FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY - Upcoming …i390n1pd/390_1_syllabus... · Web view... and less hydrogen). Another useful way to make this distinction is to recall that "many" is used

FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY

INF 390.1

Unique Number #24670

Dr. Philip DotySchool of Information

University of Texas at Austin

Fall 2003

Class time: Wednesday 1:00 – 4:00 PM

Place: SZB 546

Office: SZB 570

Office hrs: Wednesday 10:00 – 11:00 AMThursday 1:00 – 2:00 PM

By appointment other times

Telephone: (512) 471-3746 (Direct line)(512) 471-3821 (Main iSchool office)

Internet: [email protected]://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm

Class URL: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~inf390pd/fa2003

TA: Elena [email protected]

Office hours: TBA

Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – August 2003 1

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~inf390pd/fa

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction to the course 3

Student collaboration 3

Expectations of student performance 4

Analysis in reading, writing, and presenting 5

Standards for written work 6

Editing conventions 10

Grading 11

Texts and other tools 12

List of assignments 13

Outline of course 14

Schedule 16

Assignments 21

Suggestions for writing policy analysis 24

References 27

Selected important federal cases 29

Additional sources 31

"Reference" TextsReportsGovernmental and Commercial Serial Sources of Government InformationJournals and Other Serial Sources on Information Policy and Government

InformationNewspapersOther Specific Electronic SourcesPrint Sources on Networking


INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE

The purpose of INF 390.1, Federal Information Policy, is to provide an overview of U.S. federal information policy and its implications for society. We will consider the federal information policy system within the broader context of public policy, and we will examine key information policy areas, as well as the structures and processes involved in the formulation of federal information policies. Students will develop a critical understanding of and gain experience with a variety of policy analysis approaches and techniques. The class will give special attention to the contribution of Information Studies as a discipline to policy formation and analysis.

Federal information policy is concerned with two kinds of information policies: (1) policies that control government information, i.e., information that government and government-sponsored entities at the federal level generate, collect, store, distribute, and so on; and (2) policies that control how information is distributed in society, e.g., policies related to “intellectual property,” privacy, freedom of expression, media regulation, intellectual freedom, contracts, torts, and equity of information access. INF 390.1 emphasizes this second kind of information policy. A special focus will be electronic information, including those policies related to the National Information Infrastructure. The course will also explore the concept of the knowledge or information commons and what that concept means in the context of public policy.

INF 390.1 aims (a) to increase students' knowledge of major federal information policies and how to track their development, (b) to improve students' ability to analyze critically the implications of federal policies for managing information as well as for life in public and private venues, and (c) to enhance students' ability to influence the policy system as professionals and private citizens.

Thus, the course will give students the opportunity to:

1. Concentrate on three areas in information policy: privacy, “intellectual property” (especially copyright, including the interaction of copyright and privacy in digital environments), and the relationship of the Congress and the federal courts, particularly the 2003 Supreme Court decision declaring the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) constitutional

2. Emphasize the relationships among information policy and various information technologies and trends

3. Identify major stakeholders in information policy and the relationships among them

4. Develop skill in information policy analysis and explore how various disciplines can contribute to the policy analysis process

5. Explore a variety of approaches to understanding public policy

6. Become acquainted with print and electronic sources of government information and government information policy, especially legal information

7. Conduct research related to an information policy area of their choice; although U.S. federal policy is the focus of the course, students are encouraged to engage information policy issues at the international, state, and local level as their interests dictate


8. Communicate, in both written and oral form, in a collegial and scholarly atmosphere.

STUDENT COLLABORATION

The instructor encourages collaboration and collegiality among the students enrolled in the course from the iSchool and elsewhere, and assignments are partially designed to foster cooperative work among students and across disciplines.


EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE

Students are expected to be involved, creative, and vigorous participants in class discussions and in the overall conduct of the class. In addition, students are expected to:

• Attend all class sessions; if a student misses a class, it is his or her responsibility to arrange with another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets. The assignments presume that students are familiar with all material discussed in class and in the required readings.

• Read all material prior to class; students are expected to use the course readings to

inform their classroom participation and their writing assignments. Students must learn

to integrate what they read with what they say and write. This last imperative is

essential to the development of professional expertise.

• Educate themselves and their peers. Your successful completion of your degree program and your participation in the community of scholars depend upon your willingness to demonstrate initiative, creativity, and responsibility. Your participation in the professional and personal growth of your colleagues is essential to their success and your own. Such collegiality is at the heart of professional practice, especially among policy analysts, so several assignments in this course are designed to encourage collaboration.

• Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour of classroom instruction, i.e., about 10-12 hours per week for the course

• Participate in all class discussions

• Hand in all assignments fully and on time -- late assignments will not be accepted except in the particular circumstances noted below

• Be responsible with collective property, especially books and other material on reserve

• Ask for any explanation and help from the instructor or the Teaching Assistant, either in class, during office hours, on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate way. Email is especially appropriate for information questions, but please recall that I do not do email at home and that I try to stay home two days a week. It may be several days after you send email before I even see it.

Academic or scholastic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, will not be tolerated and will incur the most severe penalties, including failure for the course.


If there is any concern about behavior that may be academically dishonest, please consult the instructor. Students are also encouraged to refer to the UT General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and the brochure Texas is the Best . . . HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.


ANALYSIS IN READING, WRITING, AND PRESENTING

Students in this class must be analytic in their reading of others' work, in their own writing, and in their presentations. What follows are suggestions for developing analytic and critical methods of thinking and communication. These suggestions are also indications of what you should expect from the writing and speaking of others:

• First and foremost, maximize clarity -- be clear, but not simplistic or patronizing.

• Remember that writing is a form of thinking, not just a medium to "display" the results of thinking; make your thinking engaging, reflective, and clear.

• Provide enough context for your remarks that your audience can understand them but not so much that your audience's attention or comprehension is lost.

• Be specific.

• Avoid jargon, undefined terms, undefined acronyms, colloquialisms, clichés, and vague language.

• Give examples.

• Be critical, not dismissive, of others' work; be skeptical, not cynical.

• Answer the difficult but important "how?," "why?," and “so what?” questions.

• Support assertions with evidence.

• Make explicit why the evidence used to support an assertion does so.

• Identify and explore the specific real-world, practical, social, and intellectual implications of courses of action.

• Synthesize and internalize existing knowledge without losing your own critical point of view -- be evaluative.

• Identify the specific criteria against which assessments of others' work and options for action will be measured.

See the Standards for Written Work and the assignment descriptions in this syllabus for further explanations and examples.

Also please remember that depth of analysis must always be complemented by a holistic, integrative understanding of context.


STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK

Review the standards for written work both before and after writing; they are used to evaluate your work.

You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity, clarity, grammar, spelling, and organization in your written work for this class, and, to that end, I offer the following remarks. Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what his or her audience knows about the topic at hand; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. As Wolcott reminds us in Writing Up Qualitative Research (1990, p. 47): "Address . . . the many who do not know, not the few who do." It is also important to remember that clarity of ideas, clarity of language, and clarity of syntax are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa.

All written work for the class must be done on a word-processor and double-spaced, with 1" margins all the way around and in either 10 or 12 pt. font.

Certain assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and references. It is particularly important in professional schools such as the iSchool that notes and references are impeccably done. Please use APA (American Psychological Association) standards. There are other standard bibliographic and note formats, for example, in engineering and law, but social scientists and policy analysts ordinarily use APA. Familiarity with standard formats is essential for understanding others' work and for preparing submissions to journals, professional conferences, and the like. You may also consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.) and http://webster.commnet.edu/apa/apa_index.htm (a useful if non-canonical source).

Never use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in graduate school or in professional writing. If you want to use a reference source to define a term, a better choice would be a specialized dictionary or subject-specific encyclopedia. The best alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the term sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature.

Use the spell checker in your word processing package to review your documents, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries: do not include most proper nouns, including names; omit most technical terms; include very few foreign words and phrases; and cannot identify the error in using homophones, e.g., writing "there" instead of "their," or in writing "the" instead of "them."

It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to increase clarity. Finally, each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing your full name, the date, the title of the assignment, and the class number (INF 390.1). If you have any questions about these standards, I will be pleased to discuss them with you at any time.

Remember, every assignment must include a title page with


http://webster.commnet.edu/apa/apa_index.htm

• The title of the assignment

• Your name

• The date

• The class number.CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE


STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)

Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, I will read and edit your work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of a technical session at a professional conference would. The reminders below will help you prepare professional-level written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 25 (some have more than one error):

1. Staple all papers for this class in the upper left-hand corner. Do not use covers, binders, or other means of keeping the pages together.

2. Number all pages after the title page. Ordinarily, notes and references do NOT count against page limits.

3. Use formal, academic prose. Avoid colloquial language, *you know?* It is essential in graduate work and in professional communication to avoid failures in diction -- be serious and academic when called for, be informal and relaxed when called for, and be everything in between as necessary. For this course, avoid words and phrases such as "agenda," "problem with," "deal with," "handle," "window of," "goes into," "broken down into," "viable," and "option."

4. Avoid clichés. They are vague, *fail to "push the envelope," and do not provide "relevant input."*

5. Avoid computer technospeak like "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except when using such terms in specific technical ways; similarly avoid using “content” as a noun.

6. Do not use the term "relevant" except in its information retrieval sense. Ordinarily, it is a colloquial cliché, but it also has a strict technical meaning in Information Studies.

7. Do not use "quality" as an adjective; it is vague, cliché, and colloquial. Instead use "high-quality," "excellent," "superior," or whatever more formal phrase you deem appropriate.

8. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .*

9. Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms entail major philosophical, epistemological controversy. Avoid terms such as "facts," "factual," "proven," and related constructions for similar reasons.

10. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing.

11. Be circumspect in using the term "this," especially in the beginning of a sentence. *THIS* is often a problem because the referent is unclear. Pay strict attention to providing clear referents for all pronouns. Especially ensure that pronouns and their referents agree in number; i.e., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is a singular form, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the referent or the pronoun must change in number.


12. “If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller."

13. Put "only" in its appropriate place, near the word it modifies. For example, it is appropriate in spoken English to say that "he only goes to Antone's" when you mean that "the only place he frequents is Antone's." In written English, however, the sentence should read "he goes only to Antone's."

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE



14. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad.

15. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them.

