federal information policycourses.ischool.utexas.edu/doty_philip/2009/fall/... · web viewfederal...

FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY

INF 390N.1/COM 386

Unique Number #28130/05481

Dr. Philip DotySchool of Information

University of Texas at Austin

Fall 2009

Class time: Thursday 12:00 N – 3:00 PM

Place: UTA 1.204

Office: UTA 5.448

Office hrs:Tuesday 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM

By appointment other times

Telephone: 512.471.3746 – direct line512.471.2742 – iSchool receptionist512.471.3821 – main iSchool office

Internet: [email protected]://www.ischool.utexas.edu/

Class URL: http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Doty_Philip/2009/fall/INF390N1/

TA: Shelley E. [email protected]

Monday 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM, UTA 5.428 (seminar room)

Tuesday 7:00 PM – 8:00 PM Gmail Chat, [email protected]

Copyright Philip Doty – University of Texas at Austin – July 2009 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction to the course 3

Students’ collaboration 3

Expectations of students’ performance 4

Analysis and holism in reading, writing, and presenting 5

Standards for written work 6

Editing conventions 10

Grading 11

Texts and other tools 12

List of assignments 13

Outline of course 14

Schedule 16

Assignments 21

Suggestions for writing policy analysis 24

References 27

References in the schedule and assignmentsSelected federal cases"Reference" textsReportsGovernmental and commercial serial sources of government informationJournals and other serial sources on information policy and government informationNewspapersOther electronic sources


INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE

INF 390N.1, Federal Information Policy, provides an overview of U.S. federal information policy and its implications for society. We will consider the federal information policy system within the broader context of public policy, key information policy areas, and the structures and processes involved in the formulation of federal information policies. Students will develop a critical understanding of a variety of approaches to policy analysis and a variety of policy analysis techniques. The class will give special attention to the contribution of Information Studies as a discipline to policy formation and analysis.

Federal information policy comprises two major kinds of information policies: (1) policies that control government information, i.e., information that the federal government and government-sponsored entities generate, collect, “store,” and distribute; and (2) policies that control how information is distributed in society, e.g., policies related to “intellectual property,” privacy, surveillance and national security, freedom of expression, media regulation, intellectual freedom, contracts, classification of information, the use of categories such as “sensitive but unclassified” information, torts, and equity of information access. INF 390N.1 emphasizes this second kind of information policy. A special focus will be electronic information, including those policies related to privacy, surveillance, and freedom of information since the events of September 11, 2001.

INF 390N.1 will (a) increase students' knowledge of major federal information policies and how to track their development, (b) improve students' ability to analyze critically the implications of federal policies for managing information as well as for activities in public and private venues, and (c) enhance students' ability to influence the policy system as professionals and private citizens.

Thus, students will:

1. Develop skill in information policy analysis and explore how various disciplines can contribute to the analysis of public policy

2. Explore a variety of approaches to understanding public policy3. Concentrate on several areas in information policy: the foundations of

information policy, policy as the expression and collision of values, privacy, surveillance and security, the growing use of information classification and the category of “sensitive but unclassified” information, and freedom of information, particularly since 9/11/2001

4. Examine the use of what some have called “rights talk” (Glendon, 1991)5. Consider the seductive nature of the “argument culture” and how we can avoid

its limitations and obscuring logic and locutions, especially those related to so-called “debate” (Tannen, 1998)

6. Explore the relationships among information policy and various information technologies and trends

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

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

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

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


STUDENTS’ COLLABORATION

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


EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE

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

• Attend all class sessions. If a student misses a class, it is her responsibility to arrange with another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets.

• Read all material prior to class. Students are expected to use the course readings to inform their classroom participation and their writing. Students must integrate what they read with what they say and write. This last imperative is essential to the development of professional expertise and to the development of a collegial professional persona.

• Educate themselves and their peers. Successful completion of graduate programs and participation in professional life depend upon a willingness to demonstrate initiative and creativity. Participation in the professional and personal growth of colleagues is essential to one’s own success as well as theirs. Such collegiality is at the heart of scholarship, so some assignments are designed to encourage collaboration.

Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour in the classroom; therefore, a 3-credit graduate hour course requires a minimum of 10-12 hours per week of work outside the classroom.

• Participate in all class discussions.

• Complete all assignments on time. Late assignments will not be accepted except in the limited circumstances noted below. Failure to complete any assignment on time will result in a failing grade for the course.

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

• Ask for help from the instructor or the teaching assistant, either in class, during office hours, on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate way. Email is especially appropriate for information questions, but the instructor limits access to email outside the office. Unless there are compelling privacy concerns, it is always wise to send an additional copy of any email intended for the instructor to the TA who has access to email more regularly.

Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, is intolerable and will incur severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is concern about behavior that may be academically dishonest, consult the instructor. Students should refer to the UT General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and Texas is the Best . . . HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.

The instructor is happy to provide all appropriate accommodations for students with documented disabilities. The University’s Office of the Dean of Students at


471.6259, 471.4641 TTY, can provide further information and referrals as necessary.


ANALYSIS AND HOLISM IN READING, WRITING, AND PRESENTING

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

At the same time, however, please remember that a holistic, integrative understanding of context must always complement depth of analysis.

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

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

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

Be specific.

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

Give examples.

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

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

Support assertions with evidence.

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

Identify and explore the specific practical, social, and intellectual implications of courses of action.

Be evaluative. Synthesize and internalize existing knowledge without losing your own critical point of view.

Identify the specific criteria against which others' work and options for action will be assessed.

See the Standards for Written Work, Suggestions for Writing Policy Analysis, and the assignment descriptions in this syllabus for further explanations and examples.


STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK

You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity, clarity, grammar, spelling, and organization in your written work for this class, and, to that end, I offer the following remarks. Review these standards both before and after writing; I use them to evaluate your work.

Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what her audience knows about the topic at hand; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. As Wolcott reminds us in Writing Up Qualitative Research (1990, p. 47): "Address . . . the many who do not know, not the few who do." It is also important to remember that clarity of ideas, clarity of language, and clarity of syntax are mutually reinforcing.

Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Recall that writing is a form of inquiry, a way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. Theodore Dreiser’s Sister Carrie shows how this process of composition and thought works (1994, p. 144):

Hurstwood surprised himself with his fluency. By the natural law which governs all effort, what he wrote reacted upon him. He began to feel those subtleties which he could find words to express. With every word came increased conception. Those inmost breathings which thus found words took hold upon him.

We need not adopt Dreiser’s breathless metaphysics or naturalism to understand the point.

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

Some writing assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and references. It is particularly important in professional schools such as the School of Information that notes and references are impeccably done. Please use APA (American Psychological Association) standards. There are other standard bibliographic and note formats, for example, in engineering and law, but social scientists and a growing number of humanists use APA. Familiarity with standard formats is essential for understanding others' work and for preparing submissions to journals, funding agencies, professional conferences, and the like. You may also want to consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.).

Do not use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in graduate school or in professional writing. If you want to use a reference source to define a term, use a specialized dictionary such as The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy or subject-specific encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. The best alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the term sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature.

