Course Description

An overview of information policy issues, both intra- and inter-organizational. One major cluster of topics covered includes the role, the organization, and the effect, particularly as it concerns productivity, of information services within the organization. A second major cluster concerns the policy issues relating to inter–organizational creation and use of information, including economic, legal, and social issues, and broad policy concerns such as trans–border data flow and national information policies.

Required Texts

Sandra Braman.
Change of state: Information, policy, and power.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006.
ISBN 978–0–262–02597–3.

In addition, Internet-based resources will be used in this course. These resources are identified in the syllabus by specific URLs.

Objectives

This course prepares students to take a leadership role in developing information policies in the public policy arena and in organizations. At the end of the course, students will be able to:

• understand the importance of information flow in governments and organizations, at all levels;
• consider the issue of “values” in an organization or in a government and how those values are reflected through information policies;
• understand the power and responsibility of information control;
• appreciate emerging issues in society and how they relate to information policy theory and practice; and,
• identify organizational issues involving information policy and problem–solving approaches.

Assignments

All students are expected to participate in discussions during class meetings and complete all readings as a basis for discussion. These discussions, along with assignments and a project (due at the end of the semester), will be used as the basis for evaluation.

Assignments: There are three assignments, related to issues of privacy, intellectual property, and the notion of a “commons.” Each assignment is worth a total of 25 points so all three assignments are worth 75 points or 37.5 percent of the total grade for the course.

Total available points per assignment=25 points.

Total number of assignments=3, total available points for all assignments=75.

Project: Due April 22. You have been appointed by the White House to be the new Secretary of Information. This position is a new post in the Cabinet, and you will determine information policy on a national scale. The Senate is quite interested in your opinions and will hold hearings shortly. Prepare a document, no longer than ten pages (double–spaced), for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, describing your views on a national information policy and the challenges facing you and the country as Secretary of Information. This project is worth 100 points, or 50 percent of your total grade for the course.

Total available points for Project = 100 points.

In–class discussion

During formal class sessions, there will be ample opportunity for students to ask and answer questions and to participate in discussions on a variety of issues. Your participation in class is worth 25 points, or 12.5 percent of your total grade for the course.

Total points available for in–class discussion = 25 points.

Review of assessment

A grand total of 200 points are available to each student; (75 [three assignments] + 100 [project] + 25 [in–class discussion]= 200).

Please notify the instructor by e–mail (ejv [at] dom [dot] edu) if attendance is not possible.

No optional assignments are available. All assignments must be completed on time; inadequate preparation for each class session and of specific assignments will lead to a reduction in points awarded in the aforementioned categories.

Academic Integrity Policy

Students of the University must conduct themselves in accordance with the highest standards of academic honesty and integrity. Failure to maintain academic integrity will not be tolerated. For further details, please see 2007–2008 Dominican Student Handbook and Planner, p. 20.

Syllabus

Tuesday, January 15: What is information policy? Can we define an ethics of information? Do personal information policies have a relationship to organizational, national, and international policies?

Readings: Braman, pp. 1–8, 329–335.

Tuesday, January 22: Power and information: Is information power?

Readings: Braman, pp. 9–38, 335–345.

E.S. Overman and A.G. Cahill, 1990. “Information policy: A study of values in the policy process,” Policy Studies Review, volume 9, number 4, pp. 803–818.

Tuesday, January 29: The notion of a “commons.”

Readings: Braman, pp. 39–78, 346–349.

Garrett Hardin, 1968. “The tragedy of the commons,” Science, volume 162, no. 3859 (12 December), pp. 1243–1248, at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243.

Tuesday, February 5: Notions of “values” and “commons”: Overgrazing, free riding, and control.

Readings: American Library Association v. Federal Communications Commission, at http://www.eff.org/cases/ala-v-fcc

Assignment 1: Is there a developing “tragedy of the information commons”? Read the following papers:

David Brin, 1995. “The Internet as a commons,” Information Technology and Libraries, volume 14, number 4, pp. 240–242.

Harlan J. Onsrud, 1998. “The tragedy of the information commons,” at http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/pubs/tragedy42.pdf.

Comment on these papers in no more than five, double–spaced pages, presenting possible solutions to a potential tragic end to the “information commons.”

This assignment is due Tuesday, February 12 no later than 6 PM. Send your assignment as an attachment to an e–mail message to ejv [at] dom [dot] edu. We will discuss this assignment at the start of class on Feb. 12.

Tuesday, February 12: What is privacy? Is “privacy” specifically defined? What are the relations of privacy to information policies?

Readings: Braman, pp. 79–116, 349–352.

Jacob G. Hornberger, 2005. “The Bill of Rights: Unenumerated Rights,” at http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0504a.asp.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), abstract at http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), opinion at http://www.justia.us/us/381/479/case.html.

