx.us/
Texas Legislative Service (a for-profit info provider):
http://www/lawlib.uh.edu/txdxn/bills.html
Texas Legislature: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/#top
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/governmentdocuments-center/explore/browse/federal-government/251/search/
University of North Carolina http://www.lib.unc.edu/
Academic Affairs Library (main system) http://www.lib.unc.edu/aboutmain.html
Government documents http://www.lib.unc.edu/reference/docs/
University of Texas Libraries http://www.lib.utexas.edu/
Government information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/
U.S. Gov’t Reference Titles http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/us.html
International Gov’t Information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/world.html
Texas Government Information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/texas.html
Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009
65