Use a standard spell checker, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries have systematic weaknesses: they exclude most proper nouns, e.g., personal and place names; they omit most technical terms; they omit most foreign words and phrases; and they cannot identify the error in using homophones, e.g., writing "there" instead of "their,” or in writing "the" instead of "them."


It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to increase clarity. Finally, each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing your full name, the date, the title of the assignment, and the class number (INF 390N.1 or COM 386). If you have any questions about standards, I will be pleased to discuss them at any time.

Remember, every assignment must include a title page with:

• The title of the assignment• Your name• The date• The class number – INF 390N.1 or COM 386.

CONTINUED

Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, I will read and edit your work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of a technical session at a professional conference would. The reminders below will help you prepare professional written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 25 (some have more than one error):

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

2. Number all pages after the title page. Notes and references do not count against page limits.

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

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

5. Avoid computer technospeak like "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except when using such terms in specific technical ways.

6. Avoid using “content” as a noun.

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

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

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

10. Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms entail major philosophical, epistemological controversy. Avoid


terms such as "facts," "factual," "proven," and related constructions for similar reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTINUED


17. Avoid misplaced modifiers; e.g., it is inappropriate to write the following

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- responsibility (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 for more guidance.

25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*

26. Citation, quotation, and reference are nouns; cite, quote, and refer to are verbs.

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


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

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

29. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because.

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

CONTINUED


31. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" is used in a technical way to

identify sources of public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to topics about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT synonymously with general terms such as "area," "topic," or the like.

32. On a related note, avoid the locution of “public debate.” Such a locution makes a series of faulty assumptions:

- It presumes that a public policy issue has only two “sides.” There are usually three or four or more perspectives on any topic of public dissensus that merit consideration. “Debate” hides this complexity.

- “Debate” implies that one “side” and only one “side” can be correct; that presumption ignores the fact that the many perspectives on a public policy issue have contributions to make to its resolution.

- “Debate” implies that there can be and will be one and only one “winner.” This presumption naively ignores the fact that some public policy issues are intractable, that these issues are often emergent as are their resolutions, and that compromise is success rather than failure or “surrender.”

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

34. Avoid the use of “etc.” – it is awkward, colloquial, and vague.

35. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,” “participants,” and “informants” are preferred terms and have been for decades.

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

37. Please adhere to these orthographic (spelling) conventions:

- Web with a capital “W.”- Web site, two words, with a capital “W.”- Internet with a capital “I” to indicate the TCP/IP-compliant computer network

with a shared address convention. Otherwise, internet with a lower-case “i” simply means any of the many millions of networks of networks.


SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS

Symbol Meaning

# number OR insert a space; the context will help you decipher its meaning

AWK awkward and usually compromises clarity as well

BLOCK make into a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with

quotations ≥ 4 lines

caps capitalize

COLLOQ colloquial and to be avoided

dB database

FRAG sentence fragment; often means that the verb or subject of the sentence is missing

ITAL italicize

j journal

lc make into lower case

lib'ship librarianship

org, org’l organization, organizational

PL plural

Q question

Q’naire questionnaire

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

RQ research question

sp spelling

SING singular

w/ with

w.c.? word choice?

The instructor also uses check marks to indicate that the writer has made an especially good point. Wavy lines indicate that usage or reasoning is suspect.


GRADING

Grades for this class include:

A+ Extraordinarily high achievement not recognized by the UniversityA Superior 4.00A- Excellent 3.67B+ Good 3.33B Satisfactory 3.00B- Barely satisfactory 2.67C+ Unsatisfactory 2.33C Unsatisfactory 2.00C- Unsatisfactory 1.67F Unacceptable and failing. 0.00.

See the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in the School of Information student orientation packet for explanations of this system. Consult the iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/general_info.php) and the Graduate School Catalogue (e.g., http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad07-09/ch01/ch01a.grad.html#The-Nature-and-Purpose-of-Graduate-Work and http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad07-09/ch01/ch01b.grad.html#Student-Responsibility) for more on standards of work. While the University does not accept the grade of A+, the instructor may assign the grade to students whose work is extraordinary.

The grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. The instructor reserves the grade of A for students who demonstrate not only a command of the concepts and techniques discussed but also an ability to synthesize and integrate them in a professional manner and communicate them effectively, successfully informing the work of other students.

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

The instructor uses points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. He uses an arithmetic – not a proportional – algorithm to determine points on any assignment. For example, 14/20 points on an assignment does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is roughly equivalent to a B. If any student's semester point total ≥ 90 (is equal to or greater than 90), then s/he will have earned an A of some kind. If the semester point total ≥ 80, then s/he will have earned at least a B of some kind. Whether these are A+, A, A-, B+, B, or B- depends upon the comparison of point totals for all students. For example, if a student earns a total of 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 98, the student would earn an A-. If, on the other hand, a student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 91, then the student would earn an A. This system will be further explained throughout the semester.


TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS

There are four required texts for this class; all can be purchased at the University Coop on Guadalupe. Many of the other readings are available online, and those readings that are neither textbooks nor available from online subscriptions are available in the Course Documents section of the course Blackboard site. As many of the required readings as possible will be on Reserve at PCL.

The required texts are:

Abbate, Janet. (2000). Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Original work published 1999)

Lyon, David. (Ed.). (2006b). Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond. Portland, OR: Willan.

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

Solove, Daniel J., & Schwartz, Paul M. (2009). Privacy, information, and technology (2nd ed.). Austin: Wolters Kluwer.

All the texts address political questions and, thus, are inherently controversial and value-laden. One of the major goals of the course is to help students move beyond the simplistic “here’s my personal opinion . . .” to a more analytic, historical, and theoretically grounded understanding of information conflicts and politics. For example, reductive and colloquial notions of political left/right and liberal/conservative are inadequate to give us scholarly perspective on questions of information policy. Such notions are out of place in this class.

Additional valuable texts include:

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

Braman, Sandra. (2006). Change of state: Information, policy, and power. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

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

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

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

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

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

Lapham, Lewis H. (2004). Gag rule: On the suppression of dissent and the stifling of democracy. New York: Penguin Books.

Lessig, Lawrence. (1999b). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

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

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


Waldo, James, Liu, Herbert S., & Millett, Lynette I. (Eds.). (2007). Engaging privacy and information technology in a digital age [sic]. Committee on Privacy in the Information Age {sic]. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy. Also available at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11896&page=R1

Williams, Robert V., & Lipetz, Ben-Ami. (Eds.). (2005). Covert and overt: Recollecting and connecting intelligence service and information science. ASIST monograph series. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Blackboard and direct email messages will be used to inform students of changes in the course schedule, discuss assignments, and the like. You will also find Declan McCullagh's mailing list Politech (http://www.politechbot.com/) especially useful, and you should subscribe to it and begin reviewing its archives by the second class of the semester.


http://www.politechbot.com/

LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS

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

Assignment Date Due Percent of Grade

Preparation and participation ----- 10%

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

Analysis of FISA Amendment Act of 2007 (6 pp.) OCT 22, in class 15

Topic for information policy paper GRP or IND OCT 29, in class-----

Surveillant assemblage and surveillance theory (6 pp.) NOV 5, in class20

Draft of information policy paper NOV 19, in class -----GRP or IND

Presentation on information policy paper GRP or IND DEC 3, in class-----

Review of another team's draft policy paper DEC 3, in class15

(3-4 pp.)

