Information Disasters and Disaster Information:\
Where Information Science Meets Emergency Management

Tisha Slagle Pipes

University of North Texas

School of Library and Information Sciences\
P.O. Box 311068\
Denton, Texas 76203-1068

<tpipes@lis.admin.unt.edu>

Abstract

Information moves society---and with the flow of electronic information,
the interfaces for information sharing are continuously becoming more
diverse. Information Science offers systems and technologies to connect
people worldwide while Emergency Management proffers methods to secure
information that has become increasingly more vulnerable to destruction.
This exacerbated vulnerability of information to disasters, combined
with society's dependence on information, warrants the integration of
the disciplines of Information Science and Emergency Management.
Together these disciplines can improve existing practices to prevent and
mitigate information disasters. They can also ensure the usefulness of
the information that flows among victims, responders, and members of
emergency management organizations before, during, and after disasters.

Introduction

*Information flows across space and time in unpredictable ways,\
creating new structures and forms as the situation requires (McDaniel,
1997).*

Unprocessed information is intangible and non-consumable, yet a
plentiful resource that can be refined and used as a public or private
good. *Information* is inherently more abundant than most resources
because it is found in every person, place, and thing---it is the
entirety of known data, facts and ideas. Information, in my opinion, is
any meme, message, or meaning that influences, directly or indirectly,
how persons understand their situations. It is the principle element of
omniscience, and therefore the resource from which all knowledge is
extracted. *Knowledge* includes units of systematic subjects, noted for
their oneness, objectivity, respected social implications, usefulness,
and resistance to obsolescence. Knowledge is mined and refined into the
integrated disciplines the world calls *wisdom*---valued public goods
like anthropology, information technology (IT), medical research, and
universal religion (Cleveland, 1982).

As unprocessed public goods, information flows between and among people
and groups in the form of verbal, non-verbal, or written
interactions---whether memes, messages, or meanings---that serve as
precursors to problem-solving and decision-making. Interactions
instigated directly or indirectly by a disaster could be deemed
*disaster information*.

As processed public goods, information---whether a meme, message, or
meaning---influences the lives of those who experience it. When
life-sustaining or life-fulfilling information is absent, inaccessible,
or useless because it is inaccurate or interrupted as the result of a
hazard---natural, civil, or technological (Table 1), the persons
affected may be said to be experiencing an *information disaster*. An
information disaster hinders the access to or effective use of disaster
information.

Information is a vital public good whether processed or unprocessed. How
people encounter information, a phenomenon called *information-seeking
behavior* or *information behavior* by information scientists, is the
subject of extensive research (Case, 2002). The study of *disaster
information behavior---*the actions or attitudes that affect
encountering, needing, finding, choosing, or using disaster
information---appears to be scant or absent in the literature.

This deficiency in the study of disaster information behavior may exist
because studying information behavior involves field study---an option
not always available to researchers in times of disaster. In addition,
many researchers cannot afford the time and expense demanded by
qualitative research, the preferred approach to effective information
behavior studies. A further challenge for researchers is the inherent
elusiveness of information itself. The form it assumes or the direction
it will flow is not always apparent (Burlando, 1994). What is apparent,
however, is that information, as the essence of all knowledge, and
subsequently the essence all wisdom---is the basis for all disciplines
of study, including information science and emergency management. Its
pervasiveness alone demands interdisciplinary observation.

# Information Disasters and Disaster Information

## The Study of Information Disasters

Unprocessed information is impervious. It does not deplete with use or
corrode with time. However, people can forget it or disregard it, and
*representations* (Table 2) of it can be easily lost or destroyed. These
intangible or tangible surrogates that hold and/or display information
are quite vulnerable to disaster. Hazards---in the form of terrorism,
vandalism, heating/air conditioning failure, user error, computer
viruses, hackers, power failures, cyberterrorism, information warfare,
cultural power struggles, or even careless or impulsive
law-making/enforcement---all threaten the security and effectiveness of
information. Because all organizations house information, it is
imperative that all organizations implement disaster recovery plans that
include recovery of information vital to the existence of the
organization.

Studies that focus on the disruption and destruction of information have
become more prevalent, especially in the management fields where
chronicled information is vital to management operations. Useful human
and/or artificially transmitted messages were recorded as early as 3000
B.C.E. when the Sumerians created and stored common cuneiform symbols by
inscribing them into soft clay with a stylus. The Sumerians, as have
societies since, used common symbols with technology to transfer
information (Drucker, 1995). Information Science (IS) studies have shown
that for information to be managed effectively, people must employ a
premise from sociology---for example, culturally accepted standards and
symbols---with technology---for example, stylus and clay or keyboard and
computer. Otherwise, information cannot be physically or electronically
organized, stored, processed, recorded, disseminated, preserved, or
retrieved. Because of the urgency to preserve and retrieve informational
records, organizations are incorporating information preservation into
their business continuity plans (Shaw, 2005). A sub-discipline of IS,
librarianship, has long implemented these disaster recovery plans,
(DiMattia, 2001; Muir and Shenton, 2002; Ruyle and Schobernd, 1997;
Tennant, 2001) to protect and preserve the physical and electronic
representations of information in library holdings.

## The Study of Disaster Information Flow

Determining how information flows among organizations before, during,
and after disasters can lead to new models of sound practice for
Emergency Management (EM) practice to adopt. The continued omission of
the study of information flow may allow the implementation of unsound
practices and hastily enacted policies and decisions. IS methods from
information flow research, including systems theory and small group
interaction, may hold particular application for further study of
information flow in EM.

The study of disaster information flow has been virtually ignored by IS
researchers, despite its importance in EM and society. Research
regarding *information flow*---the human and/or artificial information
transactions that affect decisions---is of especial interest to EM where
decisions affect the well-being of whole communities. EM decision-makers
determine who is heard or not heard and what is done or not done
regarding disaster planning and response---a vital public service that
impacts communities socially, economically, and legally. People reach
decisions through the processes of information flow during formal or
informal meetings.[^1] Information flow in meetings of EM organizations
may or may not be conducive to optimal disaster management; and
researchers have not provided conclusive evidence either way. It is
imperative that EM researchers know if methods employed in
*decision-making*---the result of the information flow---are increasing
or decreasing the vulnerability of a community to disasters.

EM concentrates on the preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation
of disasters. McEntire (2004b) defines disasters as the "disruptive
and/or deadly and destructive outcome or result of physical or
human-induced triggering agents when they interact with and are
exacerbated by vulnerabilities from diverse but overlapping
environments." Teams within EM organizations may struggle for long
periods---or be forced to decide quickly how best to approach disasters.
During these times of decision-making, the members of a team
participate, either consciously or unconsciously, in creating and
modifying information flow*.* Productive information flow is vital to
ensure that EM teams reach sensible decisions. Sensible decisions aid in
the prevention and mitigation of disasters.

# History of IS

Information scientists historically seek solutions to problems regarding
information in the broad disciplines of technology and sociology. The
birth of this blend of technology and sociology in IS can be attributed
to inspiration from "As We May Think," an article written by Vannevar
Bush at the close of the second World War. Bush, a respected MIT
scientist and director of the United States (U.S.) Wartime Office of
Scientific Research and Development, believed that the scientists who
had been busy devising methods to defeat U.S. enemies would now have
time to devise methods to mitigate the chaos already evidenced by the
explosion of information. He predicted scientific and social disaster if
scientists did not address "the massive task of making more accessible a
bewildering store of knowledge" (Bush, V., 1945a).