16. Avoid misplaced modifiers; e.g., it is inappropriate to write the following sentence: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, it was important for me to attend the lecture. The sentence is inappropriate because the phrase "As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica" is meant to modify the next immediate word, which should then, obviously, be both a person and the subject of the sentence. It should modify the word "I" by preceding it immediately. One good alternative for the sentence is: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, I was especially eager to attend the lecture.

17. Avoid use of "valid," "parameter," "bias," "reliability," and "paradigm," except in limited technical ways. These are important research terms and should be used with care and precision.

18. Remember that the words "data," "media," "criteria," "strata," and "phenomena" are all PLURAL forms. They *TAKES* plural verbs. If you use any of these plural forms in a singular construction, e.g., "the data is," you will make the instructor very unhappy :-(.

19. "Number," "many," and "fewer" are used with plural nouns (a number of horses, many horses, and fewer horses). “Amount," "much," and "less" are used with singular nouns (an amount of hydrogen, much hydrogen, and less hydrogen). Another useful way to make this distinction is to recall that "many" is used for countable nouns, while "much" is used for uncountable nouns.

20. *The passive voice should generally not be used.*

21. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more.

22. Generally avoid the use of honorifics such as Mister, Doctor, Ms., and so on when referring to persons in your writing, especially when citing their written work. Use last names and dates as appropriate.

23. There is no generally accepted standard for citing electronic resources. If you cite them, give an indication, as specifically as possible, of:

- responsibility (who?)- title (what?)- date of creation (when?)- date viewed (when?)- place to find the source (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

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE


24. "Cite" is a verb, "citation" is a noun; similarly, "quote" is a verb, "quotation" is a noun.

25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*

26. Use double quotation marks (“abc.”), not single quotation marks (‘xyz.’), as a matter of course. Single quotation marks are to be used only to indicate quotations within quotations.

27. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page or other digital source, provide at least the paragraph number, section number, and/or other directional cues, e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”

28. As ≠ because.

29. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."

30. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" is used in a technical way to identify sources of public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to topics about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT synonymously with general terms such as "area," "topic," or the like.

31. “Impact” is a noun.

32. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.”

33. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,” “participants,” and “informants” are preferred terms.

34. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary, but, if you must use them, use endnotes not footnotes.


http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE

SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENT PAPERS

Symbol Meaning

# number OR insert a space (context will help you decipher its meaning)

AWK awkward (and usually compromises clarity as well)

block make into a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with quotations ≥ 4 lines

caps capitalize

COLLOQ colloquial and to be avoided

dB database

FRAG sentence fragment (often that means that the verb is missing)

j journal

lc make into lower case

lib'ship librarianship

org, org’l organization, organizational

Q question

REF? what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer?

sp spelling

w/ with

w.c.? word choice?


GRADING

The grading system for this class includes the grades of:

A+ Extraordinarily high achievementA SuperiorA- ExcellentB+ GoodB SatisfactoryB- Barely satisfactoryC+ UnsatisfactoryC UnsatisfactoryC- UnsatisfactoryD UnacceptableF Unacceptable and failing.

Please see the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in the student orientation packets for explanations of this system. Students should consult the iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/information.html) and the Graduate School Catalogue (e.g., http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad01-03/ch1/ch1a.html#nature and http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad01-03/ch1/ch1b.html#student) for more on standards of work. The University of Texas does not use the +/- grading system that we do at the School of Information; UT accepts only full letter grades. Therefore, for example, a B- and B+ final grade at the iSchool both translate to a final grade of B at the University level.

A grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. In this class, the grade of A is reserved for students who demonstrate not only a command of the concepts and techniques discussed but also an ability to synthesize and integrate them in a professional manner and communicate them effectively.

The grade of incomplete (X) is reserved for students in extraordinary circumstances and must be negotiated with the instructor before the end of the semester. See the former Dean's memorandum of August 13, 1991, available from the main iSchool office.

I use points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. Points on any assignment are determined using an arithmetic not a proportional algorithm. For example, 14/20 points on an assignment does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is very roughly equivalent to a B. If any student's semester point total > 90 (is equal to or greater than 90), then s/he will have earned an A of some kind. If the semester point total > 80, then s/he will have earned at least a B of some kind. Whether these are A+, A, A-, B+, B, or B- depends upon the comparison of point totals for all students. For example, if a student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 98, the student earns an A-. If, on the


other hand, a student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 91, then the student earns an A. This system will be further explained throughout the semester.


TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS

There are five required texts for this class. Agre & Rotenberg, Majchrzak, and Vaidhyanathan can be purchased at the University Coop on Guadalupe, while the National Research Council report is available on the Web. The reading packet is available only from University Duplicating Service at the Graduate School of Business, GSB 3.136 (471-8281). All of the required readings will be on Reserve at PCL, including a copy of the National Research Council report.

The required texts are:

Agre, Philip E., & Rotenberg, Marc. (Eds.). (1997). Technology and privacy: The new landscape. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Majchrzak, Ann. (1984). Methods for policy research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

National Research Council. Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging Information Infrastructure. (2000). The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press.

A packet of readings.

Additional texts are valuable:

Burger, Robert H. (1993). Information policy: A framework for evaluation and policy research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1987). Federal information policies in the 1980s: Conflicts and issues. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Hernon, Peter, McClure, Charles R., & Relyea, Harold. (Eds.). (1996). Federal information policies in the 1990s: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Horwitz, Robert Britt. (1991). The irony of regulatory reform : The deregulation of American telecommunications. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lessig, Lawrence. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York: Random House.

McClure, Charles R., & Hernon, Peter. (Eds.). (1989). United States scientific and technical information policies: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

McClure, Charles R., Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (Eds.). (1989). United States government information policies: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

The course Web site, as well as direct email messages, will be used to inform students of changes in the course schedule, discuss assignments, and so on. Both means can be used by all course participants to communicate with each other, pass along information regarding interesting events and resources, and the like. Students will also need to be familiar with basic Internet navigation tools including


a recent Web browser in order to identify and use sources of and about federal information policy.

You may find Declan McCullagh's mailing list Politech (http://www.politechbot.com/) especially useful this semester, and I encourage you to subscribe or review its archives over the next several months.


http://www.politechbot.com/

LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS

Additional information about each assignment will be provided by the instructor. Written assignments are to be word-processed and double-spaced in 10- or 12-point font, with 1" margins. Assignments are due in class unless otherwise indicated. GRP indicates a group assignment.

Assignment Date Due Percent of Grade

Preparation and participation ----- 10%

Essay on Schön (1993) (3-4 pp.) SEP 17, in class10

Analysis of USA PATRIOT Act (6 pp.) OCT 22, in class15

Topic for information policy paper GRP or IND OCT 22, in class-----

Analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) and VaidhyanathanNOV 5, in class10

(2001) (4-5 pp.)

Choice of presentation date NOV 5, in class -----

Analysis of Supreme Court CIPA decision (5 pp.) NOV 19, in class 10

Presentation on information policy paper GRP or IND NOV 19 , 26----

DEC 3, in class

Draft of information policy paper NOV 26, in class -----GRP or IND

Critique of another student team's draft policy DEC 3, in class15

paper (3-4 pp.)

Final draft of information policy paper DEC 12, FRI 30(20-25 pp.) GRP or IND 3:00 PM

All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructor reserves the right to issue a course grade of F if any assignment is not completed. Late assignments will not be accepted unless three criteria are met:

1. At least 24 hours before the date due, the instructor gives explicit permission to the student to hand the assignment in late.

2. At the same time, a specific date and time are agreed upon for the late submission.


3. The assignment is then submitted on or before the agreed-upon date and time.

The first criterion can be met only in the most serious of health, family, or personal situations.


OUTLINE OF COURSE

Meeting Date Topics

Unit 1: Introduction to the Study of Information Policy

1 Aug 27 Introduction to the courseIntroduction to public policy and information policy

2 Sep 3 Approaches to policy analysis and information policy

3 Sep 10 Locating information policy sourcesModified Final Judgment (MFJ)1934 Communications Act1996 Telecommunications Act

4 Sep 17 Introduction to the National Information Infrastructure: History

of the Internet and other national nets

DUE: Essay on Schön (1993) (3-4 pp.) (10%)

5 Sep 24 National Information Infrastructure continued: Visions and

models“Rights talk”Transcending the “argument culture”

Unit 2: Privacy

6 Oct 1 Introduction to privacyPublic/private spheres

7 Oct 8 Privacy Act, matching, and surveillanceGendered discussions of privacy

8 Oct 15 Privacy in digital environmentsTransaction-generated informationPrivacy-enhancing technologies (PETs): Promises and

limitations

Unit 3: “Intellectual Property”

9 Oct 22 Introduction to “intellectual property”Copyright and fair use


DUE: Analysis of USA PATRIOT Act (6 pp.) (15%)

DUE: Policy paper topic

10 Oct 29 “Intellectual property” in digital environments, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and

copyrighting databases

Trusted systems and their critiqueMoral rights of creators

11 Nov 5 “Intellectual property” discussionRights in digital “revisions”?: New York Times et al. v.

Tasini et al.

DUE: Analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) and Vaidhyanathan (2001) (4-5 pp.) (10%)

DUE: Choice of presentation date

12 Nov 12 Privacy and copyrightUCITA -- the Uniform Computer Information

Transactions Act

Unit 4: Presentations of Students' Research

13 Nov 19 Communications Decency Act (CDA), Child Online Protection

Act (COPA), and the Children’s Internet Protection Act

(CIPA): Congress and the CourtsPolicy paper presentations

DUE: Analysis of U.S. v. ALA et al. [CIPA decision] (2003) (5

pp.) (10%)

14 Nov 26 Policy paper presentations

DUE: Draft of information policy paper

15 Dec 3 Course evaluationPolicy paper presentationsSummary discussion

DUE: Critique of other students’ draft (3-4 pp.) (15%)


Dec 12 Friday, 3:00 PM

DUE: Policy paper (20-25 pp.) (30%)

SCHEDULE

The following schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as we progress through the semester.

DATE TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND REQUIRED READINGS

Unit 1: Introduction to the Study of Information Policy

AUG 27 Introduction to the course -- Review of the syllabusIntroduction to public policy and information policy

READ: Rist (1994)Schön (1993)

AS: Burger (1993), Chapters 1 and 2Coates (1978)

SEP 3 Approaches to policy analysis and information policy

READ: Dror (1984)Majchrzak (1984), all -- and be sure to read the (contested!)