Final draft of information policy paper DEC 8, TUE 30(18-20 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 be accepted only if:

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

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

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

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


All of your assignments should adhere to the standards for written work; should be clear, succinct, and specific; and should be explicitly grounded in the readings, class discussions, and other sources as appropriate. You will find it particularly useful to write multiple drafts of your papers.


OUTLINE OF COURSE

Meeting Date Topics

Unit 1: Introduction to the Study of Information Policy and the National Information Infrastructure

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

2 SEP 3 Foundations of policy analysis and information policy

3 SEP 10 Locating information policy sourcesBrief history of the modern administrative state and

U.S. telecommunications

Modified Final Judgment (MFJ)1934 Communications Act1996 Telecommunications Act

4 SEP 17 Introduction to the National Information Infrastructure I:

History of the Internet and other national nets“Rights talk”Transcending the “argument culture”

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

5 SEP 24 National Information Infrastructure II: Visions, models, and the

so-called “information commons”

Unit 2: Privacy and Surveillance

6 OCT 1 Privacy I – Introduction and overviewHistory in the U.S.1974 Privacy Act – history and context

7 OCT 8 Privacy II – Current controversies and theoriesPublic/private spheres – an acceptable model?Gendered discussions of privacy: U.S. Supreme

Court and privacy

Computer matching and surveillanceUSA PATRIOT Act/Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

(FISA)Library and other records

8 OCT 15 Privacy III – Historical and evolving legal perspectives


9 OCT 22 Surveillance I – Analytics beyond the panopticon IntroductionThe surveillant assemblageCCTVSurveillance and totalitarianism

DUE: Analysis of FISA Amendment Act of 2007 (6 pp.) (15%)


10 OCT 29 Surveillance II – Theories in practiceThe so-called “war on terror”Web camsSurveillance and the body

DUE: Topic for information policy paper

Unit 3: Freedom of Information, Intelligence, and Information Science

11 NOV 5 Freedom of Information I – History and post-9/11 questions

General conceptsFreedom of Information Act (FOIA)FOIA and electronic informationClassification of informationE.O. 13233, E.O. 13489, and the secrecy of

presidential records

DUE: Surveillant assemblage and surveillance theory (6 pp.)

(20%)

12 NOV 12 Freedom of Information II – “Sensitive but unclassified”HistoryCurrent uses and conflicts

13 NOV 19 Security informationIntelligence and information science

DUE: Draft of information policy paper

NOV 26 No class – Happy Thanksgiving!

14 DEC 3 Course evaluationPolicy paper presentationsSummary discussion

DUE: Review of another team’s draft (3-4 pp.) (15%)

DEC 8 Tuesday, 3:00 PM

DUE: Policy paper (18-20 pp.) (30%)


SCHEDULE

The following schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as we progress through the semester. CD indicates that a reading is in the Course Documents section of the class Blackboard site, while AS identifies Additional Sources that are optional.

DATE TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND REQUIRED READINGS

Unit 1: Introduction to the Study of Information Policy and the National Information Infrastructure

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

READ: Braman (1990) CDDoty (1998) CDMcClure & Jaeger (2008) onlineSchön (1993) CD

AS: Burger (1993), Chapters 1 and 2Coates (1978)Overman & Cahill (1990) onlineRist (1997) CD

SEP 3 Foundations of policy analysis and information policy

READ: Braman (2006) 1, 3 and Bibliographic Essay (pp. 329-335 and 346-349) CD

Dror (1984) CDMajchrzak (1984), all – and be sure to read the (contested!)

Policy Research Glossary

AS: Burger (1993), Chapter 6Doty (2001b)Dye (1995), Chapters 1, 2, and 13Lessig (2001), 1-4National Research Council (2000), Appendix D (“Information

Economics: A Primer”) online

SEP 10 Locating information policy sourcesBrief history of the modern administrative state and U.S.

telecommunications Modified Final Judgment (MFJ)1934 Communications Act1996 Telecommunications Act

READ: Abbate (2000), Introduction and 1Aufderheide (1999), 1 CDBraman (2003) onlineBrowne (1997a) CDBrowne (1997b) CDRowlands (1996) CD


Communication Act of 1934/appropriate parts of the USC, passim Telecommunications Act of 1996 (PL 104-104) (read/retrieve, passim)

AS: Aufderheide (1999), 2 and 5Braman (2006), pp. 177-187 and 380-382)Congressional 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 I: History of the Internet

and other national nets“Rights talk”Transcending the “argument culture”

READ: Abbate (2000), 2 and 3Barabási (2003) CDNational Research Council (2000), Appendix C (“Networks:

How the Internet Works”) online

NTIA Web site -- http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

AS: Bertot and McClure (1996)Glendon (1991), passimInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Web siteInternet Society (ISOC) Web siteLessig (2001), 7 and 8McClure and Ryan (1996)Tannen (1998), passim

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

SEP 24 National Information Infrastructure II: Visions, models, and the so-called

“information commons”

READ: Abbate (2000), 4, 5, and 6

AS: DoC NTIA (1993) (retrieve)GAO (1994)Lessig (2001), 9 and 10NRENAISSANCE Committee (1994), 4 (“Principles and

Practice”)

Unit 2: Privacy and Surveillance

OCT 1 Privacy I – Introduction and overviewHistory in the U.S.1974 Privacy Act – history and context

Facilitated discussion

READ: Agre (1997a) CDSolove & Schwartz (2009), 1 (pp. 1-76), 4B2, 3, 4, and 5(d) (pp.

411-433, 433-436, 437-439, and 467-469)

Warren & Brandeis (1890/1985) onlineWaldo et al. (2007), Executive Summary onlinePrivacy Act (5 USC 552a)


AS: Agre (1997b) CDAllen (1995) CDBurkert (1997) CDGellman (1996a)Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)Relyea (2001)Raab & Mason (2005)Rosen (2000) CDWarren & Dearnley (2005)

OCT 8 Privacy II – Current controversies and theoriesPublic/private spheres – an acceptable model?Gendered discussions of privacy: U.S. Supreme Court and privacy Computer matching and surveillanceUSA PATRIOT Act/Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)Library and other records

Facilitated discussion

READ: USA PATRIOT Act (PL 107-56)(retrieve) § 215Bowers (2006) onlineFraser (1992) CDGellman (1997) CDMcGaw (1989) CDRegan (2004) onlineRelyea (2002) onlineSeifert & Relyea (2004) online