Bush had a suggestion---a technological knowledge management system in
the form of a machine that would emulate human thought using
"association of ideas." The *Memex* would link thoughts "in accordance
with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain"---a
concept remarkably similar to contemporary hypertext (1945a)! The
postwar scientists were unsurprisingly fascinated with Bush's proposal
and accepted the technological challenge.

Fortunately, Congress funded the scientists, with incentive from
President Theodore Roosevelt who enlisted Bush to write a report to
justify the financial support. Bush's report to Roosevelt, "Science the
Endless Frontier" (1945b), provided the basis for the creation of the
National Science Foundation (NSF) by means of the NSF Act of 1950. One
of the Act's mandates was "to further the full dissemination of
information of scientific value consistent with the national interest"
(P.L. 81-507), a plan that eventually led to the study of information
flow that generates important decisions.

## IS: Technology and Sociology

NSF scientists quickly developed two major IS
directions---technologically-based information retrieval and
sociologically-based human information behavior---and by the 1960s, a
few researchers were defining the term IS. When the American
Documentation Institute, founded in 1937, decided to change its name to
the American Society for Information Science, definitions abounded.
Borko (1968) wrote one of the most enduring definitions, one that roots
IS firmly in *technology* by stating that it is "an interdisciplinary
science that investigates the properties and behavior of information,
the forces that govern the flow and use of information, and the
techniques, both manual and mechanical, of processing information for
optimal storage, retrieval and dissemination" (Borko, 1968).

Researchers gradually revised the more technologically-based definitions
to reflect IS roots in *sociology*. The IS scope would be defined by
Wersig and Nevelling who wrote that "transmitting knowledge to those who
need it" is a "social responsibility" (1975). Belkin and Robertson would
continue the technology-sociology theme by stating that the purpose of
IS is to "facilitate communication of information between humans"
(Belkin and Robertson, 1976). Eleven years later, Vickery and Vickery
(1987) emphasized the role of sociology in IS by identifying IS as "the
study of the communication of information in society." Buckland and Liu
would once again combine technology and sociology when they asserted
that IS "is centered on the representation, storage, transmission,
selection (filtering, retrieval), and the use of documents and messages,
where documents and messages are created for use by humans" (1998).
Bates clarified, however, by writing that IS is primarily, but not
solely focused, "on *recorded* information and people's relationship to
it" (Bates, 1999). With all the progress in determining the definition
of IS, however, the definition of *information---*the focus of
IS*---*remained somewhat elusive.

## What is information? 

Information theorists Shannon and Weaver (1948) believed that
"information is the reduction of uncertainty," and yet, ironically,
finding a clear definition of information still seems to stump both
researchers and readers of IS. Information has been defined within many
disciplines by those who sometimes over-simplify or over-complicate its
meaning---nevertheless, IS researchers agree that information is
fundamental to all disciplines for communication, and it must therefore
be preserved, organized, and easily retrieved (Buckland, 1991; Ratzan,
2004). Information may be described as a representation of a message
that is processed into something valuable so that it may be applied in a
practical context. This description, however, suggests that the *value*
of information has somehow been previously established. So, how, then,
is the value of information determined?

## The Value of Information

The value of information is best determined by what Repo calls
*value-in-use---*"a benefit the user obtains from the use and the effect
of the use" (1983). Value-in-use is subjective and specific to a
user---so the value of information could be defined simply as
*contingent upon its usefulness to an individual*. The value of
information therefore is relative to the level of satisfaction directly
or indirectly received from an information good, service, or resource.

Consider, for instance, contrasting views of those who receive a stack
of 1820s newspapers from a ghost town. The *litterbug* casually tosses
the papers outside---to the litterbug, the papers are *trash to be
burned.* The *recycler* carefully collects the papers in a bag---to the
recycler, the papers are *cash to be earned*. The *librarian* gladly
accepts the papers from the recycle shop---to the librarian, the papers
are *documents* *that must be sorted*. The *professor* delightedly
inquires about the papers from the library---to the professor, the
papers are *history to be reported.* The value of information is
therefore determined by its user and its intended application.

## The Sciences of Information

How, why, what, and where information is applied are questions
investigated within the framework of several information studies -- a
truth that often identifies information *science* as information
*sciences*. Whether it is appropriate to label the field of IS as
singular or plural is another argument (Webber, 2003), however; IS is
undeniably interdisciplinary (Machlup and Mansfield, 1983) with problems
studied through four major interdisciplinary relations including:
cognitive science, communications. computer science, and librarianship
(Appendix A) (Saracevic, 1999).

## IS as a Meta-discipline 

IS enables people to find information---a need based on psychological
needs for survival and fulfillment. Finding sought-after information can
change human perception by relieving anxiety, fulfilling a goal,
realizing a need, or actualizing a concept. IS has dedicated years of
research to training people how to find information and thereby enhance
problem-solving and decision-making---helping to reduce uncertainty and
change an individual's image of reality (Case, 2002).

Education, mass communications, and philosophy/theology also have
distinctive relationships with information. Education is the teaching
and learning of information; mass communications is the discovery and
transmission of information; philosophy/theology is the search for true
information. In fact, IS has application to all disciplines and is
therefore more appropriately defined as a *meta-disciplinary* science
(Bates, 1999). After all, IS is concerned with information, a resource
(Cleveland, 1982) common to *all* disciplines and coincidentally,
responsible for the creation of *bibliometrics,* the major quantitative
method used to analyze *interdisciplinarity* among fields (Morillo and
Gómez, 2003).

Bibliometrics uses *content analysis*, a method that includes comparing
the frequency (F) of terms between disciplines, for example IS and EM.
Content analysis, in this case, becomes a preliminary survey to
determine whether researchers have initiated integration within
disciplines (Ruben, 1992). A cursory examination of IS and EM journals
identifies major terms commonly found in titles of articles in IS and EM
from 2002 through July 2005. The IS journals are *African Journal of
Library, Archives and Information Science, Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Journal of
the Society of Archivists, Library & Information Science Research, and
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.* The EM journals are
*Disaster Prevention and Management, Disasters, International Journal of
Emergency Management, Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management,* and
*Natural Hazards Review* (Table 3)*.*

+------------------------------+-----+-----------------------------+---+
| Table 3                      |     |                             |   |
|                              |     |                             |   |
| *Frequency (F) of IS/EM      |     |                             |   |
| Terms in EM/IS Journal       |     |                             |   |
| Titles 2002-2005*            |     |                             |   |
+------------------------------+-----+-----------------------------+---+
| IS terms found in EM Journal | F   | EM Terms found in IS        | F |
| Titles                       |     | Journal Titles              |   |
+------------------------------+-----+-----------------------------+---+
| information (sharing,        | 11  | disaster                    | 5 |
| system, technology)          |     |                             |   |
+------------------------------+-----+-----------------------------+---+
| communication (or            | 4   | emergency or hazard(s)      | 2 |
| coordination\                |     |                             |   |
| or collaboration or          |     |                             |   |
| interaction)                 |     |                             |   |
+------------------------------+-----+-----------------------------+---+
| Total                        | 15  | Total                       | 7 |
+------------------------------+-----+-----------------------------+---+

The infrequency of terms within journal titles indicates that studies of
IS and EM have experienced little integration. IS and EM do however,
share a substantial interest in the study of disasters in at least two
distinct aspects: information disasters and disaster information flow.
EM theories may be used to frame information disasters and
vulnerabilities while IS theories may be used to study collaborative
decisions by identifying patterns of information flow during the phases
of a disaster.