Policy Research Glossary

National Research Council (2000), Appendix D onlinehttp://www.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/

AS: Burger (1993), Chapter 6Doty (2001b)Dye (1995), Chapters 1, 2, and 13Lessig (2001), 1-4

10 Locating information policy sources


Modified Final Judgment (MFJ)1934 Communications Act1996 Telecommunications Act

READ: Aufderheide (1999), 1Browne (1997a)Browne (1997b)Doty (1998)Rowlands (1996)Communication Act of 1934/appropriate parts of the USC, passim Telecommunications Act of 1996 (PL 104-104) (read/retrieve, passim)

AS: Aufderheide (1999), 2 and 5Congressional Research Service (2001)Hernon et al. (1999), 1, 12, and passimHorwitz (1991), Preface, 1-4 [skim]Lessig (2001), 5 and 6Robinson (1998), 1, 2,and passim


SEP 17 Introduction to the National Information Infrastructure: History of the Internet

and other national netsSharing the commons

READ: IITF Web site -- http://iitf.doc.gov/National Research Council (2000), Appendix C onlineNTIA Web site -- http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

AS: Abbate (1999), passimBertot and McClure (1996)Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Web siteInternet Society (ISOC) Web siteLessig (2001), 7 and 8McClure and Ryan (1996)

DUE: Essay on Schön (1993) (3-4pp., double-spaced) (10%)

24 National Information Infrastructure continued: Visions and modelsSharing the commons -- continued“Rights talk”Transcending the “argument culture”

READ: NRENAISSANCE Committee (1994), 4

AS: DoC NTIA (1993) (retrieve)GAO (1994)Glendon (1991), passimLessig (2001), 9 and 10Tannen (1998), passim

Unit 2: Privacy

OCT 1 Introduction to privacyPublic/private spheres

READ: Agre (1997a)Agre (1997b)Warren & Brandeis (1890)

AS: Gellman (1996a)Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)Relyea (2001)


OCT 8 Privacy continued: Privacy Act, matching, and surveillanceGendered discussions of privacy

READ: Privacy Act (5 USC 552a)Burkert (1997)Davies (1997)Fraser (1992)Relyea (2003) onlineGellman (2003) online

AS: Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928)Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)Lessig (1999a)Stefik (1999a)

15 Privacy continued: Privacy in digital environmentsTransaction-generated informationPrivacy-enhancing technologies (PETs): Promises and limitations

READ: Doty (2001) [handout]Gellman (1997)Samarajiva (1997)Electronic Communications Privacy Act (PL 99-508)(retrieve)

AS: Minow & Lipinski (2003), 5 (“Library Records and Privacy”)Stefik (1999b)Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 118

U.S. 394 (1886)

Unit 3: “Intellectual Property”

22 Introduction to “intellectual property”Copyright and fair use

READ: 1976 Copyright Act, especially review section on Fair Use (retrieve)

Lessig (2001), 11National Research Council (2000), Preface, Executive

Summary, and 1 online

UT System Counsel Georgia Harper's site on copyright -- start at

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/gkhbio2.htmVaidhyanathan (2001), Acknowledgements, Introduction, and 1

AS: Lessig (1999b)Miller and Davis (1990), 19 and 23OTA (1986b), 1-3, 7, and 8Stefik (1999c)


http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/gkhbio2.htm


DUE: Analysis of USA PATRIOT Act (6 pp.) (15%)

DUE: Topic for information policy paper


OCT 29 “Intellectual property” in digital environments, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and copyrighting databases

Trusted systems and their critiqueMoral rights of creators

READ: DMCA (PL 105-304)National Research Council (2000), 3, 4, and Appendix G onlineVaidhyanathan (2001), 2, 5, and Epilogue

AS: Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service 499 U.S. 340 (1991)

Basic Books et al v. Kinko’s Graphics 758 F. Supp. 1522 (Manhattan United

States District Court for the Southern District of New York)

(1991)Church of Scientology v. U.S. 506 U.S. 9 (1992)American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc. 60 F.3d 913 (2nd

Circuit) (1994)Lessig (2001), 12-15Litman (2001)

NOV 5 “Intellectual property” discussionRights in digital “revisions”?: New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al.

READ: National Research Council (2000), 2, 5, 6, and Appendix E online

Eldred v. Ashcroft [read majority and two dissenting opinions]New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001a)

[majority opinion]New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001b)

[dissent]Vaidhyanathan (2001), skim 3 and 4

AS: Lipinski (1998)Minow & Lipinski (2003), 1 (“Libraries and Copyright”)

DUE: Analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) and Vaidhyanathan (2001) (4-5

pp.) (10%)

DUE: Choice of presentation date

Nov 12 Privacy and copyrightUCITA -- the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act

READ: ALA (2001a) UCITA site http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/index.html

(passim)ALA (2001b)ALA (2001c)


http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/index.html

Lochner v. New York 98 U.S. 45 (1905)

Unit 4: Presentations of Students' Research

Nov 19 Communications Decency Act (CDA), Child Online Protection Act (COPA), and

the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA): Congress and the CourtsPolicy paper presentations

READ: ACLU et al. v. Reno, ALA et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice 929 F. Supp.

824, 830-849 (ED Pa. [Philadelphia United States District Court

June] 1996)ALA et al. v. Pataki 97 Civ. 0222 (LAP) (Manhattan United

States District Court) [June 1997]

ACLU of Georgia et al. v. Zell Miller et al. 1:96-cv-2475-MHS (Atlanta

United States District Court) {June 1997]Reno et al. v. ACLU et al. 521 U.S. 844 (1997)U.S. v. ALA (2003) read the majority opinion by Rehnquist, the

two concurring opinions by Kennedy and Breyer, and the

two dissenting opinions by Stevens and Souter

AS: Minow & Lipinski (2003), 3 (“Filters and Other Restrictions on

Internet Access”)

DUE: Analysis of U.S. v. ALA et al. [CIPA decision] (2003) (5 pp.) (10%)

Nov 26 Policy paper presentations

DUE: Draft of information policy paper

Dec 3 Course evaluationPolicy paper presentationsSummary discussion


DUE: Critique of other students’ draft (3-4 pp.) (15%)

Dec 12 Friday, 3:00 PM

DUE: Policy paper (20-25 pp.) (30%)


ASSIGNMENTS

Please consult the sections in this syllabus on (1) Analysis in Reading, Writing, and Presenting and (2) Standards for Written Work before and after doing the assignments. I use those criteria, as well as others, in evaluating your work.

Essay on Schön (1993) -- Due September 17 (10%)

At the very beginning of his essay, Schön asserts that metaphors are “central to the task of accounting for our perspectives on the world” and that “[p]roblem settings are mediated . . . by the ‘stories’ people tell about troublesome situations – stories in which they describe what is wrong and what needs fixing” (1993, p. 138).

1. What, specifically, does Schön mean by these and related assertions? What are the strengths and weaknesses of his narrative-sensitive approach to the study of public policy? (2 pp.)

2. Given the material we have read and discussed, what insights does Schön’s paper offer us about U.S. federal information policy? (1-2 pp.)

You may find it useful to consider these questions in the framework of values and normative questions in policy analysis, methodological conflicts and assumptions, and the struggle among disciplinary approaches to policy studies, including information policy. be sure to contextualize your response in the specifics of schön’s argument.

Each student will produce an essay 3-4 double-spaced pages long. Please be sure that your paper is analytic, reflective, and specifically grounded in Schön and any other sources you use.

Analysis of USA PATRIOT Act – Due October 22 (15%)

Using Relyea (2002), which provides an introduction to homeland security and the 2002 Government Information Quarterly special issue on reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and Gellman (2002), one of the papers in that issue, please consider the questions below. The question involve the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, otherwise known as the USA PATRIOT Act, PL 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001):

1. In your opinion, what are the most important implications for information policy of Relyea’s (2002) historical analysis of the concepts of national security and homeland security? What relationship does his analysis have with the USA PATRIOT Act? In particular, you may want to consider the “institutionalization of the national security concept” (p. 215 and passim) and the evolving definition of homeland security. (2 pp.)

2. What is your overall reaction to Gellman’s (2002) discussion of privacy and terrorism? In particular, what implications, if any, does the critique of the Fair Information Practices in Agre & Rotenberg (1997) inter alia have for Gellman’s analysis, which uses these practices as a major lens for analysis? (2 pp.)

3. What connections, if any, does Gellman’s discussion of the “zero privacy” approach and his concern about the evolution of “statutorily protected statistical


records” to administrative records for law enforcement (p. 259) have with the USA PATRIOT Act? Especially consider Title II (“Enhanced Surveillance Procedures”), § 215 (“Access to Records and Other Items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”) of the Act. (2 pp.)

Each student will write responses to these questions 6 double-spaced pages long. Please be certain to relate your analysis to both the broad scope and particular characteristics of federal information policy.

In preparation for this assignment, you may find the Congressional Research Service report, The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis (2002), helpful. The same may be true for the analyses by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Library Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union. If you use these resources, or any others, please be sure to recall that each organization has its own point of view that we must regard with skepticism and self-consciousness.

Analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) and Vaidhyanathan (2001) -- Due November 5 (10%)

On January 15, 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was constitutional (Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft, 2003). The Act increased the general term of copyright from the life of the author + 50 years to the life of the author + 70 years.

Please answer the questions below as specifically and clearly as you can.

What is your overall evaluation of the Supreme Court decision? Why? Be sure to discuss what you regard as the most important strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ and defendant’s arguments. (2 pp.)

One of the major elements of Vaidhyanathan’s (2001) argument is that we have made copyright protection too “thick,” i.e., we protect already created works too zealously and thereby inhibit the creation of future works. What is your reaction to Vaidhyanathan’s analysis in light of Eldred v. Ashcroft? (2-3 pp.)

Be as specific as possible in addressing these questions and feel free to use other course readings, discussions, and other resources as appropriate in making your paper as persuasive as possible. You may find parts of the 1995 NII Task Force White Paper on IP, National Research Council (2000), Lessig (2001), and Aufderheide (1999) particularly useful.

Your paper should be 4-5 double-spaced pages long, as well as sufficiently analytic, holistic, and grounded in the specifics of the Supreme Court case, Vaidhyanathan, and your other sources.