AS: Bailey & Caidi (2005) onlineCaidi & Ross (2005) onlineDavies (1997) CDDoty (2001a) CDElectronic Communications Privacy Act (PL 99-508)(retrieve)Gellman (2002) onlineJaeger et al. (2006) onlineLessig (1999b)Mart (2004)Minow & Lipinski (2003), 5 (“Library Records and Privacy”)Samarajiva (1997) CDStefik (1999b) Strickland (2003) onlineWaldo et al. (2007), 8 (“Libraries and Privacy”) online

OCT 15 Privacy III – Historical and evolving legal perspectives

READ: Braman (2006), 5 and Bibliographic Essay pp. 352-369 CDSolove & Schwartz (2009), 3A2 (pp. 243-244 and 249-264) and

3B (pp. 301-359)

AS: Braman (2006), pp. 126-138Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928)Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 118

U.S. 394 (1886)


OCT 22 Surveillance I – Analytics beyond the panopticonIntroduction The surveillant assemblageCCTVSurveillance and totalitarianism

READ: Lyon (2006a)Haggerty (2006)Haggerty & Ericson (2000) onlineHier et al. (2006)Los (2006)Waldo et al. (2007), Appendix A (“A Short History of

Surveillance and Privacy in the United States) online

DUE: Analysis of FISA Amendment Act of 2007 (6 pp.) (15%)

OCT 29 Surveillance II – Theories in practiceThe so-called “war on terror”Web camsSurveillance and the body

READ: Elmer & Opel (2006)Ball (2006)Solove & Schwartz (2009), 2B1, 2, 4, and 5 (pp. 138-140, 153-

156, and 156-158), 2D (pp. 192-241) and 4E (pp. 507-526)

AS: Gandy (2006)Koskela (2006)

DUE: Topic for information policy paper

Unit 3: Freedom of Information, Intelligence, and Information Science

NOV 5 Freedom of Information I – History and post-9/11 questionsGeneral conceptsFreedom of Information Act (FOIA)FOIA and electronic informationClassification of informationE.O. 13233, E.O. 13489, and the secrecy of presidential records

READ: Solove & Schwartz (2009), 3A2 (pp. 249-264)Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552, as amended by PL

104-231, 110 Stat. 3048)[see the EPIC Web site as well as the U.S.

Code]E-FOIA [see the EPIC Web site]E.O. 13233 (“Further Implementation of the Presidential

Records Act,” 66 FR 214, 56025-56029) online


E.O. 13489 (“Presidential Records,” 74 FR 15, 4669-4671) online

Barker (2005) onlineFeinberg (2004) onlineFBI’s FOIA and privacy site (http://foia.fbi.gov/)Part of the EPIC Web site (http://www.epic.org/open_gov/)

AS: Connors (2002) onlineGaidos (2006) onlineRoberts (2004) onlineShuler (2007) online

Due: Surveillant assemblage and surveillance theory (6 pp.) (20%)

NOV 12 Freedom of Information II – “Sensitive but unclassified”HistoryCurrent uses and conflicts

READ: Knezo (2004) onlineKnezo (2006) onlineTaddeo (2006) online

AS: Cohen (2002) onlineShay (1989) online


NOV 19 Security informationIntelligence and information science

READ: Dearstyne (2005) onlineFeinberg (2002) onlineFraser (1989) CDJaeger & Burnett (2005) onlineSeifert (2004) onlineStrickland (2005b) CDWarner (2005) CDWilliams (2005) CD

AS: Benoît (2002)Chen & Xu (2006) onlineDavies (2002)Richards (2005)Strickland (2005a) online

DUE: Draft of information policy paper

Unit 3: Presentations of Students' Research

NOV 26 No class – Happy Thanksgiving!

DEC 3 Course evaluationPolicy paper presentationsSummary discussion

READ: Braman (2006), 9

DUE: Review of another team’s draft (3-4 pp.) (15%)

DEC 8 Tuesday, 3:00 PM

DUE: Policy paper (18-20 pp.) (30%)


ASSIGNMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of FISA Amendment Act (Protect America Act) – Due October 22 (15%)

The Protect America Act of 2007 (PL 110-55) was signed into law on August 5, 2007, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Using the text of the act, President Bush’s press release statement (Bush, 2007), the fact sheet (Executive Office of the President, 2007), Solove & Schwartz (passim, 2009), and Marjorie Cohn’s editorial critiquing the act (Cohn, 2007), please answer the following questions in six (6) double-spaced pages:

1. In your opinion, what is the primary rationale for the act presented by its proponents? (2 pp.)

2. What critiques do Solove & Schwartz and Cohn make of the act? (2 pp.)

3. What is your evaluation of rationales for and against the act? (2 pp.)

Each student will write responses of 6 double-spaced pages to these questions. Feel free to use any other sources you regard as appropriate to help you make your argument in this paper, whether they are things we have read in class, class discussions, or any other material you regard as helpful. Be sure to recall that each actor and each organization has its own point of view that we must regard with care as well as skepticism.


Surveillant assemblage and surveillance theory – Due November 5 (20%)

Scholars and commentators in many disciplines and from many perspectives have reacted to Kevin Haggerty and Richard Ericson’s paper on the surveillant assemblage (2000). Please use the essay and other sources you find useful to address the following questions:

1. What is the surveillant assemblage? What are its theoretical roots? What are its implications for surveillance practice? (3 pp.)

2. Using the essays in Theorizing Surveillance, especially David Lyons’ introduction (2006a), and other readings you consider appropriate, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the surveillant assemblage as a theory of surveillance? You may want to consider especially the concept of what Haggerty & Ericson, 2006, pp. 611-614, call the “monitored body.” (3 pp.)

Be wary of accepting any arguments uncritically or unskeptically, whether from Haggerty & Ericson, Foucault, Deleuze, or anyone else, including me.

Your paper should be 6 double-spaced pages long, as well as sufficiently analytic, holistic, and grounded in the specifics of the sources you use.

Information Policy Paper – Due various dates

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

Topic – Each team will clear the proposed topic with the instructor by October 29. In addition to your own knowledge and acquaintance with information policy issues, you may find a number of resources of value to you in identifying a topic for your paper: discussion with the instructor and your colleagues (both inside and outside of the class), reading ahead in the syllabus to identify upcoming topics, the mass media, class readings and all the sources in the syllabus, Web and other Internet sources, and the bibliographies of what you read.

Draft – Due November 19. Each team will submit a draft of the information policy paper on November 19. The draft will consist of the same parts as the final draft of the paper described below. Submit two or three copies of this draft – one for each student peer editor and one for the instructor.

Review of another student team's draft of the paper – Due December 3 (15%). Each individual student will review the draft of one other student team and submit two or three copies of a three- to four-page, double-spaced review of the paper: one to each student who wrote the draft and one to the instructor. Be specific in your critique – what works in the draft? What does not? Why or why not? What specific suggestions can you offer for improvement to the paper, whether


about the topic, the argument, definitions, sources, composition, citations, lay-out, and so on? Each student must offer recommendations in the spirit of engaged critique, not dismissive cynicism.