# EM Theory, Information, and Disasters

The purpose of EM is to minimize vulnerabilities to hazards that cause
disasters. Vulnerabilities, according to McEntire, are "high levels of
risk and susceptibility coupled with a low degree of resistance and
resilience" that exacerbate potential hazards---"triggering agents" that
cause disasters (2004b). Although it may be impossible to prevent or
diminish hazards, it is possible to reduce the vulnerability to hazards
that lead to technological, natural, or civil disasters (Table 3). For
example, government officials may be able to reduce the vulnerability to
terrorism through heightened "protection of borders and infrastructures
or improvement in the prevention of weapons of mass destruction"
(McEntire, 2004b).

## Information and Technological Disasters

Disasters caused by technology are "the most difficult to predict" and
are "largely unforeseeable" (Chapman, 2005). Tragically, many
technological disasters result from seldom-inspected or outdated
technology. A faulty computer surge protector is blamed for a fire that
swept through Minnesota's Hastings County Library in 1993, destroying
80% of the library's hard-copy and electronic documents. The flames
demolished the building and left the remaining documents damaged by
soot, smoke, and water (Bolger, 2003). Since then, Hastings County has
implemented disaster recovery plans to prevent and/or prepare for
disasters.

## Information and Natural Disasters

Reducing vulnerability to natural disasters may be more challenging.
During the 1997 renovation of the Colorado State University Library
(CSUL), library administrators stored approximately 462,000 volumes in
the basement. During this temporary storage period, a flash flood
enveloped the 77,000 square foot basement with 10 feet of water.
Approximately 450,000 items---one-fourth of the library's
holdings---were damaged or destroyed, including the library's vast
newspaper collection. Although the flood was the world's fourth largest
library disaster in the 20th century, there was at least one positive
consequence. Camila Alire, CSUL librarian, and other CSUL staff wrote
*Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Handbook*, considered by critics
to be a valuable disaster practitioner's guide (Dugan, 2001; Williams,
2000).

## Information and Civil Disasters

Unfortunately, civil disasters are prevalent throughout human history.
At least three versions of the destruction[^2] of the ancient Library of
Alexandria may be found in Egyptian history, however all versions
attribute the great Library's demise to civil disaster (Chesser, 2005).
Ptolomy II Soter, successor to Alexandria the Great, built the Library
in 283 B.C. and vowed to use any means to amass all the books of the
world (Heller-Roazen, 2002). The Library did acquire nearly one-half
million books---an unequaled collection for its era---before its ruin in
the 1^st^ century (Erskine, 1995).

The threat of modern civil disasters has increased since the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks (9/11)---a fact that makes tangible and
intangible (electronic or human) information and information issues
considerably more vulnerable to disaster (Comfort, 2005; Dory, 2003-04;
The 9/11 Commission, 2004). Lawmakers have since enacted grave changes
to the tenets of the U.S. Constitution (USA PATRIOT Act[^3]) regarding
access to information (Jaeger, Bertot and McClure, 2003). Both lawmakers
and private citizens have made public information less accessible---so
terrorists cannot access it---and private information more
accessible---in case the information belongs to terrorists. The threat
to public information and information privacy is an ongoing hazard, one
that librarianship has struggled to mitigate (Appendix B).

## Information in the Equation for Disasters

Librarians and library educators hold the preservation of information
sacred and consider libraries---the primary keepers of recorded
information---to be the last visage of a free public education for all
citizens (Totten, 2005). Clearly, all disciplines benefit from the
preservation and access to information, a sound reason for investigating
information disasters. The study of vulnerability provides an excellent
basis for future research in information disasters (as well as
information flow regarding disasters). Information disasters may be
portrayed using McEntire's equation for disasters: *vulnerability* +
*hazard* (*triggering* *agent*) = *disaster* (2004a) (Appendix C).

# IS Theory, Information, and Disasters

The flow of information within the management of disasters can be
investigated using several methods found in the interdisciplinary
domains of IS. Many theories have evolved including theories of
individual and collective information behavior (information seeking and
processing). Collective information behavior has been studied in the
context of group research (information flow in both task and emergent
groups). *Task groups*---individuals who accept a collective charge to
form decisions and/or solve problems---dominate research of information
flow in groups. *Emergent groups*---individuals that meet incidentally
and collaborate---have appeared in recent IS research with an emphasis
on conversational problem-solving (O\'Connor, Copeland and Kearns,
2003). *Emergent behavior*---a more intense form of
problem-solving---has been the subject of some EM studies within the
context of disaster scenes (Drabek and McEntire, 2003).

## Information Flow and Small Group Studies

Knowing and testing the varying properties of information flow in groups
may be vital to the success of EM teams at the local, state, and
national level, within all the disaster phases (preparedness, response,
recovery, and mitigation) identified by Drabek (1986). Emergent groups
that exist at disaster scenes warrant study, as do EM decision-making
groups that contribute to the future health and survival of our
governments, communities, and citizens. Within the last decade, the
Communications discipline has introduced several ethnographic studies of
group information flow, although the study of groups has traditionally
been performed in laboratory settings. These contrived experiments
cannot reveal the properties of real group information flow.

Although the small group[^4] remains the oldest and most prevalent of
the concepts in all social organization (Fisher, A., 1974), the
disciplines that study information flow in small groups are diverse and
disconnected. Research of information flow in groups has matured despite
independent studies by scholars in psychology, sociology, management,
communication, education, social work, political science, public policy,
urban planning, and IS. The absence of convergence within the fields,
however, has not prevented small group research from accumulating enough
solid theory in the past 50 years to establish its own discipline of
study (Poole, M., 2004)

The formal study of information flow in groups can be traced to 1898
when psychologist Norman Triplett tested the hypothesis that the
presence of others in a group would facilitate the problem solving of an
individual (Hare, A. Paul, 1962). By studying group behavior, educators
and politicians believe people can collectively solve common problems in
the communities (Gouran, D., 2003a).

### Group Decision-Making

A major influence in 1910 on the study of group discussion and
decision-making was the well-known book *How We Think* by the
distinguished philosopher, John Dewey. Dewey's model is still the most
widely-used model for directing the information flow toward problem
solving and decision-making in IS studies of groups (Table 4).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Table 4                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| *Dewey's Reflective Thinking Model*                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  Determine what information is needed for understanding the issue  |
|     at hand.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  Access and gather the available information.                      |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  Gather the opinions of reliable sources in related fields.        |
|                                                                       |
| 4.  Synthesize the information and opinions.                          |
|                                                                       |
| 5.  Consider the synthesis from all perspectives and frames of        |
|     reference.                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| 6.  Finally, create some plausible temporary meaning that may be      |
|     reconsidered and modified as more relevant information and        |
|     opinions are learned.                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| (Dewey, 1910)                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

### Group Properties

Small group research became recognized in the late 1940s and early 1950s
by an increasing number of references in the social science literature
(Ellis and Fisher, 1994; Fisher, A., 1974; Gouran, D., 1999; Hare, A.
Paul, 1962; Harris and Sherblom, 2002; Hartley, 1997). Although there
are many more, 13 major properties, identified through theoretical
studies and worthy of further study, may be depicted as an acronym,
G.R.O.U.P. D.Y.N.A.M.I.C.S. (Appendix D) Understanding these properties
of real groups in action provides descriptive and prescriptive methods
that may enhance decision-making capabilities in EM organizations.

The G.R.O.U.P. D.Y.N.A.M.I.C.S. properties emerged because of studying
the information flow in groups as a process. The group as a process led
to groups being studied from the systems approach (Bales, 1999; Gouran,
D. S., 2003b; Harris and Sherblom, 2002).