Analysis of U.S. v. ALA et al. [CIPA case] (2003) – Due November 19 (10%)

One way of investigating policy problems is to examine important policy instruments carefully. Similarly, a useful way to understand national policy of all kinds is to consider the adversarial and cooperative relationships among the various branches of government. With an eye to these two approaches, please address the following questions about the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the June 2003


Supreme Court decision (U.S. v. ALA et al.) overturning the district court decision that found the Act unconstitutional on its face:

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General, arguing for the government, said that the government would ensure that (adult) patrons’ requests to disable filters would be promptly and unquestioningly honored (see transcript of the oral argument, pp. 4-5 and 11). Does this concession by government vitiate the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, especially given Souter’s dissent? Why or why not? (2 pp.)

What do you make of the question of the Internet as a “public forum”? Ground your argument in the specifics of the case, including the overturned district court decision (ALA and Civil Action et al. v. U.S. et al. and Multnomah Public Library et. al and Civil Action v. U.S. et al.). (1 p.)

In your opinion, does the majority opinion adequately address the question of overblocking and underblocking? Why or why not? Be sure to consider both Stevens’ dissent and Souter’s discussion of selection in public libraries. (2 pp.)

Each student will produce an essay of 5 double-spaced pages addressing the questions above. Because you must cover so much material in a short essay, be sure to be succinct, direct, and on point. Also be sure to ground your argument in the specifics and context of the law and related court cases. In preparation for this assignment, you might it useful to consult CPPA, CIPA, COPA: Which is Which? at http://www.ala.org/cgi-bin/reghtml.cgi, a useful summary by the American Library Association. Of course, please keep in mind the ALA’s positions with regard to these statutes. The summer 2003 NTIA report on CIPA and technology protection measures as well as Lessig (2001, pp. 184-187) may also interest you.

Information Policy Paper

Every student will be a member of a self-selected, two-member research team. The size of the class may, however, dictate single-student papers. Each two-student team will ideally consist of students enrolled in different degree programs. The team will write a paper about a U.S. federal, local, state, or international information policy issue, theme, actor, information service, or agency of interest to them. The main goals of this assignment are to (1) identify a difficulty in government information policy (often an issue, i.e., an area of contention and dissensus) of interest to the students, (2) explain the topic and its context clearly and thoroughly, and (3) offer well-founded, clearly described recommendations to resolve any conflicts among actors and the implications of implementing those recommendations. See the description of the paper below for more information.

Topic -- Each student team will clear the proposed topic with the instructor by October 22. In addition to your own knowledge and acquaintance with information policy issues, you may find a number of resources of value to you in identifying a topic for your paper: discussion with the instructor and your colleagues (both inside and outside of the class), reading ahead in the syllabus to identify upcoming topics, the mass media, class readings and Additional Sources in this syllabus, Web and other Internet sources, and the bibliographies of what you read.


Draft -- Due November 26. Each student team will submit an initial draft of the information policy paper on November 14. The draft will consist of the same parts as the final draft of the paper described below. At least two copies of this draft are to be submitted -- one for each student peer editor and one for the instructor.

Critique of another student team's draft of the paper -- Due December 3 (15%). Each individual student will review the draft of one other student team and submit at least two copies of a three- to four-page, double-spaced critique of the paper: one to each student who wrote the draft and one to the instructor. Be specific in your critique -- what works in the draft? What does not? Why or why not? What specific suggestions can you offer for improvement to the paper, whether about the topic, the argument, definitions, sources, composition, citations, lay-out, and so on?

Presentation -- November 19, November 26, and December 3 -- each team of two students will be responsible for making a 25-30 minute oral presentation on the subject of their paper. Each student will do roughly half of the presentation. You should plan to use visuals and handouts as appropriate; please let me know in advance if we have to arrange for viewing using a computer and projection device. Each student peer editor will act as respondent to another student team's presentation. The dates for the presentations are November 19 and 26 and December 5. Please notify the instructor of your preference for presentation dates no later than Wednesday, November 5.

Final draft -- Due Friday, December 12, 3:00 PM (30%). This is a final paper of 20-25 double-spaced pages that considers any approved topic in government information policy. Your paper should focus on analysis and contextualization. Remember to look at the syllabus section on Analysis in Reading, Writing, and Presenting as well as the section on Standards for Written Work. Put two copies of your policy paper in the instructor’s box in the iSchool main office, SZB 564 no later than 3:00 PM on Friday, December 12.


SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING POLICY ANALYSIS

This section of the syllabus offers three general, interrelated models for doing policy analysis and then writing policy reports, beyond that offered in Majchrzak (1984). You can use these to guide your own writing as your study of policy analysis progresses beyond this semester’s work, but they are also useful for evaluating the work of others. Such evaluations are very common in policy studies, whether one is doing so for the purposes of critique, literature review, or peer review. Policy analysts constantly review each others’ work in a collegial but demanding way.

The first model is based on one offered by Charles R. McClure, with my own modifications added. Particular analysts and topics may demand different approaches:

• Abstract

• Introduction

Importance of specific topicDefinition of key termsKey stakeholdersKey policy areas needing analysis and resolution

• Overview of current knowledge

Evaluative review of the literature about the topic, including print and electronic sources

• Existing policy related to the topic

The most important legislative, judicial, and regulatory policy instrumentsAmbiguities, conflicts, problems, and contradictions related to the

instruments

• Key issues

Underlying assumptionsEffects on and roles of key stakeholdersConflicts among key valuesImplications of issues

• Conclusions and recommendations

RecommendationsRationale for recommendationsImplications and possible outcomes of specific courses of action

• References

APA styleAll sources cited in the paper.


Bardach (2000) is the source for the second approach to doing policy analysis. His book is entitled A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving. As such, the first two thirds of his book focuses on this “eightfold path,” in a way somewhat reminiscent of Majchrzak (1984), one of the course’s main texts. Bardach identifies eight steps in policy analysis (using his words):

Define the problem

Assemble some evidence

Construct the alternatives (for action)

Select the criteria

Project the outcomes

Confront the trade-offs

Decide!

Tell your story.

Despite his somewhat misplaced emphasis on the rhetoric of problem solving (see, e.g., Schön, 1993) and an implicit linearity he uses to characterize policy analysis, his book is very useful for understanding the overwhelming importance (1) of narrative in the process of policy analysis, (2) of iteration in analysis, and (3) of clarity in argumentation. Bardach also gives some important insights into the contributions of econometric analysis to policy studies.

The third model is based primarily on the work of William Dunn, with contributions from Ray Rist on qualitative policy research methods, Emery Roe on narrative policy analysis, and Donald Schön on generative metaphor. I avoid the rhetoric of problems and problem solving deliberately, e.g., Doty (2001b).


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

Background of the issue or dilemma

Description of the social dilemma Outcomes of earlier efforts to address

the dilemma

Scope and severity of the conflict

Assessment of past policy efforts Significance of the conflict Need for analysis

Issue statement

Definition of the issue Major stakeholders Goals and objectives Measures of effectiveness Potential “solutions” or new understandings

Policy alternatives

Description of alternatives Comparison of future outcomes Externalities Constraints and political feasibility

Policy recommendations

Criteria for recommending alternatives Descriptions of preferred alternative(s) Outline of implementation strategy Limitations and possible unanticipated

outcomes

References

Appendices

Are recommendations highlighted?

Are all the important terms clearly defined?

Are all appropriate dimensions described?Are prior efforts clearly assessed?

Why is the social conflict important?What are the major assumptions and

questions to be considered?

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?

Are alternatives compared in terms of costs and effectiveness?

Are alternatives systematically compared in terms of political feasibility?

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

Agre, Philip E. (1997a). Introduction. In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 1-28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Agre, Philip E. (1997b). Beyond the mirror world: Privacy and the representational practices of computing. In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 29-61). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Agre, Philip E., & Rotenberg, Marc. (Eds.). (1997). Technology and privacy: The new landscape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. Reno, American Library Association et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia) 929 F. Supp. 824, 830-849 (ED Pa. [June] 1996)http://www.ciec.org/decision_PA/decision_text.html

American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia et al. v. Zell Miller et al. 1:96-cv-2475-MHS (United States District Court Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta) {June 1997]http://www.aclu.org/court/aclugavmiller.html

American Library Association. (2001a). UCITA (the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act): Concerns for libraries and the public. http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/index.html

American Library Association. (2001b). UCITA 101: What you should know about the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act. http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/ucita101.html

American Library Association. (2001c). Problems with a non-negotiated contract. http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/contract.html

American Library Association and Civil Action Inc., et al. v. United States, et al. (No. 01-1303IN); Multnomah County Public Library, et al. and Civil Action Inc. v. United States, et al. (No. 01-1322) (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia) [May 2002}http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0415P.HTM [be sure to see U.S. v. ALA et al., 2003, the Supreme Court CIPA case]

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union 535 U.S. (2001a) [majority opinion]http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-1293P.ZO

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union 535 U.S. (2001b) [dissent]http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-1293P.ZD

Ashcroft, et al. v. Free Speech Coalition, et al. (00-795) 198 F.3d 1083, affirmed.http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html

Aufderheide, Patricia. (1999). Background. In Communications policy and the public interest: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Chapter 1, pp. 5-36). New York: Guilford.


http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0415P.HTM

http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/contract.html

http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/ucita101.html

http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/index.html

http://www.aclu.org/court/aclugavmiller.html

http://www.ciec.org/decision_PA/decision_text.html

Bardach, Eugene. (2000). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. New York: Chatham House.

Browne, Mairéad. (1997a). The field of information policy: 1. Fundamental concepts. Journal of Information Science, 23(4), 261-275.

Browne, Mairéad. (1997b). The field of information policy: 2. Redefining the boundaries and methodologies. Journal of Information Science, 23(5), 339-351.

Burkert, Herbert. (1997). Privacy-enhancing technologies: Typology, critique, vision. In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 125-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Davies, Simon G. (1997). Re-engineering the right to privacy: How privacy has been transformed for a right to a commodity. In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 143-165). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Doty, Philip. (1998). Why study information policy? Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 39(1), 58-64.

Doty, Philip. (2001a). Digital privacy: Towards a new politics and discursive practice. In Martha E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 115-245). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Doty, Philip. (2001b). Policy analysis and networked information: “There are eight million stories . . . .” In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo ?Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 213-253). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Dror, Yehezkel. (1984). On becoming more of a policy scientist. Policy Studies Review, 4(1), 13-21.