Presentation – December 3. The students in each team will make a 15-20 minute oral presentation on the subject of their paper. Each student will do roughly half of the presentation. While the presentation will be informal and ungraded, you should plan to use visuals and handouts as appropriate; both Wintel and Mac computers will be available, as will an Internet connection and a LitePro. Each student peer editor will act as respondent to another student team's presentation. The presentations will be on December 3.

Final draft – Due Tuesday, December 8, 3:00 PM (30%). This is a final paper of 18-20 double-spaced pages that considers any approved topic in government information policy. Your paper should focus on analysis and contextualization. Remember to look at the syllabus section on Analysis and Holism in Reading, Writing, and Presenting as well as the section on Standards for Written Work. Put two copies of your policy paper in an envelope with the instructor’s name on it and give the envelope to the iSchool receptionist on the fifth floor of UTA no later than 3:00 PM on Tuesday, December 8. The receptionist will make note of the time of the submission.

Post the final draft of your paper on the appropriate Blackboard forum by 3:00 PM on Tuesday, December 8.


SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING POLICY ANALYSIS

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

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

• Abstract

• Introduction

Importance of specific 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 instruments 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, and he identifies eight steps in policy analysis. In a way reminiscent of Majchrzak (1984), Bardach focuses the first two thirds of his book A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving on this “eightfold path” (using his words):

Define the problem

Assemble some evidence

Construct the alternatives (for action)

Select the criteria

Project the outcomes

Confront the trade-offs

Decide!

Tell your story.

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

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


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

Many required readings are available online, as indicated below and in the class schedule. Some of the course readings are in the Course Documents section of the Blackboard site (CD).

Some of the readings, on the other hand, require you to be logged in with your UT EID through the UT libraries. Those journals are usually available online for only part of their publication run; further, UT often has more than one arrangement through which to get these journals online, so there may be more than one URL for each journal. Feel free to explore the various online journal packages – the more familiar you are with such arrangements, the better researcher you will be.

I. References in the schedule and assignments

Abbate, Janet. (2000). Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Original work published 1999)

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

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

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

Ball, Kirstie. (2006). Organization, surveillance and the body: Towards a politics of resistance. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 296-317). Portland, OR: Willan.

Barabási, Albert-László. (2003). The eleventh link: The awakening Internet. In Linked: How everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life (pp. 143-159 and 264-267). New York: Plume, Penguin. (Original work published 2002) CD

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

Barker, Anne N. (2005). Executive Order no. 13,233: A threat to government accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 4-19. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4FH03P2-2&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AZ-MsSWYVW-UUA-U-AACEAWYDYV-AACZDUECYV-YZYBDDUD-AZ-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=3&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%232005%23999779998%23575912!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=b273ac650c360900509ddfef71a2ef9c


Bowers, Stacey L. (2006). Privacy and library records. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(4), 377-383. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/science//journal/00991333

Braman, Sandra. (1990). The unique characteristics of information policy and their U.S. consequences. In Virgil L.P. Blake & Renee Tjoumas (eds.), Information literacies for the twenty-first century (pp. 47-77). Boston: G.K. Hall. CD

Braman, Sandra. (2003). The long view. In Sandra Braman (Ed.), Communication researchers and policy-making (pp. 11-31). Cambridge, MA: MIT. Also available at http://www.uwm.edu/~braman/bramanpdfs/019_2003longview.pdf


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

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

Bush, George W. (2007). President Bush commends Congress on passage of intelligence legislation. Available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070805.html

Cohn, Marjorie. (2007). FISA revised: A blank check for domestic spying. Jurist: Legal News and Research. Available at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/08/fisa-revised-blank-check-for-domestic.php

Dearstyne, Bruce W. (2005). Fighting terrorism, making war: Critical insights in the management of information and intelligence. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 170-186. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4FR4BY0-1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-WA-MsSWYWW-UUW-U-AACEAWYDZV-AACZDUECZV-YZYBZEYV-WA-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=6&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%232005%23999779997%23599273!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=2d68151353f796ca111abd9cc30abf54

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

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

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

Dreiser, Theodore. (1994). Sister Carrie (John C. Berkey, Alice M. Winters, James L.W. West, & Neda M. Westlake, eds.). New York: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1900, 1981)


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

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

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

Elmer, Greg, & Opel, Andy. (2006). Pre-empting panoptic surveillance: Surviving the inevitable war on terror. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 139-159). Portland, OR: Willan.

Executive Office of the President. Office of the Press Secretary. (2007). Fact sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007. Available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070806-5.html

Feinberg, Lotte E. (2002). Homeland security: Implications for information policy and practice – First appraisal. Government Information Quarterly, 19(3), 265-288. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-46F6FS2-5&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AB-MsSAYWA-UUW-U-AACYEYDZCW-AACZCZYVCW-YWCEZCUE-AB-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=5&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%232002%23999809996%23330024!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=bae9483fd0c11c8aa27991d0a7bed77b

Feinberg, Lotte E. (2004). FOIA, federal information policy, and information availability in a post-9/11 world. Government Information Quarterly, 21(4), 439-460. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4DN9TWB-1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AW-MsSWYVW-UUW-U-AACEUVWZDE-AACZZWBVDE-YVCWZYAZ-AW-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=5&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%232004%23999789995%23535674!&_cdi=6542&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=e35d15793ff5186be7f9cd0bb2442648

Fraser, Nancy. (1989). Foucault on modern power: Empirical insights and normative confusions. In Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory (pp. 17-34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. CD

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

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

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

Haggerty, Kevin D. (2006). Tear down the walls: On demolishing the panopticon. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 23-45). Portland, OR: Willan.


Haggerty, Kevin D., & Ericson, Richard V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605-622. Also available at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/toc/bjos/51/4

Hier, Sean P., Walby, Kevin, & Greenberg, Josh. (2006). Supplementing the panoptic paradigm: Surveillance, moral governance and CCTV. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 230-244). Portland, OR: Willan.

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

Jaeger, Paul T., & Burnett, Gary. (2005). Information access and exchange among small worlds in a democratic society: The role of policy in shaping information behavior in the post-9/11 United States. Library Quarterly, 75(4), 464-495. Also available at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/lq/2005/75/4

Knezo, Genevieve J. (2004). “Sensitive but unclassified” and other federal security controls on scientific and technical information: History and current controversy. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Also available at http://www.thememoryhole.org/crs/more-reports/RL31845.pdf

Knezo, Genevieve J. (2006). “Sensitive but unclassified” information and other controls: Policy and options for scientific and technical information. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Also available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL33303.pdf

Koskela, Hille. (2006). “The other side of surveillance”: Webcams, power and agency. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 163-181). Portland, OR: Willan.

Lapham, Lewis H. (2004). Gag rule: On the suppression of dissent and the stifling of democracy. New York: Penguin Books.

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

Los, Maria. (2006). Looking into the future: Surveillance, globalization and the totalitarian potential. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 69-94). Portland, OR: Willan.

Lyon, David. (2006a). The search for surveillance theories. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 3-20). Portland, OR: Willan.

Lyon, David. (Ed.). (2006b). Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond. Portland, OR: Willan.

