IRB = Institutional Review Board

Here’s the short summary: The IRB is an extension of the Government’s Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). It’s job is to ensure that scientists don’t abuse folks. The impetus for it came initially from Nazi Death Camp experiments. However, the direct cause were a number of reprehensible experiments carried out here in the US by a number of bad eggs in the Medical and Psychological fields. The end result is that we (Social Researchers) who get any form of government funding (or are carrying out research at federally funded Universities) need to go through a lot of red tape in order to show that we will in no way harm our subjects.

Is it important? Yes. Is it out of control? Yes, at least for anthro work.

The problem for me is that online research is a very open subject area. The rules are still being laid down and that is problematic for research like mine. If all my i’s are not dotted just right I could find out that I have to scrap all my research. Conversely, if every time I enter a chat room I need to get everyone to “sign” consent forms I can’t conduct my research. Avoiding this double-bind is critical to successful completion of the project.

Yesterday, the U of Chicago IRB ruled on a number of Internet related research issues. While these don’t necessarily apply to other academic institutions, the can be used to help argue cases:

1. Any content viewable without a password is considered public
   If you can access it without signing in, it’s considered public. The general rule: if a website is listed on Google it is considered to be publicly published content. As such you do not need permission to reproduce it in studies. This includes unrestricted Blog and LiveJournal content.
2. If there are no membership restrictions for protected content it can be considered public
   As long as anyone who applies can get access to the information it will be considered public. This covers cases where a valid e-mail address is required provided that you can use a free e-mail account like Hotmail, YahooMail, or Google. As such most discussion board conversation can be considered public and you do not have to secure releases for publishing and collecting it.

   There are two possible exceptions to the above two rules:

   1. If the publisher of the content is under the of 18 there is still a need to either get parental consent or justify the waiving of it.
   2. Should the specific rules of the site/board mark content as unable to be reproduced without specific consent of the authors. The jury is currently out on this one.
3. Publicly available chatrooms are most likely public
   Sites like YahooChat, which require a free membership, most likely are public. However the U of Chicago IRB board will review these on a case by case basis. Researchers will have to address the possibility of recording information on subjects who are under 18 and will be expected to address how they will work to prevent this from happening.
4. Usernames must be changed
   Because a username can be connected back to an e-mail address, they are considered a personal identifier. Unless the individual gives specific permission to use their username it must be coded and protected as if it was a real name.

   side note: I had been concerned about how to code, considering that any pseudonym chosen could be another individual’s existing username. However the board ruled that this is not an issue providing that your notes/publications are very clear that you are using pseudonyms and that any relation to those living or dead is purely coincidental (to borrow movie jargon).

5. IRB rules do not apply to Bots
   As Bots are not human, they don’t need to be treated as human subjects. This means that no permission is required to reproduce conversations or to publish exact usernames.
   

   side not: Because some bots deny that they are bots, the researched needs to provide the IRB with a repeatable method for proving that they subject is an artificial intelligence (i.e. a reverse Turing test).

I’m having a difficult time finding a reader for my paper. I had expected this to be the case. Dr. Silverstein, while he said he’d be a consultant, suggested that he wouldn’t be the right person for the paper. I just talked with another person from the Anthro department and had a similar experience.

One downside to Chicago being a research institution is that even in the social sciences the faculty is very much in flux. A couple people who would have been good candidates for readers are in the field this year. So they’re out. This is another reminder that, even if I decide to do an eventual PhD, Chicago isn’t a strong contender. While this is the #1/#2 anthro department in the world, they’re strength is not in the type of work that I’m interested in. But it’s been worth the price of admission to know that I can hang here AND that it isn’t the right place for me to hang long term.

Another issue surfaced today. My project is going involved the adult entertainment industry. While I’m not specifically studying porn, they are the ones creating the bots that I’ll be analyzing. And I’ve been told that association can equal academic suicide for young male scholars. This is arguable the first time that the specter of gender discrimination has ever entered my life. The Ivory Tower apparently doesn’t look kindly on straight men and porn, even if the connection isn’t about the direct study of porn (as in my case). I’m not planning on letting this stop or worry me at this point. But I was taken a little aback by the entire conversation.

Far, far, far more important is finding a reader. If I don’t do that, I don’t graduate.

A common complaint of anthropologists, especially the traditional type, is that while you are in the field you really don’t get “time off.” You don’t go there only during business hours. It’s where you live. There’s no easy way to commute between your home institution and, lets say, a mountain village in China.

For those of us doing internet research it’s in theory a little easier. However, you can also get lulled into a false sense of security. And it’s that sort of liberal headed nonsense that gets one botted again.

MRZ, an old friend with a wicked sense of humor, just botted me. Basically he took my comments and fed them into Eliza, a classic AI program, and reposted them to my other site. And I just kept responding.

What this wonderfully illustrates, other than my general gullibility, is how important identity is in the mix. Because I knew that MRZ is a real person, I projected the rather odd posts that he was making onto him. And because of that I noticed, but failed to connect the obvious grammatical hints contained there in.