Dunn, William N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Easton, David. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft (case determining the constitutionality of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) 537 U.S. xx (2003) [the page number will be determined when the volume is printed]http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html [Ginsburg’s majority opinion, Stevens’ dissent, and Breyer’s dissent can all be found there]

Fraser, Nancy. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In Craig Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gellman, Robert. (1997). Does privacy law work? In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 193-219). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html

Gellman, Robert. (2002). Perspectives on privacy and terrorism: All is not lost – yet. Government Information Quarterly, 19(3), 255-264.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6542&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7ca77beaef49608d529efd76eaebec91&chunk=19#19

Horwitz, Robert Britt. (1991). The irony of regulatory reform : The deregulation of Americantelecommunications. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lessig, Lawrence. (2001). Controlling the wires (and hence the content layer). In The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world (Chapter 11, pp. 177-217 and 311-324). New York: Random House.

Lochner v. New York 98 U.S. 45 (1905)http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5BGroup+198+U.S.+45:%5D(%5BLevel+Case+Citation:%5D%7C%5BGroup+citemenu:%5D)/doc/%7B@1%7D/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only

Majchrzak, Ann. (1984). Methods for policy research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

National Research Council. Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging Information Infrastructure. (2000). The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/

New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001a) [majority opinion]http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-201.ZS.html

New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001b) [dissent] http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZD

NRENAISSANCE Committee. Computer Science and Technology Board. Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications. National Research Council. (1994). Principles and practice. In Realizing the information future: The Internet and beyond (Chapter 4, pp. 148-171). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/rtif/toc/chapter4/

Phillips, David J. (1997). Cryptography, secrets, and the structuring of trust. In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 243-276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Relyea, Harold C. (2002). Homeland security and information. Government Information Quarterly, 19(3), 213-223.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6542&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7ca77beaef49608d529efd76eaebec91&chunk=19#19

Rist, Ray C. (1994). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 545-557). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


http://xxxx/


http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/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



Rowlands, Ian. (1996). Understanding information policy: Concepts, frameworks and research tools. Journal of Information Science, 22(1), 13-25.

Samarajiva, Rohan. (1997). Interactivity as though privacy mattered. In Philip E. Agre & Marc Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 277-309). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Schön, Donald A. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 137-163). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

United States v. ALA et al. [Children’s Internet Protection Act case] 537 U.S. xx (2003) [read the majority opinion by Rehnquist, the two concurring opinions by Kennedy and Breyer, and the two dissenting opinions by Stevens and Souter]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-361 [and see ALA et al. V. U.S. et al. and the Multnomah district court decision above]

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press.

Warren, Samuel D., & Brandeis, Louis D. (1985). The right to privacy. In Deborah G. Johnson & John W. Snapper (Eds.), Ethical issues in the use of computers (pp. 172-183). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. (Original work published 1890)

SELECTED IMPORTANT U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER FEDERAL CASES

American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. Reno, American Library Association et al. v. United States Department of Justice et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia) 929 F. Supp. 824, 830-849 (ED Pa. [June] 1996)http://www.ciec.org/decision_PA/decision_text.html


American Library Association et al. v. Pataki (United States District Court Southern District of New York in Manhattan) 97 Civ. 0222 (LAP) [June 1997]http://www.aclu.org/court/nycdadec.html

American Library Association and Civil Action Inc., et al. v. United States, et al. (No. 01-1303IN); Multnomah County Public Library, et al. and Civil Action Inc. v. United States, et al. (No. 01-1322) (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia) [May 2002}http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0415P.HTM [be sure to see U.S. v. ALA et al., 2003, the Supreme Court CIPA case]

American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc. (2nd Circuit) 60 F.3d 913 (1994)


http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0415P.HTM

http://www.aclu.org/court/nycdadec.html



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-361


http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/60_F3d_913.htm

Ashcroft, et al. v. Free Speech Coalition, et al. (00-795) 198 F.3d 1083, affirmed.http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html

Basic Books et al v. Kinko’s Graphics (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan) 758 F. Supp. 1522 (1991)http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/basicbooks.html

Church of Scientology v. U.S. 506 U.S. 9 (1992)http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-946.ZO.html

Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft (case determining the constitutionality of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) 537 U.S. xx (2003) [the page number will be determined when the volume is printed]http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html [Ginsburg’s majority opinion, Stevens’ dissent, and Breyer’s dissent can all be found there]

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. 499 U.S. 340 (1991) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/499us340.htm

Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/381us479.htm

Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+389+u!2Es!2E+347!3A]^[group+citemenu!3A]^[level+case+citation!3A]^[group+notes!3A]/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?

Lochner v. New York 98 U.S. 45 (1905)http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5BGroup+198+U.S.+45:%5D(%5BLevel+Case+Citation:%5D%7C%5BGroup+citemenu:%5D)/doc/%7B@1%7D/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only

New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001a) [majority opinion]http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-201.ZS.html

New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001b) [dissent]http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZD

Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928)http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+277+u!2Es!2E+438!3A]^[group+citemenu!3A]^[level+case+citation!3A]^[group+notes!3A]/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?

Reno et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. 521 U.S. 844 (1997)http://www.cyber-rights.org/censorship/acludecf.htm

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-line Communication Services, et al. 907 F. Supp. 1361 (1995) (United States District Court for the Northern District of California)http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/netcom.txt


http://www.cyber-rights.org/censorship/acludecf.htm

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5Bgroup+277+u!2Es!2E+438!3A%5D%5E%5Bgroup+citemenu!3A%5D%5E%5Blevel+case+citation!3A%5D%5E%5Bgroup+notes!3A%5D/doc/%7B@1%7D/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only



http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZD








http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/381us479.htm

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/499us340.htm


http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-946.ZO.html

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/basicbooks.html

Religious Technology Center v. Lerma 908 F. Supp. 1362 (1995) (United States District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia)http://gozips.uakron.edu/~dratler/cyberlaw/materials/rtclerma.htm

Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.N.E.T., et al. 907 F. Supp. 1468 (1995) (United States District Court for the District of Colorado)http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/rtc-fact.html

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 118 U.S. 394 (1886)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=118&page=394

Sony Corp., et al. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., et al. 464 U.S. 417 (1984)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=464&invol=417

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corporation of America 480 F. Supp. 429, 432 (United States District Court for Central California) (1979)

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=02-361 [and see ALA et al. V. U.S. et al. and the Multnomah district court decision above]

ADDITIONAL SOURCES

Here are a few suggestions for other sources valuable to the study of government information policy, electronic information, and electronic networking. These sources, and others just as valuable, can be found in major academic, law, and policy libraries in the regular shelves, in Government Document Collections, on CD-ROM, on the Web, online, and so on. Be creative, be responsive to the benefits of serendipity, and use your own and others' expertise when doing research. You will find that Congressional Information Service publications; PAIS materials; reports by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, the Congressional Research Service, and the General Accounting Office; hearings before Congressional committees; and material published by the individual mission agencies very useful as well. Also consult LEXIS and the World Wide Web for legal material, Congressional reports, pending bills, and the like.

"Reference" Texts

Abrahamson, Jeffrey B., Arterton, F. Christopher, & Orren, Gary R. (1988). The electronic commonwealth: The impact of new media technologies on democratic politics. New York: BasicBooks.

Alternatives for restructuring the Depository Library Program. (1995, December 5). Administrative Notes, 16, 23-59.




American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. Reno, American Library Association et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia) 929 F. Supp. 824, 830-849 (ED Pa. [June] 1996)http://www.ciec.org/decision_PA/decision_text.html


American Library Association et al. v. Pataki (United States District Court Southern District of New York in Manhattan) 97 Civ. 0222 (LAP) [June 1997]http://www.aclu.org/court/nycdadec.html

American Library Association. Commission on Freedom and Equality of Access to Information. (1986). Freedom and equality of access to information. Chicago: American Library Association.

Andersen, David F., & Dawes, Sharon S. (1991). Government information management: A primer and casebook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Archives and electronic records. (1993). Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 20(1).

Aufderheide, Patricia. (1999). The shaping of the 1996 Act. Chapter 2 in Communications policy and the public interest: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (pp. 37-60). New York: Guilford.

Aufderheide, Patricia. (1999). The public interest beyond the Act. Chapter 5 in Communications policy and the public interest: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (pp. 104-109). New York: Guilford.

Ballard, Steven C., Brosz, Allyn R., & Parker, Larry B. (1981). Social science and social policy: Roles of the applied researcher. In John G. Grumm & Stephen L. Wasby (Eds.), The analysis of policy impact (pp. 179-188). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co.

Bender, David R., Kadec, Sarah T., & Morton, Sandy I. (1991). National information policies: Strategies for the future. SLA [Special Libraries Association] Occasional Papers Series, Number 2. Special Libraries Association.

Bennett, Colin, & Grant, Rebecca. (Eds.). (1999). Visions of privacy: Policy choices for the digital age. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bennett, Tony. (1992). Putting policy into cultural studies. In Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, & Paula Treicher (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 23-37). New York: Routledge.

Bertot, John Carlo, & McClure, Charles R. (1996). The Clinton administration and the National Information Infrastructure (NII). In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 19-44). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.


http://www.aclu.org/court/nycdadec.html



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. 105-135). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Black's law dictionary (7th ed.) (1999). St. Paul, MN: West.http://www.palkauf.com/tools/black's_law_dictionary.htm

Blacksburg Electronic Village. (1994). Vision Statement. Blacksburg, VA: Author.

Boyle, James. (1996). Shamans, software, & spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Branscomb, Anne Wells. (1994). Who owns information? From privacy to public access. New York: BasicBooks.

Braunstein, Yale M. (1981). The functioning of information markets. In Jane H. Yurow and Helen A. Shaw (Eds.), Issues in information policy (pp. 57-74). Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce.

Brush, Stephen B. (1993). Indigenous knowledge of biological resources and intellectual property rights: The role of anthropology. American Anthropologist, 95(3), pp. 653-686.

Burger, Robert H. (1993). Information policy: A framework for evaluation and policy research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Buttler, Dwayne K., & Crews, Kenneth D. (2002). Copyright protection and technological reform of library services: Digital change, practical applications, and congressional action. In Tomas A. Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical challenges in the new information era (pp. 257-274). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Carey, James W. (1988). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Especially the Introduction, pp. 1-9.

Cavazos, Edward A., & Morin, Gavino. (1994). Cyberspace and the law: Your rights and duties in the on-line world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Christians, Clifford. (1989). A theory of normative technology. In Edmund F. Byrne & Joseph V. Pitt (Eds.), Technological transformation: Contextual and conceptual implications (pp. 123-139). Netherlands: Kluwer.