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

McClure, Charles R., & Jaeger, Paul T. (2008). Government information policy research: Importance, approaches, and realities. Library & Information Science Research, 30(4), 257-264. Also available at http://www.lib.utexas.edu:9003/sfx_local/az?


param_perform_value=searchTitle&param_type_value=textSearch&param_chinese_checkbox_active=1&param_pattern_value=library+and+information+science+research

McGaw, Judith. (1989). No passive victims, no separate spheres: A feminist perspective on technology's history. In Stephen Cutcliffe & Robert Post (Eds.), In context: History and the history of technology (pp. 172-191). Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press. CD

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

Regan, Priscilla M. (2004). Old issues, new context: Privacy, information collection, and homeland security. Government Information Quarterly, 21(4), 481-497. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4DKD4V5-1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AW-MsSWYVW-UUW-U-AACEUVWZDE-AACZZWBVDE-YVCWZYAZ-AW-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=7&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%232004%23999789995%23535674!&_cdi=6542&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=94f83ec4b698690bba93f2a2ecd2f0d9

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

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

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

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

Seifert, Jeffrey W. (2004). Data mining and the search for security: Challenges for connecting the dots and databases. Government Information Quarterly, 21(4), 461-480. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4DN9TWB-2&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AW-MsSWYVW-UUW-U-AACEUVWZDE-AACZZWBVDE-YVCWZYAZ-AW-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=6&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%232004%23999789995%23535674!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7fd885761e616d3f622c346afbc4659e

Seifert, Jeffrey W., & Relyea, Harold C. (2004). Do you know where your information is in the homeland security era? Government Information Quarterly, 21(4), 399-405. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4DNB4YM-1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AW-MsSWYVW-UUW-U-AACEUVWZDE-AACZZWBVDE-YVCWZYAZ-AW-


U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=2&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%232004%23999789995%23535674!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=41ec58c673af7d0953466ef0cd54b380

Solove, Daniel J., & Schwartz, Paul M. (2009). Privacy, information, and technology (2nd ed.). Austin: Wolters Kluwer.

Strickland, Lee S. (2005b). Knowledge transfer: Information science shapes intelligence in the Cold War era. In Robert V. Williams & Ben-Ami Lipetz (Eds.), Covert and overt: Recollecting and connecting intelligence service and information science (pp. 147-166). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

Taddeo, Laura. (2006). Information access post September 11: What librarians need to know. Library Philosophy and Practice, 9(1). Available at http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/lpp.htm

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

Waldo, James, Liu, Herbert S., & Millett, Lynette I. (Eds.). (2007). Engaging privacy and information technology in a digital age [sic]. Committee on Privacy in the Information Age {sic]. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy. Also available at http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11896#toc

Warner, Michael. (2005). Wanted: A definition of ‘intelligence.’ In Robert V. Williams & Ben-Ami Lipetz (Eds.), Covert and overt: Recollecting and connecting intelligence service and information science (pp. 199-209). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

Warren, Samuel D., & Brandeis, Louis D. (1985). The right to privacy. In Deborah G. Johnson & John W. Snapper (Eds.), Ethical issues in the use of computers (pp. 172-183). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. (Original work published 1890) Also available at http://www.estig.ipbeja.pt/~ac_direito/privacy.pdf

Williams, Robert V. (2005). The information science and intelligence service literature: An overview. In Robert V. Williams & Ben-Ami Lipetz (Eds.), Covert and overt: Recollecting and connecting intelligence service and information science (pp. 147-166). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

Williams, Robert V., & Lipetz, Ben-Ami. (Eds.). (2005). Covert and overt: Recollecting and connecting intelligence service and information science. ASIST monograph series. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

II. Selected U.S. Supreme Court and other federal cases

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

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


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

http://www.estig.ipbeja.pt/~ac_direito/privacy.pdf

http://www.loundy.com/CASES/ACLU_v_Miller.html

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

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

American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc. (2nd Circuit) 60 F.3d 913 (1994)http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/60_F3d_913.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. 499 U.S. 340 (1991) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm

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

Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)http://www2.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZS.html

Lochner v. New York 98 U.S. 45 (1905)http://www2.law.cornell.edu/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


http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-201.ZS.html

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZS.html

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

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-line Communication Services, et al. 907 F. Supp. 1361 (1995) (United States District Court for the Northern District of California)http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Religious_Tech._Ctr._v._Netcom_On-Line_Communications_Servs.%2C_Inc.

Religious Technology Center v. Lerma 908 F. Supp. 1362 (1995) (United States District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia)http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/brinkema_rtc_washpost_083095.ruling

Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.N.E.T., et al. 907 F. Supp. 1468 (1995) (United States District Court for the District of Colorado)http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/kane_rtc_factnet_091595_opinion.order

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

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

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

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

III."Reference" Texts

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

Abrams, Floyd. (2005). Speaking freely: Trials of the First Amendment. New York: Viking.


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

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

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

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

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

Allen, David S. (1995). The Supreme Court and the creation of an (in)active public sphere. In David S. Allen & Robert Jensen (Eds.), Freeing the First Amendment: Critical perspectives on freedom of expression (pp. 93-113). New York: New York University.

Allen, David S., & Jensen, Robert. (Eds.). (1995). Freeing the First Amendment: Critical perspectives on freedom of expression. New York: New York University.

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

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

American Library Association. (2001a). UCITA (the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act): Concerns for libraries and the public. http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/copyrightb/ucita/ucita.cfm

American Library Association. (2001b). UCITA 101: What you should know about the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act. http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/copyrightb/ucita/ucita101.cfm

American Library Association. (2001c). Problems with a non-negotiated contract. http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/copyrightb/statelegislation/ucita/nonnegotiated.cfm

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

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

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

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

Bailey, Stuart G.M., & Caidi, Nadia. (2005). How much is too little? Privacy and smart cards in Hong Kong and Ontario. Journal of Information Science, 31(5), 354-364. Also available at http://jis.sagepub.com/content/vol31/issue5/

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


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

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

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

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

Benoît, Gerald. (2002). Data mining. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 265-310). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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

Bertot, John Carlo, McClure, Charles R., Ryan, Joe, & Beachboard, John. (1996). Federal Information Resource Management: Integrating information and technology. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 105-135). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

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

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


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

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

Brin, David. (1998). The transparent society: Will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom? Reading, MN: Perseus.

Bromley, Daniel W. (Ed.). (1992). Making the commons work: Theory, practice, and policy. San Francisco: ICS Press.

Brucker, Herbert. (1949). Freedom of information. New York: Macmillan.


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

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

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

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

Caidi, Nadia, & Ross, Anthony. (2005). Information rights and national security. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 663-684. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4HX47DX-1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-WV-MsSAYZW-UUA-U-AACEUAUDVA-AACZCEACVA-YBWWDVCA-WV-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=8&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%232005%23999779995%23619639!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=aa2b680ee456d27e9df52b728c90581d

Chen, Hsinchun, & Xu, Jennifer. (2006). Intelligence and security informatics. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (vol. 40, pp. 229-289). Also available at http://ai.arizona.edu/go/intranet/papers/Intelligence_and_Security_Informatics.pdf

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

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

Chandler, Alfred D., & Cortada, James W. (Eds.). (2003). A nation transformed by information: How information shaped the United States from colonial times to the present. Oxford, UK: Oxford University. (Original work published 2000)

Chartrand, Robert. (1986). Legislating information policy. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 12(5), 10.