This issue of “laminated” identity is going to be a critical aspect to the overall formula for my analysis.

I’m primarily going to be studying these ‘adult’ bots (I’m toying with calling them sex.bots as there currently isn’t an accepted ‘industry’ name¹ for them). There are a couple reasons for this:

1. sex.bots are specifically written to appear human. In all cases they are programmed to aggressively deny the fact that they are bots. This makes them unique, as in most other cases I’ve researched, the machine makes it’s identity clear. The end result is that, at least initially, the unwary chatter will interact with these bots thinking that they are human.
2. I propose that a linguistic analysis of these bot’s scripts will reveal a lot about how gender roles are represented online. These bots are scripted in such a way in order to make them desirable to chat with. So they have to occupy optimal “fantasy” gender roles. It should also be noted that they potentially effect what chatters have come/will come to expect from chat partners. Looking to the future, these “fake” people may help dictate online behavior. They’re scripts also will help reflect how they bots creator’s view gender behavior as well.
3. They’re actively being used to make money. Sex.bots are online prostitutes/madams². And that’s a novel and scary application. For the most part other bots are productivity tools.
4. The rather, um, intimate nature of the human/bot interaction in these cases can be used to tease out issues about technology relations and interaction anxiety that have been theorized about for years (we can trace it at least as far back as Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein). And these are issues that will be projected into the future as well.
5. The semiotics of cybersex are rather rich. Cybersex allows for a unique interaction state involving the co-creation of metafantasies³. It’s a great subject to analyze. And it’ll be interesting to demonstrate how well this communication genre really is susceptible to bots for a variety of reasons.

And, frankly, no one is writing on this subject from this angle. And that type of academic novelty is a good thing. Would I rather be working on my longer term cellphone camera project? Frankly, yes. But that is a GIANT issue and the ethnographic recruitment for it would have sucked. So this is far more manageable and I can run pretty far with it.

^{1 - So far I’ve seen “porn-bot” used a few times, same thing with “chatter-bot” but that can cover a wide range of chat roles.}

2 - I’m considering the 24×7 ChatWalkers as a possible thesis title.

3 - I’ll get to the meta-fantasy thing in a future post.

The short reason is that the issue of human/AI interaction will be a huge field in the future. Its a matter of when, not if, we reach the point where computers will be able to consistently mimic human behavior in such a way that one would never know that they are interacting with a machine.

Trust me. I know.

How, you ask? Well, I’ve been there and done that.

During my webcam research I got suckered by a bot. It was my fault really. Here’s the basics:

I had been spending a lot of time researching Yahoo Chat rooms. My goal at the time was to help build data to disprove a notion: webcam’s primary purpose was sex/cybersex. There is a folks notion that either:

only exhibitionists had webcams
or
webcams created exhibitionists

This seemed like a gross simplification. But thinking it wasn’t enough. I needed to prove it (I’ll publish the proof theory at a later date). And proof required research. So I headed to the field: YahooChat rooms. And that’s when I started to observe bots.

For the most part they were easy to pick out. Very basic discursive scripts.

Then it happened: I had been hoping to get an interview with a cam whore (sorry mom… Really it’s a performative genre/category of webcam user). And I thought I found one who was open to discussion. And I thought I negotiated a deal for an interview in return for joining her site for a day. So far so good. But it turned out the site was a scam. And when I went to ask her what the deal was, I realized to my horror I was talking to a bot^{1 2}.

And that was that… I was hooked. And as I began to see large holes in my webcam direction, it became clear that I was barking up the wrong tree. So using an idea from the oblique strategies (which is another subject I’ll write on) I decide to kill my idea to save my thesis. And I moved on to bots.

^{1 - if you are interested in the entire painful experience, I’ve archived the entire thing. You can check it out here. IMPORTANT NOTE: As this interaction was held with a non-human participant, this does not need to comply with Institutional Review Board (IRB) procedure. As such the user name in this document does not need to be protected.}

2 - I’ve got a theory in the works as to how I (and other like me were fooled). I’ll get that posted in a few days.

I just can’t escape aspects of Rochester.

As I was leaving my final Social Psychology class, I was surprised by a familiar call.

kak, kak, kak, kak¹

Two things happened. First, like Pavlov’s dog, I was gripped by an instinctual response: HIT THE FLOOR and watch the skies. Thankfully I only did the latter. Secondly, I was struck with the thought “I know I know that sound.” While I scanned the skies it hit me: a Peregrine Falcon.

But that was crazy. I knew there was a Cooper’s Hawk on campus. But a Peregrine? My mind must be playing tricks on me. Then suddenly there it was again:

kak, kak, kak, kak

And it wasn’t just me hearing it. Matt, another MAPP’er, walked up to me and said “there must be a hawk around here.” I resisted the urge to bird-geek out all over him.

Still there was nothing to be seen.