## Information Flow and Systems Theory

Open systems of interaction, originally applied to biological systems,
provides a compelling symbolic foundation for an IS study of EM
decision-making. Many IS studies found basis for systems of information
flow using Shannon and Weaver's 1947 communications / information
systems model (Figure 1) to describe group communication systems.[^5]

Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) introduced the systems approach to
studying the group information process; however, scholars did not
embrace the theory until Bales (1950) enhanced it. Bales compared
groups---like those found in EM---to an open system that is, from
inception to outcome, a cyclical process---dynamic, continuous, and
evolving (Hare, A. Paul, 1962; Harris and Sherblom, 2002). EM
organizations can be viewed as a subsystem within the larger social
system---an open system. An open system is a set of interrelated
*components* that operate together as a whole with three major elements:
*input, process,* and *output*. Multiple subsystems of transactions,
called *processes*, characterize a system of interaction, called
*information flow*. These processes are between and among people,
*components* who continually and simultaneously send *output* and
receive *input.* The purpose of these transactions is to achieve a
mutual goal, a successful *outcome* (Bales, 1950) (Table 5).
![](media/image1.png){width="3.9694444444444446in"
height="1.3131944444444446in"}

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Table 5     |                                                        |
|             |                                                        |
| *           |                                                        |
| Information |                                                        |
| Flow        |                                                        |
| Systems*    |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| System      | Example in EM                                          |
| elements    |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| process     | -   preparation, response, recovery, mitigation        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| component   | -   police, firefighters, emergency medical            |
|             |     technicians, meteorologists, volunteer groups,     |
|             |     building inspectors, politicians.                  |
|             |     local/state/federal officials, businesses, nearby  |
|             |     jurisdictions                                      |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| outcome     | -   disaster prevention, disaster mitigation           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | -                                                      |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

The Communications discipline investigates face-to-face and virtual
systems of information flow and decisions. It has provided group
information flow with a respectable position in formal research (Poole,
M., 2004). Studies include groups as systems (Hare, A Paul, 2003;
Lester, Ready, Hostager and Bergmann, 2003; Mabry, 1999; McGrath, Arrow
and Berdahl, 2000; Moon et al., 2003; Prekop, 2002), group interaction
(information flow) (Chernyshenko, Miner, Baumann and Sniezek, 2003;
Kelly and Loving, 2004; Wilkinson and Fung, 2002; Wittenbaum et al.,
2004), virtual group interaction (Balthazard, Potter and Warren, 2004;
Benbunan-Ficha, Hiltz and Turoff, 2003; Dasgupta, 2003), group decisions
(Condon, Golden and Wasil, 2003; Ellis and Fisher, 1994; Poole,
Marshall, 1985; Slezak, 2000; Sunwolf and Seibold, 1999), and virtual
group decisions (Alge, Wiethoff and Klein, 2003; Benbunan-Ficha, Hiltz
and Turoff, 2003; Burkhalter, Gastil and Kelshaw, 2002).

IS studies of information behavior, flow, and processes as systems could
contribute to the success of EM organizations, who interact by
consulting and researching national organizations---for example, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)---to gain information
(input), and then make suggestions (output) to local EM members and EM
researchers to solicit feedback. The feedback then becomes further input
and shapes the subsequent suggestions made by all EM information
contributors until a decision is reached. Systems theory is also the
framework for a newer theory, the Bona Fide Group Perspective (BFGP)
that can be used to demonstrate the relationship of EM as a whole to
information flow. BFGP is one of four contemporary theories that
describe information flow (Table 6).

+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Table 6   |                                                          |
|           |                                                          |
| *Four     |                                                          |
| Major     |                                                          |
| Con       |                                                          |
| temporary |                                                          |
| Theories  |                                                          |
| Of        |                                                          |
| In        |                                                          |
| formation |                                                          |
| Flow In   |                                                          |
| Groups*   |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| F         | Functional Theory is a normative approach to explaining  |
| unctional | group information flow. The focus of functional theory   |
|           | are inputs and processes, elements grounded in systems   |
|           | theory (Wittenbaum et al., 2004) and Dewey's reflective  |
|           | thinking model.                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Stru      | Structuration Theory is a way to explain the pattern of  |
| cturation | relationship between the group system of information     |
|           | flow and the group structure, the rules and resources    |
|           | members use to maintain the group system (Poole,         |
|           | Marshall, 1985).                                         |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Symbolic  | Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT) explains the           |
| Co        | information flow process of group members as they form   |
| nvergence | group identity. The group assuming its own identity      |
| Theory    | significantly improves decision-making (Bormann, 1982).  |
| (SCT)     |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| BFGP      | BFGP is a theory created by Putnam and Stohl (1990) that |
|           | embraces the relationship between groups and their       |
|           | larger social systems. BFGP proposes two major ideas: 1) |
|           | groups have permeable and fluid boundaries with shifting |
|           | borders and 2) groups are embedded in and interdependent |
|           | with their environment, their larger system.             |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+

The systems metaphor (Appendix E), however, remains the basis for
textbook study of group information flow(Arrow, Poole, Henry, Wheelan
and Moreland, 2004; Bales, 1999). The IS application of systems theory
overlaps with communications, cognition, small group research,
management, and therefore demonstrates the potential for integration
into EM research.

# Current Research

Interestingly, the very nature of information prompts integration among
ALL disciplines---especially information management and technology---to
produce knowledge using libraries, computers, email, and software for
statistical analysis, database creation, and all information systems.
The events of the September, 2001 terrorist attacks, however, have
initiated current research in IT to improve information sharing among
governmental organizations and enable efficient communications
interoperability among emergency response organizations.

## Decision Aids 

Several decision aids (Appendix A) have been developed for the
management of disasters including:

-   CAMEO (Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations),

-   ALOHA (Area Location of Hazardous Atmospheres),

-   E‑Team (created to manage every phase of a crisis),

-   GIS (geographic information systems).

However, there is the need for new or the extension of existing theories
that might enable information technologists to anticipate more fully the
needs addressed by disaster management software.

## Information Sharing

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was
intended to mobilize IT for counterterrorism information sharing
(Dizard, 2004). The law created two influential positions: Director of
National Intelligence and Director of the National Counterterrorism
Center---both entrusted with the task of increasing information sharing
(Office of the Press Secretary, 2004). Senator Susan Collins introduced
the final version of the bill. She said the Commission found that
\"various agencies had pieces of the puzzle that \[if assembled\] might
have allowed them to prevent the attacks... the bill will foster a new
culture of information sharing in the intelligence community" (Dizard,
2004).

Information sharing is also being addressed by a few individual efforts
including the March 2004 introduction of OSIS (Open Specification for
Sensitive Information Sharing) by RAINS (Regional Alliances for
Infrastructure and Network Security). RAINS, a not-for-profit
public/private partnership that has promised to advance ground-breaking
technology for homeland security, created OSIS for the safe sharing of
sensitive information across state, local and national security systems
(Appendix F). Unfortunately, the nation has not introduced a consistent
strategy to address information sharing nation-wide.

The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
(NCLIS), however, has proposed an unusual solution to President George
W. Bush and Congress. Trust and Terror is an NCLIS proposal that
envisions public libraries as an information center for crisis
information dissemination and management. NCLIS claims that public
libraries provide an appropriate forum for crisis information
dissemination because the public considers libraries trustworthy sources
that are already efficiently structured, aware of cultural diversity,
many times employ multi-lingual staff, and accessible to local
communities. Although libraries also can offer the information from
anywhere in the world in real time in numerous formats (NCLIS, 2002),
new law would be needed to authorize and equip libraries for access to
secure information related to terrorism---the most prominent civil
hazard currently threatening the security of information.