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

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

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


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

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

Cohen, Mark A. (2002). Transparency after 9/11: Balancing the “right-to-know” with the need for security. Available at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/vcems/papers/post9-11.pdf

Connors, Thomas James. (2002). Papers of the president or of the presidency: Who owns presidential records? Some recent history and a challenge. portals: Libraries and the Academy, 2(4), 653-657. Also available at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v002/2.4connors.pdf

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

Cook, Terry. (1995). It's 10 o'clock: Do you know where your data are? Technology Review, 98(1), 48-53.

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

Crapanzano, Vincent. (2000). Serving the word: Literalism in America from the pulpit to the bench. New York: The New Press.

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

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

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

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

Davies, Philip H.J. (2002). Intelligence, information technology, and information warfare. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 313-352). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Du, Jia, Jiang, Tingting, & Ma, Feicheng. (2004). An evaluation of the construction of information laws and regulations in China with recommendations for improvement. Journal of Information Science, 30(4), 321-336.

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

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

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

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

Firestone, Charles M., & Schement, Jorge Reina. (Eds.). (1995). Toward an information Bill of Rights & Responsibilities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

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

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

Fraser, Nancy. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

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


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

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

Gaidos, Katherine. (2006). Access to vice presidential records in the aftermath of Executive Order 13,233: From haphazard past to uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly, 24(1), 2-28. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/science//journal/0740624X

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

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

Gandy, Oscar H. (2006). Quixotics unite! Engaging the pragmatists on rational discrimination. In David Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 318-336). Portland, OR: Willan.

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

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

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

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

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

Goldman, Alvin I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.

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

Grumm, John G., & Wasby, Stephen L. (1981). The analysis of policy impact. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Guba, Egon G. (1984). The effects of definitions of policy on the nature and outcomes of policy analysis. Educational Leadership, 42(2), 63-70.


Habermas, Jürgen. (1991). The structural transformation of the pubic sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (trans. Thomas Burger & Friedrich Lawrence). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

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

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

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

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

Hayes, Robert M. (Ed.). (1985). Introduction. Libraries and the information economy of California (pp. 1-49). Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles.

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

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

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

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 & M. Cunningham (Eds.), National and international information policies (pp. 3-48). Philadelphia, PA: National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services.

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


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

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

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

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

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

Hogwood, B.W., & Gunn, L.A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

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

Hosein, Ian. (2004). The sources of laws: Policy dynamics in a digital and terrorized world. The Information Society, 20(3), 187-199.

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

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

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

Information Infrastructure Task Force. Information Policy Committee. Working Group on Privacy. (1995, June 6). Privacy and the National Information Infrastructure: Principles for providing personal information. http://aspe.hhs.gov/datacncl/niiprivp.htm

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

Jaeger, Paul T., Bertot, John Carlo, McClure, Charles R., & Langa, Lesley A. (2006). The policy implications of Internet connectivity in public libraries. Government Information Quarterly, 23(1), 123-141. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4HVDN5S-


1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-WB-MsSAYZA-UUW-U-AACEUUDEBW-AACZCYYDBW-YBAWDWWV-WB-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=13&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%232006%23999769998%23624433!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=09eb0a1f319fbc55ec3d7f1777e4d60e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lancaster, F.W., & Burger, Robert H. (1990). Macroinformatics, microinformatics and information policy. In D.J. Foskett (Ed.), The information environment: A world


view: Studies in honour of Professor A.I. Mikhailov (pp. 149-158). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

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

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

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

Lasswell, Harold. (1951). The policy orientation. In Daniel Lernet & Harold Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences (pp. 3-15). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lindblom, Charles E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. In Democracy and the market system (pp. 237-259). Oslo: Scandinavian Press.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Mart, Susan Nevelow. (2004). Protecting the lady from Toledo: Post-USA PATRIOT Act electronic surveillance at the library. Law Library Journal, 96(3), 449-473.

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

Mason, Marilyn Gell. (1983). The federal role in library and information services. White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications.

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

Mayer-Schonberger, Viktor, & Lazer, David. (Eds.). (2007). Government and information technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

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

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

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

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

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

McClure, Charles R., & Ryan, Joe. (1996). Moving to the networked information environment: New challenges and issues. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, &


Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 297-313). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muir, Adrienne, & Oppenheim, Charles. (2002). National information policy developments worldwide I: Electronic government. Journal of Information Science, 28(3), 173-186.

Muir, Adrienne, & Oppenheim, Charles. (2002). National information policy developments worldwide II: Universal access – Addressing the digital divide. Journal of Information Science, 28(4), 263-273.

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

Nakamura, R.T., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The politics of policy implementation. New York: St. Martin’s.

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

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

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


NRENAISSANCE Committee. Computer Science and Technology Board. Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications. National Research Council. (1994). Principles and practice. In Realizing the information future: The Internet and beyond (Chapter 4, pp. 148-171). Washington, DC: National Academy. Available at http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/rtif/toc/chapter4/ (change to http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4755&page=148)

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

Overman, E. Sam, & Cahill, Anthony G. (1990). Information policy: A study of values in the policy process. Policy Studies Review, 9(4), 803-818. Also available at http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=7&sid=6a060337-7d4a-4f93-af21-e31e3ca055d8%40SRCSM1

Parenti, Christian. (2003). The soft cage: Surveillance in America from slavery to the war on terror [sic]. New York: Basic Books.

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

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

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

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

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

Protect America Act of 2007. (2007). Available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01927:

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

Raab, Charles D., & Mason, David. (2005). Researching the origins of UK data protection. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 235-237.

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

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

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


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

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

Regan, Priscilla. (1995). Legislating privacy: Technology, social values, and public policy. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roberts, Alasdair. (2004). ORCON creep: Information sharing and the threat to government accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 21(3), 249-267. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4CJVKR2-1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AB-MsSAYZW-UUA-U-AACEABUZAE-AACZDAAVAE-YZEUEBZD-AB-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%232004%23999789996%23513371!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=48f431962284e9baa6411d8f968c0152


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

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

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

Rosen, Jeffrey. (2000). Epilogue: What is privacy good for? In The unwanted gaze: The destruction of privacy in America (pp. 196-234 and 257-260). Random House: New York. CD

Rosen, Jeffrey. (2000). The unwanted gaze: The destruction of privacy in America. Random House: New York.

Rothenberg, Jeff. (1995). Ensuring the longevity of digital documents. Scientific American, 272(1), 42-47.

Rubin, Michael Rogers. (1983). Information economics and policy in the United States. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Ryan, Joe. (1996). Guide to government information available on the Internet. Syracuse, NY: Ryan Information Management.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schiller, Dan. (1999). Digital capitalism: Networking the global market system. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

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

Shattuck, Roger. (1996). Forbidden knowledge: From Prometheus to pornography. New York: St. Martin’s.