Christians, Clifford. (1995). The problem of universals in communication ethics. The Public, 2(2), 59-69.

Christians, Clifford G., & Hammond, Leon. (1986). Social justice and a community information utility. Communication, 9(2), 127-149.

Civille, Richard. (1995). The Internet and the poor. In Brian Kahin (Ed.), Public access to the Internet (pp. 175-207). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


Coates, Joseph F. (1978). What is a public policy issue? In Kenneth R. Hammond (Ed.), Judgment and decision in public policy formation (pp. 33-69). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Considine, Mark. (1994). Public policy: A critical approach. South Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan.

Cook, Terry. (1995). It's 10 o'clock: Do you know where your data are? Technology Review, 98(1), 48-53. Also available: www: http://www.techreview.com/articles/dec94/cook.html

Cox, Allan B. (1995, July). An overview of geographic information systems. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 21(4), 237-249.

Crawford, Rick. (1996). Computer-assisted crises. In George Gerbner, Hamid Mowlana, & Herbert I. Schiller (Eds.), Invisible crises: What conglomerate control of media means for America and the world (pp. 47-81). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Crews, Kenneth D. (1995). Copyright law and information policy planning: Public rights of use in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Government Information, 22(2), 87-99.

Cross, Harold L. (1953). The people's right to know: Legal access to public records and proceedings. New York: Columbia University Press.

Dam, Kenneth W., & Lin, Herbert S. (Eds.). (1996). Cryptography's role in securing the information society. Committee to Study National Cryptography Policy, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

de Leon, Peter. (1993). Democracy and the policy sciences: Aspirations and operations. Policy Studies Journal, 22(21), 200-212.

de Leon, Peter. (1994). Reinventing the policy sciences: Three steps back to the future. Policy Sciences, 27(1), 77-95.

Dervin, Brenda. (1994). Information <---> democracy: An examination of underlying assumptions. In Leah A. Lievrouw (Ed.), Information resources and democracy [Special issue] (pp. 369-385). Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6).

Dizard, Wilson. (1989). The coming information age: An overview of technology, economics, and politics (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

Dizard, Wilson. (1994). Old media, new media: Mass communications in the Information Age. New York: Longman.

Dobuzinskis, Laurent. (1992). Modernist and postmodernist metaphors of the policy process: Control and stability vs. chaos and reflexive understanding. Policy Sciences, 25(4), 355-380.

Doctor, Ronald. (1994). Seeking equity in the National Information Infrastructure. Internet Research, 4(3), 9-22.

Dye, Thomas R. (1995). Understanding public policy (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.


Eisenbeis, Kathleen M. (1995). Privatizing government information: The effects of policy on access to LANDSAT satellite data. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.

Eisenschitz, Tamara S. (1993). Information transfer policy: Issues of control and access. London: Library Association Publishing.

Feyerabend, Paul. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London: Verso.

Flamm, Kenneth. (1987). Targeting the computer: Government support and international competition. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Flamm, Kenneth. (1988). Creating the computer: Government, industry and high technology. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Forester, Tom, & Morrison, Perry. (1994). Computer ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Freedman, Warren. (1987). The right of privacy in the computer age. New York: Quorum Books.

Friedman, Neal J., & Richards, Robert D. (1994). Communications law: Regulation of the electronic mass media. Author.

Gandy, Oscar. (1993). The panoptic sort: A personal economy of personal information. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Gandy, Oscar. (1996). Coming to terms with the panoptic sort. In David Lyon & Elia Zuriek (Eds.), Computers, surveillance, & privacy (pp. 132-155). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Gellman, Robert. (1996a). Privacy. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 137-163). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Gellman, Robert. (1996b). The new EFOIA law: One person's view. Email communication.

Gilroy, Angele A. (1995, July). Telecommunications regulatory reform. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 21(4), 309-315.

Ginsburg, Jane C. (1993). Copyright without walls?: Speculations on literary property in the library of the future. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 53-73). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Glendon, Mary Ann. (1991). Rights talk: The impoverishment of political discourse. New York: The Free Press.

Grossman, Lawrence R. (1995). The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the electronic age. New York: Viking.

Hadden, Susan. (in press). Democracy on the electronic frontier. In Gary Chapman (Ed.), The end of the frontier: Science and technology policy for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


Hagen, Ingunn. (1992). Democratic communication: Media and social participation. In Janet Wasko and Vincent Mosco (Eds.), Democratic communication in the information age (pp. 16-27). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hamilton, Ann, & Saylor, V. Louise. (1994). Lobbying in the information age: Professional guidance for a new decade. Library Administration and Management, 8(1), 43-48.

Harris, Michael A., & Hannah, Stan A. (1993). Into the future: The foundations of library and information services in the post-industrial era. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Heim, Kathleen. (1986). National information policy and a mandate for oversight by the information professions. Government Publications Review, 13(1), 21-37.

Hernon, Peter. (1991). Government information policy principles. Government Information Quarterly 8(4), 393-399.

Hernon, Peter. (1994). Information life cycle: Its place in the management of U.S. government information resources. Government Information Quarterly, 11(2), 143-170.

Hernon, Peter. (1996). Government information policy in a time of uncertainty and change. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 1-18). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

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. 233-257). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1987). Federal information policies in the 1980s: Conflicts and issues. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1991). United States information policies. In Wendy Schipper and M. Cunningham (Eds.), National and international information policies (pp. 3-48). Philadelphia, PA: National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services.

Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1993). Electronic U.S. government information: Policy issues and directions. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 45-110). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (1995). Government publishing: Past to present. Government Information Quarterly, 12(3), 309-330.

Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (1991). Information policy. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, 48, Supplement 11, 176-204. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Hernon, Peter, Relyea, Harold C., Dugan, Robert E., & Cheverie, Joan F. (2002). United States government information: Policies and sources. Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Hernon, Peter, Shuler, John A., & Dugan, Robert E. (1999). U.S. government on the Web: Getting the information you need. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.


Hernon, Peter, & Shuler, John A. (1996). The Depository Library Program: Another component of the access puzzle shifting to electronic formats. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 259-278). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Holden, Stephen H., & Hernon, Peter. (1996). An executive branch perspective on managing information resources. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 83-104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

The information gap: How computers and other new communication technologies affect the social distribution of power. (1989). Journal of Communication, 39(3).

Information Industry Association. (1994). Telecommunications infrastructure objectives and implementation principles. Journal of Government Information, 21(3), 189-194.

Information Infrastructure Task Force. Information Policy Working Committee. Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. (1995, September). Intellectual property and the National Information Infrastructure: The report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. http://www.uspto.gov/web/ipnii/ [Lehman Report]

Information Infrastructure Task Force. Information Policy Committee. Working Group on Privacy. (1995, June 6). Privacy and the National Information Infrastructure: Principles for providing personal information. gopher://ntia1.ntia.doc.gov:70/HO/papers/documents/files/niiprivprin_final.html

Jacobstein, J. Myron, & Mersky, Roy. (1990). Fundamentals of legal research (5th ed.). Westbury, NY: The Foundation Press.

Jansen, Sue Curry. (1991). Censorship: The knot that binds power and knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jones, Charles O. (1984). An introduction to the study of public policy (3rd ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Kahin, Brian. (1991). Information policy and the Internet. Government Publications Review, 18(5), 451-472.

Kahin, Brian. (Ed.). (1992). Building information infrastructure. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kahin, Brian. (Ed.). (1993). Information infrastructure sourcebook. Cambridge, MA: Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Kahin, Brian. (Ed.). (1995). Public access to the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kahin, Brian, & Nesson, Charles. (1997). Borders in cyberspace: Information policy and the Global Information Infrastructure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


http://www.uspto.gov/web/ipnii/

King, Donald W., Roderer, Nancy K., & Olsen, Harold A. (Eds.). (1983). Key papers in the economics of information. White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications.

Kingdon, John W. (1995). Agenda setting. In Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 105-113). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kingma, Bruce R. (1996). The economics of information: A guide to economic and cost-benefit analysis for information professionals. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Krol, Ed. (1993). RFC [Request for Comments] 1462: FYI on What is the Internet?

Krol, Ed. (1994). The whole Internet: User's guide & catalog (2nd ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly & Associates.

Krug, Judith F. (2002). Censorship and controversial material in museums, libraries, and archives. In Tomas A. Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical challenges in the new information era (pp. 59-68). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Lamberton, Donald M. (1984). The economics of information and organization. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 3-30). White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications.

Lancaster, F.W., & Burger, Robert H. (1990). Macroinformatics, microinformatics and information policy. In D.J. Foskett (Ed.), The information environment: A world view: Studies in honour of Professor A.I. Mikhailov (pp. 149-158). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Landow, George P. (1992). Access to the text and the author's right (copyright). In Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology (pp. 196-201). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lanham, Richard A. (1993). The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts. The Extraordinary Convergence: Democracy, Technology, Theory, and the University Curriculum (Chapter 4, pp. 98-119). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lapperrière, René. (1999). The “Quebec model” of data protection: A compromise between laissez-faire and public control in a technological era. In Colin J. Bennett & Rebecca Grant (Eds.), Visions of privacy: Policy choices for the digital age (pp. 182-196). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Lessig, Lawrence. (1999a). Intellectual property. In Code and other laws of cyberspace (pp. 122-141 and 262-271). New York: Basic Books.

Lessig, Lawrence. (1999b). Privacy. In Code and other laws of cyberspace (pp. 142-163 and 271-275). New York: Basic Books.

Lievrouw, Leah A. (Ed.). (1994a). Information resources and democracy [Special issue]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6).


Lievrouw, Leah A. (1994b). Information resources and democracy: Understanding the paradox. In Leah A. Lievrouw (Ed.), Information resources and democracy [Special issue] (pp. 350-357). Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6).

Lindblom, Charles E. (1995). The “science of muddling through. In Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 113-127). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Original published 1959.

Lindblom, Charles E., & Woodhouse, Edward J. (1993). The policy-making process (3rd ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lipinski, Tomas A. (1998). Information ownership and control. In Martha E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 33, pp. 3-38). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Lipinski, Tomas A. (2002a). Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical challenges in the new information era. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Lipinski, Tomas A. (2002b). Librarian’s guide to copyright for shared and networked resources. Library Technology Reports: Expert Guides to Library Systems and Services. ALA TechSource www.techsource.ala.org

Litman, Jessica. (2001). Digital copyright. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Love, James P. (1992). The marketplace and electronic government information. Government Publications Review, 19(4), 397-412.