## Communications Interoperability

Failed communications interoperability contributed to America's
complacency during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Consequently, thousands
of civilians died alongside hundreds of first responders: emergency
personnel including police, emergency medical technicians, and
firefighters, who were trained and willing to save lives.

Don Eddington, chief of the Center for IT Integration at the Defense
Information Systems Agency admitted that \"DOD (the Department of
Defense) couldn\'t talk to state officials; state officials couldn\'t
talk to city officials\" (Onley, 2002). Unfortunately, first and second
responder organizations had adopted many different information systems
for their specific information sharing needs---and some that were ready
to use were never implemented. Firefighters, police, and other emergency
personnel at the Pentagon and in New York City could not find common
radio frequencies to communicate---cell phone networks flooded
frequencies and further hindered information flow in the hours following
the attacks (Riley, 2003).

The 9/11 Commission was enlisted to research and report the situations
and events surrounding the attacks. The Commission found that civilians,
firefighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians, and
emergency management professionals demonstrated "steady determination
and resolve under horrifying, overwhelming conditions ...Their actions
saved lives and inspired a nation \..." However, the Commission also
found that the "Port Authority\'s response was hampered by the lack of
standard operating procedures and radios capable of enabling multiple
commands to respond to an incident in unified fashion." The Commission
made the following recommendation:

> Make homeland security funding contingent on the adoption of an
> incident command system to strengthen teamwork in a crisis, including
> a regional approach. Allocate more radio spectrum and improve
> connectivity for public safety communications, and encourage
> widespread adoption of newly developed standards for private-sector
> emergency preparedness---since the private sector controls 85 percent
> of the nation\'s critical infrastructure (The 9/11 Commission, 2004).

Communications interoperability among officials from community first
responders to high-level information security officers within the
federal government is a major concern with the growing threats of
terrorism and cyberterrorism. Recommendations for the development of
shareable information systems have emerged from both public and private
institutions. Creative solutions for integrating information
technologies provide U.S. leaders with choices and challenges---for
instance, what do they choose and how do they choose it? Congress passed
the Homeland Security Act in November 2002 specifically to address these
and other questions about shareable information (Appendix G). Private
and public sectors are busy introducing a mishmash of information
sharing products including software for:

-   three-dimensional mapping of cities;

-   disaster management simulations

-   analysis of phone calls and other communications to help first
    responders make better decisions in emergencies;

-   interpretation of garbled speech recordings;

-   extraction of unstructured text;

-   discovery of non-obvious relationships (background checks deluxe);
    and

-   disparate systems queries (police, courthouse, homegrown databases,
    etc.) (Batzler, 2002; Mena, 2004).

Serious submissions are subject to SAFETY (Support Anti-Terrorism by
Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002) guidelines (DHS Press
Office, 2003). IS should collaborate with EM to further these goals.

# Recommendations for Future Research

IS researchers should consider studying disasters in the light of
information and communication systems theory, collective information
processing (Appendix D), knowledge management, decision-making and chaos
theory. Chaos theory would provide a fitting foundation for the study of
information flow in disasters. Disasters appear chaotic, yet chaos
theory argues that there is order in chaos---the order is just not
apparent because it is so complex.

Researchers might also consider more ethnographic studies of disaster
information flow at the scene of real disasters. Field studies could
greatly enhance the information behavior theory of emergent groups,
information sharing among first, second and third responders, and
governmental agencies at all levels.

Developing and testing information sharing network structures for
disaster management would be instrumental in helping all involved in EM
understand the routes of disaster information. EM could learn from whom,
to whom, and how members can change those routes to enhance and expedite
their important interactions. A sensitive information exchange
technology that allows the display of information on heterogeneous
networks across the world could eventually enable EM to send disaster
information to all personal digital assistants or cell phones.
Information sharing technology has the potential to make people safer,
healthier, and more knowledgeable---chief rationales for expanding IT.

More technology, however, would bring more work to EM teams. Learning
new systems and software and being better connected means more
communication---all time-consuming activities to implement programs that
may or may not be more efficient. "The vulnerability of complex
networked systems, together with potential ways of using data resources
to speed up recovery almost certainly will increasingly preoccupy
emergency planning staff in some areas.\" (Stephenson and Anderson,
1997).

IS should therefore more aggressively address the possible negative
impacts of the IT on disaster planning and research. Joy's speculations
that humans may fall victim to their own technology (2000) is worthy of
deeper investigation, as is Mesthene's opinion that human's "technical
prowess always seems to run ahead of his ability to deal with and profit
from it." EM researcher, Quarantelli (1997) raises provocative questions
addressing the implementation of IT without preliminary, robust testing.
He asserts that the information/communication revolution has at least
ten inadvertent liabilities for disaster planning and management. These
areas warrant intensive attention. How can we claim to mitigate
disasters if the very methods we use exacerbate them? Quarantelli
inspires many information-related suspicions.

1)  If IT provides all persons possible with IT that connects them to
    disasters, will they be helpful or, as untrained professionals,
    become additional hazards preventing the trained professionals from
    doing their jobs?

2)  Will the new IT provide too many choices for technology? or

3)  too much information? or

4)  lose information or be so dynamic that the information is outdated
    the second it is transferred?

5)  Will the hackers and cyber-terrorists be as updated as the
    legitimate IT providers?

6)  Will messages lose the richness only found in face-to-face
    communication?

7)  Will the addition of Web-like platforms impede typically
    hierarchical information flow?

8)  Will fad-like methods for dealing with disasters spread across the
    Internet before they can be tested?

9)  Will safety and ergonomic guidelines be realized before possibly
    hazardous IT is implemented?

10) Will the increase of IT, and its computer representations, increase
    the likelihood of even more computer-system related disasters?

These questions emphasize the need for more research regarding new
technology use with information disasters and disaster information.
Studies should focus on disaster warning communication systems, disaster
mitigation for information systems, and knowledge management for
information disaster preparedness.

9/11 left many businesses devoid of information that was critical to
their daily operations. Massive destruction obliterated electronic and
hard copy client lists, sales records, billing information, and
contracts. Neither sophisticated IT nor well-developed disaster recovery
plans could prepare organizations for the permanent loss of
knowledge---knowledge recorded on paper, electronically, and in the
minds of the victims who lost their lives. IS/EM collaboration should
thus focus on several aspects of disaster information flow including EM
team problem-solving and decision-making; communications
interoperability---both humanly and artificially produced at the local,
state, national, and international levels; sensitive and/or vital
information sharing among governmental entities, and the "problematic
aspects of the information/communication revolution" as introduced by
Quarantelli (1997). Also imperative is the convergence of disciplines in
the research of the elusive concept of vulnerability (McEntire, David
A., 2004). Theoretical integration of IS and EM in these and other areas
can only serve to improve all phases of disaster management from
preparedness to response to recovery to mitigation.

# Conclusion 

Two distinct problems are evident in both IS and EM
research---*information disasters* and the flow of *disaster
information*. The impact of these problems demands *extensive* studies,
however, the duality of the problems---*information* and
*disasters*---demands *integrated* studies.

Vannevar Bush emphasized the need for integration among disciplines when
he bemoaned the "growing mountain of research..." as studies became more
diverse. He also felt that investigators were "staggered by the findings
and conclusions of thousands of other workers..." with no time "...to
grasp, much less to remember..." other researchers' contributions.

The events of 9/11 instigated a revival of Vannevar Bush's challenge to
launch the "massive task of making more accessible a bewildering store
of knowledge" (Bush, V., 1945a). Bush's 60-year-old recommendation is
surprisingly similar to a recommendation by the 9/11 Commission in its
2004 report to the nation.

The U.S. government has access to a vast amount of information. But it
has a weak system for processing and using what it has. The system of
need to know should be replaced by a system of need to share\" (The 9/11
Commission, 2004).