A couple hours pass. I decide to head over to the Pub, the campus bar, to work on my thesis. And that’s when I spot it: a bird passing overhead. I watch as it seems to “swim” over me using just the tips of it’s wings. Its a flight pattern I’ve seen countless times: a Peregrine Falcon. And a big one too (most likely female). It lands on the Rockerfeller Chapel².

So I hightail it back to my car and pick up binoculars³. And sure enough, there it is, as clear as day. While it’s not Mariah (scroll down memory lane for a good shot or two of the falcons) or any of the Kodak kin, it’s nice to know that the species is here in Chicago as well.

Plus it’s getting me a little homesick.

^{1 - If you’re interested in the exact sound, or to see a Peregrine in action, check out a video I got a few years ago using a Kodak MC3 camera of Mariah, one of the Peregrines @ Kodak, here.}

2 - It’s an ongoing UChicago joke that only a Rockerfeller would consider this a ‘chapel’

3 - Yes, I now carry binoculars in my car for just such situtations. I never intended to be a birder… I blame kodak.

Without a doubt Batman Begins is the big summer comic book movie. Marvel’s Fantastic Four (not the low budget Corman version… which may turn out to be a better movie), directed by the guy who did Barbershop will be a blip on the radar (let’s face it, The Incredibles has already done it better than they can ever hope to).

However, the award for the most concienciously adapted comic movie for the year, if not ever, will go to Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller’s Sin City. Adapted from Miller’s comics, this will be one of the most abmitous artistic projects of the year, not to mention one of the most star studded. Rumor is that they used Miller’s comic books as the direct story boards.

So my suggestion is check out the film noir, Chiaroscuro (an Italian cinema term for light and dark), inspired art and then watch this trailer (or if you’re feeling lazy, just keep the charater to the left in mind when you see Bruce Willis). All I can say is wow.

update (3/9): I’m apparently a visionary. Yahoo Movies just set up a site for Sin City that does a side by side art to image comparison. It’s pretty amazing… take a look.

Ok, it’s into the long haul now. I’m officially in the last two weeks of Q2. So communiques to waking-dreams are going to most likely drop a LOT. headnotes will most likely see more action as I’m working on my thesis proposal and tracking down a adviser (remember the scary linguistics course… I’m asking that professor today… be very afraid).

In the mean time I have a 20 page term paper to write, another 5-10 page final that’s yet to drop, 3 short response papers to write, and that social psych project to finish. Plus Drea will be visiting for a few days.

Sanity and sleep just left town.

Internet Bot
A bot is common parlance on the Internet for a software program that is a software agent. Bots interact with other network services intended for people as if it was a real person. One typical use of bots is to gather information. The term is derived from the word “robot”, reflecting the autonomous character in the “virtual robot”-ness of the concept.
(Wikipedia. Internet Bots. - 3/7/05)

Bot in reality is a pretty generic term covering a wide range of programs. Examples include:

• Search engine bots - which crawl the internet databasing sites for engines like google. Also referred to as Spiders / Crawlers / etc. Best example of this is the famed Googlebot.
• SPAM - Spam bots crawl webpages, discussion boards, usenet (does that even still exist?) and Chat gathering e-mail addresses for Spammers to use.
• Games - Bots are used in a couple ways here:
  • massive(ly) multiplayer online role-playing game or MMORPG - Bots are used to allow players to continuously develop (level) characters at all hours of the day or night. Since leveling is related to repetitive tasks, they simply program their bot, throw the switch and walk away. This is illegal behavior in all games. To combat it the creators have implemented a series of anti-automation steps or Nerfing the game. These type of bots are often commoditized on places like e-bay
  • First person shooters - Have two types: Aimbots (used in shooter games to assist aiming) and ‘playerbots’ (which function as a teammate/partner player)
• Personal Messaging - These bots play “human” simulating a chatter on Instant Messenger, Chatrooms and Discussion Boards. Often referred to as Chatter Bots.

I’ll be researching the Personal Messenger bot types.
Why this type? I’m particularly interested in the implications of machines that lead you to believe that they’re human. Chatterbots are typically scripted to vehimently deny the fact that you’re talking to a program
As to how did this grow out of the webcam research… gimmie a day for an explanation.

One of my theories is that Blogs replaced Life Cams (1:many broadcast cams like JennyCam) as an optimal performance method of sharing one’s day to day existance on the internet. As part of looking into this, I did a lexus/nexus study of the major media impressions for the phrases “Webcam” and “Blog”. The trends are pretty interesting. Note that webcams move into media decline in 2002 as blogs spike.

Also note that 2004 reports on blogging take a major jump. As the data shows a more than 2x jump on the back half of the year, I think it’s pretty safe to attribute this to election coverage. In particular, political blogs got a lot of coverage as a part of the Rather/CBS erronious Bush report. I expect that the number of media impressions in 2005 will be below these numbers.

Here’s a different view of the same data:

If you’re interested in toying with the data, here’s it in Excel format. Just let me know how you use it.