Should Internet Researchers Use Ill-Gotten Information?

This paper describes how the ethical problems raised by scientific data obtained through harmful and immoral conduct (which, following Stan Godlovitch, is called ill-gotten information) may also emerge in cases where data is collected from the Internet. It describes the major arguments for and against using ill-gotten information in research, and shows how they may be applied to research that either collects information about the Internet itself or which uses data from questionable or unknown sources on the Internet. Three examples (the Internet Census 2012, the PharmaLeaks study, and research into keylogger dropzones) demonstrate how researchers address the ethical issues raised by the sources of data that they use and how the existing arguments concerning the use of ill-gotten information apply to Internet research.

Disseminating context-specific access to online knowledge resources within electronic health record systems.

Clinicians' patient care information needs are frequent and largely unmet. Online knowledge resources are available that can help clinicians meet these information needs. Yet, significant barriers limit the use of these resources within the clinical workflow.

The social disutility of software ownership.

Software ownership allows the owner to restrict the distribution of software and to prevent others from reading the software's source code and building upon it. However, free software is released to users under software licenses that give them the right to read the source code, modify it, reuse it, and distribute the software to others. Proponents of free software such as Richard M.

Design and implementation of a medication reconciliation kiosk: the Automated Patient History Intake Device (APHID).

Errors associated with medication documentation account for a substantial fraction of preventable medical errors. Hence, the Joint Commission has called for the adoption of reconciliation strategies at all United States healthcare institutions. Although studies suggest that reconciliation tools can reduce errors, it remains unclear how best to implement systems and processes that are reliable and sensitive to clinical workflow.