The need to share information among disciplines and governments cannot
be met by IS or EM alone. Integrated research is vital to minimize the
vulnerabilities to information disasters and consequently diminish
disaster's inherent disruptions to life. Integrated research is also
vital to maximize the effectiveness of disaster information flow among
EM organizations and thereby facilitate the preservation of life.
Possible repercussions from information disasters and ineffective
disaster information flow necessitate the integration of IS and EM. The
stability and survival of lives may depend on it.

# References  {#references .Heading1}

# Appendix A {#appendix-a .Heading1}

+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| *Some Problems Studied Within  |                                     |
| Information Sciences*          |                                     |
+================================+=====================================+
| Subject Area and Problems      | Contributions to Research with      |
|                                | Applications to EM                  |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| **Cognitive Science**: expert  | -   human factors (ergonomics);     |
| systems; knowledge bases;      |     robot studies                   |
| hypertext; human-computer      |                                     |
| interaction                    | -   vulnerability analysis          |
|                                |                                     |
| > **Artificial Intelligence**: | -   intelligence agency             |
| > software to emulate human    |     communications                  |
| > intelligence                 |     interoperability;               |
| >                              |     cyber-terrorism; information    |
| > **Semiotics**: Signs, both   |     warfare                         |
| > individually and grouped in  |                                     |
| > sign systems, and includes   |                                     |
| > the study of how meaning is  |                                     |
| > transmitted and understood   |                                     |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| **Communications**:            | -   defense simulation;             |
| Information flow (information  |     telemedicine                    |
| sending, receiving), and       |                                     |
| information sharing            | -   decision systems; online        |
|                                |     database systems and related    |
| > **Cybernetics**:             |     telecommunications and          |
| > communication, feedback, and |     networking technologies;        |
| > control mechanisms in living |     specialized search              |
| > systems and machines         |     functionalities; large          |
| >                              |     machine-readable databases for  |
| > **Telecommunications**:      |     the dissemination and graphic   |
| > Distance electronic          |     representation of               |
| > information exchange         |     disaster-related information;   |
| >                              |     GIS (Geographical Information   |
| > **Systemics**: Relationships |     Systems); CAMEO (Computer-Aided |
| > of systems---transactions,   |     Management of Emergency         |
| > processes, inputs, outputs,  |     Operations) ALOHA (Area         |
| > especially                   |     Location of Hazardous           |
| > information/communication    |     Atmospheres); E‑Team (manages   |
| > systems                      |     every phase of a crisis)        |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| **Computer Science**:          | -   computer hardware and software  |
| manipulation and storage of    |     to manipulate documents and     |
| document records in electronic |     document records for emergency, |
| information storage,           |     disaster, and crisis            |
| processing, and retrieval      |     information storage and         |
| systems; information           |     retrieval systems               |
| management; databases          |                                     |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| **Information Science**:       | -   user information seeking,       |
| information behavior,          |     needs, preferences---relevance  |
| information processing,        |     and utility assessment          |
| information retrieval,         |                                     |
| information storage,           | -   development of standards for    |
| information dissemination      |     processing and communication of |
|                                |     information; monitoring of the  |
|                                |     national information            |
|                                |     infrastructure (human,          |
|                                |     technological, materials and    |
|                                |     financial) to ensure            |
|                                |     maintenance of information      |
|                                |     systems and services related to |
|                                |     the public interest             |
|                                |                                     |
|                                | -   protocols (procedures) for      |
|                                |     information                     |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| **Library Science**:           | -   holdings of past research       |
| Acquisition, cataloging,       |                                     |
| classification, and            | -   study of all published          |
| preservation of information    |     literature and its usage in all |
|                                |     disciplines to ensure scholarly |
| > **Bibliometrics**: All       |     productivity and communication  |
| > quantitative aspects and     |     in disaster research            |
| > models of communication,     |                                     |
| > storage, dissemination and   | -   indexing, citation indexing,    |
| > retrieval of scientific      |     keyword indexing, text analysis |
| > information                  |     and natural language searching  |
| >                              |     systems to aid researchers and  |
| > **Citation analysis**:       |     practitioners in the finding of |
| > Citation frequency and       |     information vital to disaster   |
| > patterns in scientific       |     situations                      |
| > journals article citations;  |                                     |
| > implications for how and     | -   extensive development of these  |
| > where an author's work is    |     sub-disciplines and specialties |
| > subsequently cited           |     to aid researchers interested   |
| >                              |     in investigating                |
| > **Co-citation analysis**:    |     interdisciplinarity             |
| > Literature coherence and     |                                     |
| > changes over a period of     | -   formal logic (Boolean operators |
| > time; maps oeuvres and their |     AND, OR, and NOT) to improve    |
| > authors relationship to      |     database searching              |
| > other oeuvres and authors    |                                     |
| >                              | -   formulation of national         |
| > **Content analysis**:        |     information policies related to |
| > Thesauri and frequency of    |     issues of privacy, security,    |
| > terms,                       |     regulating dissemination,       |
| > co-                          |     access, intellectual property,  |
| word/co-authorship/co-citation |     acceptable use                  |
| > analysis for                 |                                     |
| > interdisciplinarity purposes | -   concept of "library" as an      |
| >                              |     unbiased holder of all          |
| > **Cybermetrics**:            |     information regardless of       |
| > Quantitative aspects of the  |     content, political or moral     |
| > construction and use of      |     implications                    |
| > information resources,       |                                     |
| > structures and technologies  |                                     |
| > on the whole Internet        |                                     |
| > drawing on bibliometric and  |                                     |
| > informetric approaches       |                                     |
| >                              |                                     |
| > **Informetrics**:            |                                     |
| > Quantitative aspects of      |                                     |
| > information in any form, not |                                     |
| > just records or              |                                     |
| > bibliographies, and in any   |                                     |
| > social group, not just       |                                     |
| > scientists                   |                                     |
| >                              |                                     |
| > **Webometrics**:             |                                     |
| > Quantitative aspects of the  |                                     |
| > construction and use of      |                                     |
| > information resources,       |                                     |
| > structures and technologies  |                                     |
| > on the Web draws on          |                                     |
| > bibliometric and informetric |                                     |
| > approaches                   |                                     |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

#  

# Appendix B

## Librarianship and Information

Librarianship typically protects and preserves recorded information, as
well as advocates the rights and privacy of the information of American
citizens. Public libraries and universities lobby for changes in law to
benefit personal information rights of individuals. Librarians and
educators---many who consider the violation of privacy of information
rights to be disastrous---have been at the forefront of the fight for
information privacy for a couple of centuries. Many support the First,
Fourth, and Fifth Amendments from the 1791 Bill of Rights, quote Warren
and Brandeis' renowned 1890 article, *The Right to Privacy* and uphold
the Freedom of Information Act (1966), the Federal Privacy Act of 1974,
and the Electronic Privacy Act of 1986 where Congress realized the need
to protect private citizen records collected by the government.