Shay, Lisa A. (1989). The great debate over unclassified information: National security versus scientific freedom. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(3), 139-148. Also available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=1989&isnumber=1372&Submit32=Go+To+Issues

Shuler, John A. (2007). Public policies and academic libraries – The shape of the next digital divide. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(1), 141-143. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236556%232007%23999669998%23645027%23FLA%23&_cdi=6556&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=40ccac377798034e5254ef76210db335

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

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

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

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

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

Starr, Joan. (2004). Libraries and national security: an historical review. First Monday, 9(12). Available at http://firstmonday.org/

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

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

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

Streeter, Thomas. (1995). Some thoughts on free speech, language, and the rule of law. In David S. Allen & Robert Jensen (Eds.), Freeing the First Amendment: Critical perspectives on freedom of expression (pp. 31-53). New York: New York University.

Strickland, Lee S. (2003). Civil liberties vs. intelligence collection: The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court speaks in public. Government


Information Quarterly, 20(1), 1-12. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4G-4805BSD-1&_user=108429&_handle=V-WA-A-W-Z-MsSAYWA-UUW-U-AACEABAUVZ-AACZDAAYVZ-YZEWCDAU-Z-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236542%232003%23999799998%23393133!&_cdi=6542&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=415c6c0601f1fb3d8e8499fce9fe8b29

Strickland, Lee S. (2005a). The information gulag: Rethinking openness in times of national danger. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 546-572. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_cdi=6542&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=01cb66ff14ab1a7c8ee64d86be09e2fa&jchunk=22#22

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

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

Theodoulou, Stella Z. (1995a). The contemporary language of public policy: A starting point. In Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 1-9). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Theodoulou, Stella Z. (1995b). How public policy is made. In Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 86-96). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 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.

Turow, Joseph. (2005). Audience construction and culture production: Marketing surveillance in the digital age [sic}. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 597(1), 103-121.

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.


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

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2004). The anarchist in the library: How the clash between freedom and control is hacking the real world and crashing the system. New York: Basic Books.Warren, Adam, & Dearnley, James. (2005). Data protection legislation in the United Kingdom: From development to statute 1969-84. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 238-253.

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

Weingarten, F. W. (1989). Federal information policy development: The Congressional perspective. In Charles R. McClure, Peter Hernon, & Harold Relyea (Eds.), United States government information policies: Views and perspectives (pp. 77-99). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wildavsky, Aaron. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.

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

Xue, Susan. (2005). Internet policy and diffusion in China, Malaysia and Singapore. Journal of Information Science, 31(3), 238-250.

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

Yurow, Jane H., Shaw, Helen A. (1981). Issues in information policy. Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

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

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

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

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

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986b). Intellectual property rights in an age of electronics and information. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1986/8610_n.html


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Governmental and Commercial Serial Sources of Government Information

Code of Federal Regulations


Congressional Digest

Congressional Information Service

Congressional Quarterly

Congressional Record

C[ongressional] Q[uarterly] Weekly Reports

Federal Register

Supreme Court Reporter

U.S. Code

U.S. Code and Congressional and Administrative News

U.S. Code Annotated

United States Supreme Court Reports

VI. Journals and Other Serial Sources on Information Policy and Government Information

Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Atlantic Monthly

The Bowker Annual: Library and Book Trade Almanac

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science

Communication Law and Policy

Communications Yearbook

Electronic Public Information Newsletter

EPIC [Electronic Privacy Information Center] Alert

ERIC

EDUCAUSE Review

Federal Computer Week

Government Computer News

Government Information Quarterly

Government Technology


Harpers

Information, Communication, and Society

Information Management Review

Information Polity

Information Processing and Management

The Information Society

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

Internet World

Journal of Academic Librarianship (especially its Information Policy column)

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

Journal of Communication

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

Journal of Information Science

Journal of Information Technology and Politics

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Journal of Policy Research

The Journal of Politics

Knowledge

Knowledge in Society

Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy

Philosophy and Public Affairs

Policy Sciences

Policy Studies Journal

Policy Studies Review

Privacy Journal

Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting


Public Administration Review

Public Affairs Information Service

Research Policy

Sage Yearbook of Politics and Public Policy

Science

Scientific American

Science and Public Policy

Serials Review

Technology Review

Telecommunications Policy

Utne Reader

Wired

VII. Newspapers

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

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

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

Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com

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

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

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

AskERIC http://ericir.syr.edu

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

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

Center for Democracy & Technology http://opencrs.com/ (CRS reports)

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

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


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

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

http://opencrs.com/

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

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

http://ericir.syr.edu/

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

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://cpsr.org/

(U.S.) Congressional Research Service (CRS) see Center for Democracy and Technology

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

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

Copyright and Fair Use (Stanford U.) http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright Clearance Center http://www.copyright.com/Creative Commons http://www.creativecommons.org/Georgia Harper's Copyright Crash Course

http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/index.htmlLibrary of Congress Copyright Office http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/Public Knowledge Project http://pkp.sfu.ca/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Depository Library Program report: Final Report to Congress: Study to Identify Measures for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program http://www.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html

(U.S.) Federal Register http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/

Findlaw http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/

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

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

Government Information Locator System (GILS) http://www.usgs.gov/gils/index.html


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

http://www.gao.gov/

http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/

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.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

http://www.cni.org/

Government Printing Office http://www.access.gpo.gov/

Government Technology http://www.govtech.net

(Harvard University) Information Infrastructure Project http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/9/harvard_information_infrastructure_project.html Illinois Institute of Technology Institute for Science, Law, and Technology http://www.kentlaw.edu/islt/

Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) http://www.ibiblio.org/nii/NII-Task-Force.html

Institute for Technology Assessment (ITA) http://www.mgh-ita.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=67

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) http://www.ietf.org/

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

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

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

Library of Congress LOCIS (Library of Congress Information System): http://www.loc.gov/catalog/locisint.html

MapsTexas http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/index.html

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

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

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

National Information Infrastructure: Servers with comprehensive sources http://www.cuny.edu/links/nii.html (U.S.) National Information Infrastructure Virtual Library http://nii.nist.gov/

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

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

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

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

(U.S.) Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)


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

http://www.fedworld.gov/

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://thomas.loc.gov/

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

http://www.govtech.net/

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

-- see Institute for Technology Assessment -- and Princeton University archive of OTA reports http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/

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

TexasGeneral home page: http://www.texas.gov/Texas State Government: http://www.state.tx.us/Government/ Department of Commerce: http://www.tded.state.tx.us/Department of Information Resources (DIR) http://info.texas.gov General Services Commission: http://www.spgsc.texas.gov/Higher Education Coordinating Board http://info.thecb.texas.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: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/#topTexas 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/government-documents-center/explore/browse/federal-government/251/search/

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

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

University of Texas Libraries http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Government information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/ U.S. Gov’t Reference Titles http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/us.html International Gov’t Information

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

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


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

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

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/