Tuesday, February 19: Are there different flavors of privacy? Different definitions?

Readings: Braman, pp. 117–166, 352–369.

Christopher Allen, 2004. “Four kinds of privacy,” at http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/04/four_kinds_of_p.html.

Roger Clarke, 2005. “Introduction to Dataveillance and Information Privacy, and Definitions of Terms,” at http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/Intro.html.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Medical Privacy — National Standards to Protect the Privacy of Personal Health Information,” at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/.

Tuesday, February 26: Is there a future for information privacy?

Readings: Willis H. Ware, 2004. “Contemporary privacy issues,” at http://www.southernct.edu/organizations/rccs/resources/research/comp_and_priv/ware/intro.html and subsequent parts of this document through Section 15. “The Future of Privacy”.

Burd v. Cole, at http://www.eff.org/cases/burd-v-cole.

Columbia v. Bunnell, at http://www.eff.org/cases/columbia-pictures-industries-v-bunnell.

Assignment no. 2: You are the director of a large public library in suburban Chicago. Your trustees have asked you to write a formal document governing privacy and confidentiality of library records. The trustees are interested in a brief document, no longer than five, double–spaced pages. Hint: Consult the brochure by the Illinois Library Association, “Privacy & Confidentiality in Libraries,” at http://www.ila.org/advocacy/privacy.htm.

This assignment is due Tuesday, March 11 no later than 6 PM. Send your assignment as an attachment to an e–mail message to ejv [at] dom [dot] edu. We will discuss this assignment at the start of class on March 11.

Tuesday, March 4: Break (no class).

Tuesday, March 11: Historical origins of copyright.

Readings: Braman, pp. 167–220, 369–394.

L. Ray Patterson and Stanley W. Lindberg. The nature of copyright: A law of users’ rights. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991, pp. 19–46.

Tuesday, March 18: An introduction to intellectual property. Guest lecturer: Charles C. Valauskas, J.D., LL.M., founder and partner, Valauskas & Pine, Chicago.

Readings: Thomas G. Field Jr., 2006. “What is intellectual property?” at http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/intelprp/.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), “What is Intellectual Property?” at http://www.wipo.org/freepublications/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdf.

Tuesday, March 25: Legal boundaries to copyright and intellectual property: Important U.S. Supreme Court decisions and their effects.

Readings: Contrast Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios (see http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/768/ and http://www.justia.us/us/464/417/case.html) to MGM Studios v. Grokster (see http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1809/ and http://www.justia.us/us/545/04-480/case.html)

Also examine Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music (see http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1644/ and http://www.justia.us/us/510/569/case.html) or Feist Publications v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. (see http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1643/ and http://www.justia.us/us/499/340/case.html).

Tuesday, April 1: Future of intellectual property. Guest lecturer, Marland Webb, corporate attorney, GATX Corporation, Chicago.

In class distribution of “Bound by Law” comic book created by the Center for the Public Domain, Duke University School of Law; see http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/.

Readings: 1–800 Contacts v. WhenU, at http://www.eff.org/cases/1-800-contacts-v-whenu.

ACRA v. Lexmark, at http://www.eff.org/cases/acra-v-lexmark.

Chicago Auto Show shutdown, at http://www.eff.org/cases/eff-backs-parody-protest-site-chicago-auto-show.

Assignment no. 3: You are the director of a very large academic research library. You have been approached by Google to participate in its Google Print Program. A contact has been provided to you, similar to Google’s contract with the University of Michigan Libraries (see http://www.lib.umich.edu/mdp/um-google-cooperative-agreement.pdf). You are meeting with the University’s legal department in a week and have been asked to draw up an opinion, no less than five pages, on the contract. The University ultimately is giving you the decision to agree to the contact, or to make changes, or to not sign it with Google and seek alternatives.

This assignment is due Tuesday, April 8 no later than 6 PM. Send your assignment as an attachment to an e–mail message to ejv [at] dom [dot] edu. We will discuss this assignment at the start of class on April 8.

Tuesday, April 8: Are their borders in cyberspace?

Readings: Braman, pp. 221–257, 394–405.

David R. Johnson and David G. Post, 1996. “Law and borders: The rise of law in cyberspace,” First Monday, volume 1, number 1 (May), at http://journals.uic.edu/fm/article/view/468/389.

Tuesday, April 15: Borders and public information: Open access?

Readings: Peter Weiss, 2002. “Borders in Cyberspace: Conflicting Public Sector Information Policies and their Economic Impacts,” at http://www.primet.org/documents/weiss%20-%20borders%20in%20cyberspace.htm.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy, at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/.

Tuesday, April 22: Presentations of final projects (Senate hearings on Secretary of Information).