### The Bill of Rights

The [Bill of
Rights](javascript:doWindowOpen('http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html','new_frame','width=600,height=420,menubar=1,toolbar=1,scrollbars=1,status=1,location=1,resizable=1,resizable=1',0))
was passed by the United States Congress on September 25, 1789. However
more than a century would pass before the judicial branch recognized and
implemented the right to privacy implications stated in the
[First](javascript:doWindowOpen('/SCRIPT/SLIS_LIBRARY_PRIVACY/scripts/student/serve_page.pl?1050598725+History/History.htm+OFF+Glossary/first.htm+','new_frame','width=600,height=420,menubar=1,toolbar=1,scrollbars=1,status=1,location=1,resizable=1,resizable=1',0)),
[Fourth](javascript:doWindowOpen('/SCRIPT/SLIS_LIBRARY_PRIVACY/scripts/student/serve_page.pl?1050598725+History/History.htm+OFF+Glossary/fourth.htm+','new_frame','width=600,height=420,menubar=1,toolbar=1,scrollbars=1,status=1,location=1,resizable=1,resizable=1',0)),
and
[Fifth](javascript:doWindowOpen('/SCRIPT/SLIS_LIBRARY_PRIVACY/scripts/student/serve_page.pl?1050598725+History/History.htm+OFF+Glossary/fifth.htm+','new_frame','width=600,height=420,menubar=1,toolbar=1,scrollbars=1,status=1,location=1,resizable=1,resizable=1',0))
Amendments. The First amendment addresses the right to privacy by giving
citizens the freedom of speech, interpreted by law to mean that citizens
have the freedom to express their thoughts, views, and preferences
without fear of retribution. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens'
privacy by ensuring that their personal possessions are not searched or
seized without warning and without "probable cause." The Fifth Amendment
protects citizens' private property from seizure for public use.

### The Right to Privacy

Warren and Brandeis introduced the idea that people have the freedom and
right, as American citizens, to expect that not only their tangible
possessions, but also their [intangible personal
information](javascript:doWindowOpen('/SCRIPT/SLIS_LIBRARY_PRIVACY/scripts/student/serve_page.pl?1050598725+History/History.htm+OFF+Glossary/intangible.htm+','new_frame','width=600,height=420,menubar=1,toolbar=1,scrollbars=1,status=1,location=1,resizable=1,resizable=1',0))---what
they think, believe, say, and read---to be safe from public intrusion.
If citizens disclose their thoughts in a private place, they have the
expectation that their private thoughts, their private information
remains in that private place.

### Freedom of Information Act (1966) 

The FOIA was enacted to allow persons to request access to federal
agency records or information. In response to the FOIA, states adopted
their own open records acts governing public access to state and local
records. However, exceptions were made in most states, including Texas,
to protect the confidentiality of library user records. In 1973, Texas
enacted the Texas Open Records Act, later to be revised as the Texas
Public Information Act of 1995 (The Act). The Act allowed the public
access to all government entity records, except for records containing
personal information about individuals. Library records---which includes
database search records; circulation records; interlibrary loan records;
other personally identifiable uses of library materials, facilities,
programs or services; and information obtained in reference
interviews---were exempt from disclosure except under certain
circumstances. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, American citizens were free
to walk into a library, pick out a magazine, sit down and read, and walk
out again without anyone knowing who they are, where they live, or what
they chose to read. These freedoms were understood unless a court issued
a subpoena showing probable cause that the disclosure of their records
was necessary to protect the public safety; the record was evidence of a
crime; or the record was evidence against a particular person who
committed a crime.

### Federal Privacy Act of 1974

The FOIA allowed access to government-held records. Some government-held
records contained confidential information about individuals. Congress
passed the Privacy Act in 1974 to ensure the protection of individual
privacy from data collected by the government. The law allows
individuals to view, copy, and correct their own records. It also
prevents agencies from sharing data.

### Electronic Privacy Act of 1986 

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) updated
wiretapping laws for digital communications. It banned the capture of
communications between network points \-- it protected electronic
communications while they are en route. However, in 1996, the FBI urged
Congress to pass the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 (Digital Telephony Act), a law that  forces telecommunications
carriers to design their systems so that law enforcement agencies can
tap into them if necessary.

## Librarianship and Online Information

Librarians also face decisions regarding library patrons' information
privacy on the Internet. Threats to online information include the USA
PATRIOT Act,Error: Reference source not found cookies, COPPA, and CIPA.

### Cookies

Library user's activities can be tracked using tiny text files, called
cookies. Because cookies reveal where users visit, when they visit, how
long they stay, what links they click, what purchases they make, and any
preferences they may have set during the session, most libraries find it
unethical to retain permanently the information saved in cookies.

### Children\'s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (2000)

The Children\'s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), went into effect
April 21, 2000 (Federal 1999). COPPA requires that commercial Web sites
must have documented parental consent to collect "personally
identifiable information (including an e-mail address) from children
(COPPA 2002). However, this law does not mean that librarians must
reveal to a parent what a child views on the Internet, or even what a
child reads.

### Children\'s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) (2000)

The Children\'s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a law passed by the
federal government in December, 2000 to speak to concerns regarding
children\'s access to the Internet from schools and libraries. CIPA
requires that institutions that receive federal E-Rate or Library
Services and Technology Act (LSTA) funds) filter all of its Internet
terminals to block access to sites defined as obscene, child
pornography, or harmful to minors.

# The American Library Association challenged the law in a Philadelphia district court in May 2002. The court ruled that CIPA violated first amendment rights of library users, however, the government appealed the decision. On June 23, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision and upheld CIPA ruling that CIPA does not violate the First Amendment. 

# Appendix C

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  *McEntire's disaster                                                       
  equation for                                                               
  information*                                                               
  ----------------------- ----------------- ------ --------------------- --- ---------------
  Example problems        Vulnerability     \+     Hazard\               =   Disaster
                                                   (Triggering Agent)        

  Unsealed storage room   Uncovered,        \+     Terrorism/Vandalism   =   Damaged or
                          unwrapped                                          destroyed
                          physical archives                                  books,
                                                                             artifacts,
                                                                             other
                                                                             historically
                                                                             significant
                                                                             objects

                                                   Heating/air               
                                                   conditioning failure      

                                                   Flood, tornado,           
                                                   hurricane,                
                                                   earthquake, etc.          

  Novice user             Unprotected or    \+     User error:           =   Loss or change
                          unduplicated             unintentional             of important
                          files                    pressing of delete        document(s),
                                                   key                       

  No virus protection                              Virus attack          =   Loss or damage
                                                                             of important
                                                                             documents

  Vague file security                              Unauthorized user     =   information
  policy                                           access                    leakage, theft
                                                                             of sensitive or
                                                                             private
                                                                             information

  No/inferior firewall                             Hacking               =   Stolen
                                                                             identity,
                                                                             credit
                                                                             information
                                                                             theft

  Faulty wiring                                    Power failure/surge   =   Loss or damage
                                                                             of important
                                                                             documents

  Poor ventilation                                 Heating/\             =   Loss or damage
                                                   air conditioning/         to: documents;
                                                   failure                   software;
                                                                             hardware

  Haphazard attitude      Failed/thwarted   \+     Cyberterrorism (using =   Destruction and
  toward warning systems  warning system           computer networks in      death from
                                                   the service of            terrorist acts
                                                   terrorism)                

  Adversaries to          Systems holding   \+     Information warfare   =   Propaganda
  information holders     sensitive                                          causing
                          information                                        destruction:
                                                                             denial of vital
                                                                             information;
                                                                             reception of
                                                                             false
                                                                             information

  Ambiguous               Cultural          \+     Cultural power        =   Limitation of
  Information/knowledge   differences              struggles                 human and/or
  policies/laws                                                              artificial
                                                                             knowledge
                                                                             (databases);
                                                                             inventory lists

  Ambiguous/absent        Communication     \+     Power failure/surge   =   Missing,
  document/information    inoperability            as a result natural       inaccurate
  sharing standards                                hazard; terrorism;        withheld, or
                                                   information security      selective
                                                   regulations               information

  Information scarcity    No/limited access                                  
  (i.e., Digital Divide)  to information                                     
                          warning systems                                    