Love, Jamie. (1994). Current issues and initiatives in the electronic dissemination of government information. In Ann P. Bishop (Ed.), Emerging communities: Integrating networked information into library services (pp. 192-206). Champaign, IL: Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Marchand, Donald A., & Kresslein, John C. (1988). Information resources management and the public administrator. In J. Rabin & E.M. Jackowski (Eds.), Handbook of information resource management (pp. 395-455).

Marvin, Carolyn. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Massant, Eric J. (1994). The role of libraries and the private sector: Policy principles for assuring public access to U.S. federal government information: A viewpoint. Journal of Government Information, 21(5), 383-390.

McClure, Charles R. (1996). Libraries and federal information policy. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22, 214-218.

McClure, Charles R., Bishop, Ann P., Doty, Philip, & Rosenbaum, Howard. (1991). The National Research and Education Network (NREN): Research and policy perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

McClure, Charles R., & Hernon, Peter. (Eds.). (1989). United States scientific and technical information policies: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.


McClure, Charles R., Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (Eds.). (1989). United States government information policies: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

McClure, Charles R., McKenna, Mary, Moen, William E., & Ryan, Joe. (1993). Toward a virtual library: Internet and the National Research and Education Network. In Catherine Barr (Ed.), The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac (pp. 25-45). New Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker.

McClure, Charles R., & Ryan, Joe. (1996). Moving to the networked information environment: New challenges and issues. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 297-313). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Miller, Arthur, & Davis, Michael H. (1990). Intellectual property: Patents, trademarks, and copyright in a nutshell (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.

Miller, Steven. (1995). Civilizing cyberspace: Policy, power, and the information superhighway. New York: ACM Press.

Minow, Mary, & Lipinski, Tomas A. (2003). The library’s legal answer book. Chicago: American Library Association.

Moen, William E., & McClure, Charles R. (1994). The Government Information Locator System (GILS): Expanding research and development on the ANSI/NISO Z39.50 information retrieval standard. Washington, DC and Syracuse, NY: United States Geological Survey and Syracuse University School of Information Studies.

Morehead, Joe. (1999). Introduction to United States government information sources (6th ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Morrow, William L. (1990). Is this trip necessary? The policy dimensions of expertise. Policy Studies Review, 9(4), 825-830.

Mosco, Vincent. (1996). The political economy of communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mosco, Vincent, & Wasko, Janet. (Eds.). (1988). The political economy of information. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Nagel, Stuart S. (1988). Policy studies: Integration and evaluation. New York: Praeger.

National Academy of Public Administration. (1992). The archives of the future: Archival strategies for the treatment of electronic databases. Washington, DC: Authors.

National Research Council. Committee for a Study on Promoting Access to Scientific and Technical Data for the Public Interest. (1999). A question of balance: Private rights and the public interest in scientific and technical databases. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Netanel, Neil W. (1996). Copyright and democratic civil society. Yale Law Journal, 106(2), 283-387.


Ostrom, Elinor. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Overman, E. Sam, & Cahill, Anthony G. (1990). Information policy: A study of values in the policy process. Policy Studies Review, 9(4), 803-818.

Patterson, L. Ray, & Lindberg, Stanley W. (1991). The nature of copyright: A law of users' rights. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Paulos, John Allen. (1995). A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York: BasicBooks. Especially pp. 69-71, 94, 154-156, and 157-159.

Perritt, Henry H. (1994). Public information in the National Information Infrastructure. Report to the Regulatory Information Service Center, the General Services Administration, and to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

Pool, Ithiel de Solla. (1982). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Rachels, James. (1985). Why privacy is important. In Deborah G. Johnson & John W. Snapper (Eds.), Ethical issues in the use of computers (Chapter 20, pp. 194-201). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. (Original published 1975)

Radin, Margaret. (1993). Reinterpreting property. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

RAND Corporation. (1995). Universal access to email: Feasibility and societal implications. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. http//www.rand.org:80/publications/MR/MR650

Raymond, Eric S. (1999). The cathedral & the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.

Records, Melissa. (1995). Growing pains: An examination of the development of cataloging and access standards for digital geospatial data. Manuscript.

Reichman, J.H., & Uhlir, Paul F. (1999). Database protection at the crossroads: Recent developments and their impact on science and technology. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14(2), 799-821.

Relyea, Harold C. (1987). Public access through the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. In Peter Hernon & Charles R. McClure, Federal information policies in the 1980's: Conflicts and issues (pp. 52-82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Relyea, Harold C. (1989). Historical development of federal information policy. In Charles R. McClure, Peter Hernon, and Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), United States government information policies: Views and perspectives (pp. 25-48). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Relyea, Harold C. (1996a). Freedom of information revisited. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 183-210). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.


Relyea, Harold C. (1996b). National security information policy after the end of the Cold War. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 165-182). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Relyea, Harold C. (2001). Legislating personal privacy protection: The federal response. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(1), 36-51.

Reno et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. 521 U.S. 844 (1997)http://www.cyber-rights.org/censorship/acludecf.htm

Repo, Aatto J. (1987). Economics of information. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 3-35). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Rice, David A. (2002). Legal-technological regulation of information access. In Tomas A. Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical challenges in the new information era (pp. 275-294). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Robertson, Lawrence S. (1981). Access to information. In Helen A. Shaw (Ed.), Issues in information policy (pp. 19-32). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Robinson, Judith Schiek. (1998). Tapping the government grapevine: The user-friendly guide to U.S. government information sources (3rd ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Roe, Emery. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University.

Rose, Lance. (1995). NetLaw: Your rights in the online world. Berkeley, CA: Osborne [McGraw-Hill].

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 Press.

Ryan, Joe, Haining, Sarah, & Persick, Michael. (1994). Keeping track of current developments in federal information policy. Internet Research, 4(2), 67-81.

Ryan, Joe, McClure, Charles R., & Wigand, Rolf. (1994). Federal Information Resources Management: New challenges for the nineties. Government Information Quarterly, 11(3), 301-314.

Sabatier, Paul A. (Ed.). (1999). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Samuelson, Pamela. (1996, January). The copyright grab. Wired, 4(1), 135-138.

Schaefer, Richard J. (1995). A theoretical and normative approach to national information infrastructure policy. Internet Research, 5(2), 5-14.


http://www.cyber-rights.org/censorship/acludecf.htm

Schmidt, C. James. (1989). Rights for users of information: Conflicts and balances among privacy, professional ethics, law, national security. In Filomena Simora (Ed.), The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac (pp. 83-90). New Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker.

Slack, Jennifer Daryl, & Fejes, Fred. (Eds.). (1987). Ideology of the information age. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Smith, Diane H. (Ed.). (1993). Management of government information resources in libraries. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Sprehe, J. Timothy. (1987). OMB Circular No. A-130, The management of federal information resources: Its origins and impact. Government Information Quarterly, 4(2), 189-196.

Sprehe, J. Timothy. (1994a). Federal information policy in the Clinton administration's first year. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 20(4), 20-25.

Sprehe, J. Timothy. (1994b). U.S. Office of Management and Budget no. circular A-130: Old and new. Journal of Government Information, 21(3), 231-247.

Stefik, Mark. (1999a). The bit and the pendulum: Balancing the interests of stakeholders in digital publishing. In The Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 79-106 and 302-303). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stefik, Mark. (1999b). The digital keyhole: Privacy rights and trusted systems. In The Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 197-231 and 305-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stefik, Mark. (1999c). The digital wallet and the copyright box: The coming arms race in trusted systems. In The Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 55-78 and 301-302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tannen, Deborah. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House.

Technology & the national interest. (1994). The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, LXXIV(2).

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: Prentice-Hall.

Theodoulou, Stella Z., & Cahn, Matthew A. (Eds.). (1995). Public policy: The essential readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Thibodeau, Kenneth. (1996). Managing archival records in the electronic age: Fundamental challenges. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea


(Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 279-295). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Trauth, Eileen M. (1986). An integrative approach to information policy research. Telecommunications Policy, 10(1), 41-50.

U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. (1985). Circular A-130: 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 A-130: 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 A-130: The management of federal information resources. Federal Register, 61(34), 6427ff.

Warwick, Shelly. (2002). Copyright for libraries, museums, and archives: The basics and beyond. In Tomas A. Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal issues and ethical challenges in the new information era (pp. 235-256). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Wolpert, Samuel A., & Wolpert, Joyce Friedman. (1986). Economics of information. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Young, Peter R., & Williams, Jane. (1994). Libraries and the National Information Infrastructure. In Catherine Barr (Ed.), The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac (pp. 33-49). New Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker.

Reports (be sure to review required class readings as well; all OTA reports are available online)

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. (1982). Public sector/private sector interaction in providing information services. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Congressional Research Service. (2001). Federal statutes: What they are and where to find them. http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/information/info-16.pdf

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986a). Federal government information technology: Management, security, and congressional oversight. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986b). Intellectual property rights in an age of electronics and information. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://www.wws.Princeton.EDU/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1987). Defending secrets, sharing data. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.


U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Informing the nation: Federal information dissemination in an electronic age. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1989). Copyright & home copying: Technology challenges the law. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1990a). Critical connections: Communication for the future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1990b). Helping America compete: The role of federal scientific and technical information. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1993). Making government work : Electronic delivery of federal services. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1994). Electronic enterprises: Looking to the future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1994). Information security and privacy in network environments. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers & technology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Telecommunications technology and Native Americans: Opportunities and challenges. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Wireless technologies and the National Information Infrastructure. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1993). The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for action. Washington, DC: GPO.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1990). Computers and privacy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Information superhighway: Issues affecting development. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Governmental and Commercial Serial Sources of Government Information

Code of Federal Regulations

Congressional Digest

Congressional Information Service


Congressional Quarterly

Congressional Record

C[ongressional] Q[uarterly] Weekly Reports

Federal Register

Supreme Court Reporter

U.S. Code

U.S. Code and Congressional and Administrative News

U.S. Code Annotated

United States Supreme Court Reports

Journals and Other Serial Sources on Information Policy and Government Information

Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Atlantic Monthly

The Bowker Annual: Library and Book Trade Almanac

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science

Communications Yearbook

Electronic Public Information Newsletter

EPIC [Electronic Privacy Information Center] Alert

ERIC

EDUCAUSE Review

Federal Computer Week

Government Computer News

Government Information Quarterly

Government Technology

Harpers

Information, Communication, and Society

Information Management Review


Information Processing and Management

The Information Society

Internet Research: Electronic Networks Applications and Policy (formerly Electronic Networking: Research, Applications, and Policy)

Internet World

Journal of Academic Librarianship (especially its Information Policy column)

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (formerly the Journal of the American Society for Information Science)

Journal of Communication

Journal of Government Information: An International Review of Policy, Issues and Resources (formerly Government Publications Review)

Journal of Information Science

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Journal of Policy Research

The Journal of Politics

Knowledge

Knowledge in Society

Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy

Philosophy and Public Affairs

Policy Sciences

Policy Studies Journal

Policy Studies Review

Privacy Journal

Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting

Public Administration Review

Public Affairs Information Service

Research Policy

Sage Yearbook of Politics and Public Policy

Science


Scientific American

Science and Public Policy

Serials Review

Technology Review

Telecommunications Policy

Utne Reader

Wired

Newspapers

Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/

New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/

Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/

Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com

Other Specific Electronic Sources -- Remember that these sites and the information there are extremely volatile.

Alliance for Public Technology (APT) http://apt.org/apt/index.html

Americans Communicating Electronically (ACE): http://www.sbaonline.sba.gov/ace/

(U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers http://www.usace.army.mil/

AskERIC http://ericir.syr.edu

Austin home page http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/

(University of California) Berkeley Center for Law & Technology http://www.law.berkeley.edu:80/institutes/bclt/

(U.S.) Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including the World Factbook http://www.fas.org/irp/cia

Chapel Hill home page http://www.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us/

Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) http://www.cni.org/

(United States) Code http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) http://www.cpsr.org/dox/home.html


http://www.cpsr.org/dox/home.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

http://www.cni.org/

http://www.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us/

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia

http://www.law.berkeley.edu:80/institutes/bclt/

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/

http://ericir.syr.edu/

http://www.usace.army.mil/

http://www.sbaonline.sba.gov/ace/

http://apt.org/apt/index.html

(U.S.) Congressional Research Service (CRS) http://www.cnie.org/nle/crs_main.html

Copyright – there are lots of other valuable links, but see

Center for the Study of the Public Domain http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/index.html

Copyright and Fair Use (Stanford U.) http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright Clearance Center http://www.copyright.com/Copyright Management Center http://www.iupui.edu/~copyinfoCreative Commons http://www.creativecommons.org/Georgia Harper's home page on copyright and other “IP” topics

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/gkhbio2.htmLibrary of Congress Copyright Office http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/Public Knowledge Project http://www.pkp.ubc.ca/index.html

Cornell University, Computer Policy & Law Program http://www.cornell.edu/CPL/

Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute http://fatty.law.cornell.edu

Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI): http://www.cnri.reston.va.us

(U.S.) Department of Commerce (DoC) http://www.doc.gov

(U.S.) Department of Justice (DoJ) http://www.usdoj.gov/

EDUCAUSE (formerly EDUCOM and CAUSE) http://www.educause.edu

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) http://www.eff.org

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC): http://www.epic.org/

(U.S.) Federal Communication Commission (FCC) http://www.fcc.gov

Federal Depository Library Program report: Final Report to Congress: Study to Identify Measures for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/rep_cong/efdlp.html

(U.S.) Federal Register http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html

Findlaw http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/

(U.S.) General Accounting Office (GAO) http://www.gao.gov/

(U.S.) Geological Survey (USGS) http://info.er.usgs.gov

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


http://www.govtech.net/

http://www.access.gpo.gov/

http://www.usgs.gov/gils/index.html

http://info.er.usgs.gov/

http://www.gao.gov/

http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/rep_cong/efdlp.html

http://www.fcc.gov/

http://www.epic.org/

http://www.eff.org/

http://www.educause.edu/

http://www.usdoj.gov/

http://www.doc.gov/

http://www.cnri.reston.va.us/

http://fatty.law.cornell.edu/

http://www.cornell.edu/CPL/


http://www.cnie.org/nle/crs_main.html

High-Performance Computing and Communication (HPCC) Program information http://www.ccic.gov/pub/flier96/major_tech.html

(Harvard University) Information Infrastructure Project http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/

Illinois Institute of Technology Institute for Science, Law, and Technology http://www.kentlaw.edu/islt/

Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) http://iitf.doc.gov

“Intellectual property” http://infeng.pira.co.uk/IE/top007.htmhttp://www.ipmag.com/archive.html

Institute for Technology Assessment (ITA) http://www.mtppi.org/ita/index.htm

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) http://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us

Internet Society http://info.isoc.org/

Library of Congress Marvel (Machine-Assisted Realization of the Virtual Electronic Library) http://lcweb.loc.gov/homepage/lchp.html

U.S. Congress Thomas system for full text of selected bills http://thomas.loc.gov/

Library of Congress LOCIS (Library of Congress Information System): http://moondog.usask.ca/hytelnet/us3/us373.html

MapsCarnegie-Mellon University (CMU)

http://www.cs.cmu.edu:8001/Web/maps.htmlNorth Carolina Texas http://www.texas.gov/maps.html

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Map_collection/Map_collection.htmlXerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) Map Vision

http://mapweb.parc.xerox.com/map

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) http://www.nas.edu/

National Academy Press (NAP) http://www.nap.edu/

(U.S.) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) http://hypatia.gsfc.nasa.gov/NASA_homepage.html

National Information Infrastructure: Servers with comprehensive sources http://www.cuny.edu/links/nii.html

(U.S.) National Information Infrastructure Virtual Library http://nii.nist.gov/

National Science Foundation (NSF) http://www.nsf.gov

National Security Agency (NSA) http://www.nsa.gov:8080


http://www.nsa.gov:8080/

http://www.nsf.gov/

http://nii.nist.gov/

http://www.cuny.edu/links/nii.html

http://hypatia.gsfc.nasa.gov/NASA_homepage.html

http://www.nap.edu/

http://www.nas.edu/

http://mapweb.parc.xerox.com/map

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Map_collection/Map_collection.html

http://www.texas.gov/maps.html

http://www.cs.cmu.edu:8001/Web/maps.html

http://moondog.usask.ca/hytelnet/us3/us373.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/

http://lcweb.loc.gov/homepage/lchp.html

http://info.isoc.org/

http://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/

http://www.mtppi.org/ita/index.htm

http://www.ipmag.com/archive.html

http://iitf.doc.gov/

http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/

http://www.ccic.gov/pub/flier96/major_tech.html

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) FedWorld http://www.fedworld.gov

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) http://www.ntia.doc.gov

North CarolinaGeneral home page: http://www.ncgov.com/html/basic/index.html

Agency Records: http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/archives/arch/histstat.htm

Government records: http://www.ncgov.com/asp/subpages/intention.asp?P=2&I=78

NC Legislature: http://www.ncgov.com/asp/subpages/intention.asp?P=2&I=82

Spanish resources: http://www.ncgov.com/asp/subpages/intention.asp?P=2&I=75

(U.S.) Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) http://www.ota.nap.edu -- see Institute for Technology Assessment -- and Princeton University archive of OTA reports http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/

Telecommunications and Information Policy Institute http://www.utexas.edu/research/tipi/

TexasGeneral home page: http://www.texas.govTexas 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.govGeneral Services Commission: www: http://www.spgsc.texas.gov/Higher Education Coordinating Board http://info.thecb.texas.govLegislative Reference Library: (512) 463-1251, (800) 253-9693Natural Resource Conservation Commission:

http://www.state.tx.us/agency/582.htmlTelecommunications Infrastructure Fund:

http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/21cp/TIF.htmlTexas Education Agency (TEA) http://www.tea.state.tx.us/Texas Legislative Service (a for-profit info provider):

http://www/lawlib.uh.edu/txdxn/bills.htmlTexas Legislature: gopher: capitol.tlc.texas.govTexas 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 CenterFederal Gov’t Resources on the Web http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/federal.html

University of North Carolina http://www.lib.unc.edu/Academic Affairs Library (main system)

http://www.lib.unc.edu/aboutmain.htmlGovernment documents http://www.lib.unc.edu/reference/docs/

University of Texas General Libraries http://www.lib.utexas.edu/


http://www.lib.unc.edu/reference/docs/

http://www.lib.unc.edu/aboutmain.html

http://www.lib.unc.edu/

http://www.lib.umich.edu/

http://www.window.texas.gov/

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/

http://www/lawlib.uh.edu/txdxn/bills.html

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/

http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/21cp/TIF.html

http://www.state.tx.us/agency/582.html

http://info.thecb.texas.gov/

http://www.spgsc.texas.gov/

http://info.texas.gov/

http://www.tded.state.tx.us/

http://www.state.tx.us/Government/

http://www.texas.gov/

http://www.utexas.edu/research/tipi/

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/

http://www.ncgov.com/asp/subpages/intention.asp?P=2&I=75






http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/archives/arch/histstat.htm

http://www.ncgov.com/html/basic/index.html

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

http://www.fedworld.gov/

Government information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/More Gov’t Information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/us.htmlInternational Gov’t Information

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/world.htmlTexas Government Information

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/texas.html

Villanova UniversityInternet Legal Research Compass http://vls.law.vill.edu/compass/Federal Court Locator http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/fedcourt.htmlFederal Web Navigator http://lawnt.law.vill.edu/fedweb/State court Locator http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/statecourt/index.htm

Print Sources on Networking

Abbate, Janet. (1999). Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Benedikt, Michael. (Ed.). (1991). Cyberspace: First steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Berners-Lee, Tim. (1999). Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web by its inventor. San Francisco: Harper.

Denning, Dorothy E., & Lin, Herbert S. (Eds.). (1994). Rights and responsibilities of participants in networked communities. Steering Committee on Rights and Responsibilities of Participants in Networked Communities; Computer Science and Technology Board; Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications; National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hefner, Katie, & Lynn, Matthew. (1996). Where wizards stay up late: The origins of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Levinson, Paul. (1997). The soft edge: A natural history and future of the information revolution. London: Routledge.

Quarterman, John. (1990). The matrix: Computer networks and conferencing systems worldwide. Bedford, MA: Digital Press.

Tanenbaum, Andrew. (2002). Computer networks (4th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.


http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/statecourt/index.htm

http://lawnt.law.vill.edu/fedweb/

http://www.law.vill.edu/Fed-Ct/fedcourt.html

http://vls.law.vill.edu/compass/

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Government2.html

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Government.html