  Sections 215 and 216 of Accessible        \+     Careless or impulsive =   Breach of
  the USA PATRIOT Act     sensitive private        law enforcement           anonymity,
                          information                                        autonomy,
                                                                             privacy rights
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#  Appendix D {#appendix-d .Heading1}

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| *G.R.O.U.P. |                                                        |
| D.Y.N.      |                                                        |
| A.M.I.C.S.: |                                                        |
| Major       |                                                        |
| Properties  |                                                        |
| of Task     |                                                        |
| Groups*     |                                                        |
+=============+========================================================+
| Goals       | Groups in EM organizations are impacted by the goals   |
|             | throughout every phase of the disaster management's    |
|             | decision process. A goal is the desired final status   |
|             | of the situation, the consensus opinion,               |
|             | recommendation, or mandate (Anderson, Riddle and       |
|             | Martin, 1999). The intensity of an individual's        |
|             | commitment to the group's goal is dependent upon the   |
|             | ability of the members to give and receive information |
|             | that will help them attain the group's goal (Allen and |
|             | Meyer, 1990).                                          |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Roles       | "A role is a set of communicative behaviors performed  |
|             | by an individual and involves the behaviors performed  |
|             | by one member in light of the expectations that other  |
|             | members hold toward these behaviors" (Ellis and        |
|             | Fisher, 1994). As EM groups work out their own roles   |
|             | in cooperation with other team members, each member    |
|             | takes on a role that differentiates him or her from    |
|             | the other group members. A major influence on role     |
|             | development is the openness of the group to outside    |
|             | advice. Group roles form because of intergroup         |
|             | interaction, but more quickly identified through       |
|             | outside input. As open systems, outside influences not |
|             | only impact the shaping of the roles, but also the     |
|             | shaping of the incoming and outgoing information.      |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Openness    | Although EM organizations are open systems, they must  |
|             | also draw on their system's ability to consider the    |
|             | integrity of the input. Propp (1999) sets forth this   |
|             | filtered input and coordinated output of information   |
|             | in her Distillation Model of CIP (collective           |
|             | information processing). CIP is a distillation process |
|             | that progresses from a substantial collective          |
|             | knowledge base to a distilled information base that is |
|             | purged of irrelevant or unsound information. A         |
|             | decision is then brought forth based on the final      |
|             | collective information. Propp describes four           |
|             | developmental stages in the Model: 1) individual       |
|             | knowledge base---knowledge that each member brings to  |
|             | the group concerning the task; 2) group knowledge      |
|             | base---collective knowledge available to a group as a  |
|             | whole; 3) communicated information base---information  |
|             | exchanged and shaped through group discussion; 4)      |
|             | final collective information base---information        |
|             | accepted and utilized by a group to come to a decision |
|             | (Propp, 1999).                                         |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Unity       | This separate identity---a group within an EM          |
|             | organization for instance, assumes the qualities of a  |
|             | system. Groups, as systems, demonstrate unity in three |
|             | ways: *wholeness* (Appendix E) *, groupness,* and      |
|             | *synergy* (Mabry, 1999) .                              |
|             |                                                        |
|             | *Groupness* was mentioned for the first time in 1967   |
|             | by John Brilhart. Brilhart described groupness as a    |
|             | property only found in real groups---groups of         |
|             | individuals who perceive themselves as a group.        |
|             | According to Brilhart, groupness evolves slowly---and  |
|             | is developed as the group becomes cohesive (Ellis and  |
|             | Fisher, 1994). More research could show what events or |
|             | situations accelerate or decelerate the development of |
|             | unity.                                                 |
|             |                                                        |
|             | The other aspect of unity is found in *synergy*---from |
|             | the Greek word sunergos, which means "working          |
|             | together." Synergy empowers groups to make better      |
|             | decisions. The combination of ideas generated by       |
|             | brainstorming is an example of synergy---the outcome   |
|             | is usually greater than a simple summation of          |
|             | individual ideas (Harris and Sherblom, 2002).          |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Unity fosters compromise, cooperation, and consensus.  |
|             | Unified groups begin to adopt methods to facilitate    |
|             | their performance as a group: they adopt procedures to |
|             | facilitate discussion, analyses, creativity, and       |
|             | agreement.                                             |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Procedures  | Although formal procedures are time-consuming, there   |
|             | is sufficient evidence to suggest that formal          |
|             | discussion and problem-solving procedures improve      |
|             | group performance (Poole, M., 1991). Further in-depth  |
|             | study could determine what procedures to use for       |
|             | specific situations. One assumption is that the        |
|             | choices are largely dependent upon how culturally      |
|             | diverse the members are. The philosophical approach to |
|             | group formation and problem solving varies between     |
|             | cultures---and task groups like those found in EM      |
|             | organizations, are becoming more and more culturally   |
|             | diverse with the increased participation of ethnic     |
|             | minorities.                                            |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Diversity   | The most significant difference among cultures is      |
|             | attributed to value differences between                |
|             | individualistic and collectivistic cultures. When      |
|             | working in task groups, people from individualistic    |
|             | Western cultures, like the United States, tend to      |
|             | concentrate primarily on the task dimension and        |
|             | secondarily on the social dimension. Conversely,       |
|             | people from collectivist cultures---East Asia, Latin   |
|             | America, and Africa---tend to concentrate primarily on |
|             | the social dimension and secondarily on the task       |
|             | dimension (Jetten, Postmes and McAuliffe, 2002; Sosik  |
|             | and Jung, 2002).                                       |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Individualistic and collectivistic values also affect  |
|             | group interactions and consequently, group outcomes.   |
|             | Individualistic members cultivate task roles early on  |
|             | whereas collectivistic members cultivate social roles  |
|             | first, however Oetzel (2001) did not find that groups  |
|             | composed of both individualistic and collectivistic    |
|             | members had communication problems. Surprisingly, even |
|             | in individualistic cultures like the United States, EM |
|             | team members can become unusually devoted to the       |
|             | social dimension, particularly groups with a highly    |
|             | powerful or persuasive leader who encourages           |
|             | yea-saying---blind support of the members to every     |
|             | view or suggestion of the leader.                      |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Yea-saying  | Yea-saying, also called *groupthink* was outlined by   |
|             | Janis (1982) who believed that certain conditions were |
|             | indicative of a tendency to promote the urgency of a   |
|             | quick consensus. Janis conditions for groupthink to    |
|             | occur are: cohesive decision-makers;                   |
|             | isolated/insulated group---no external influences;     |
|             | members with similar backgrounds and attitudes;        |
|             | provocative, stressful situations and outside          |
|             | pressures.                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Although the groupthink theory has been said to lack   |
|             | generalizability (Chen and Lawson, 1996; Park, 2000),  |
|             | Janis' theory has been used to entertainingly describe |
|             | many U.S. presidential decision fiascoes including     |
|             | Roosevelt's complacency before Pearl Harbor, Truman's  |
|             | invasion of North Korea, Kennedy's Bay of Pigs         |
|             | failure, Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War, and  |
|             | Nixon's Watergate ignominy. (If Janis updated his      |
|             | presidential study, he might include Carter's          |
|             | political asylum for the Shah of Iran, Reagan's Iran   |
|             | Contra affair, Ford's pardon of Nixon, George Bush's   |
|             | leadership in the Gulf War, Clinton's approval of the  |
|             | Branch Davidian raid, and George W. Bush's rush into   |
|             | Iraq.) Now that groupthink is a relatively known term, |
|             | a current study of high-profile leaders could be very  |
|             | enlightening.                                          |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Groupthink is highly observable in EM, especially when |
|             | the decisions impact nations. Equally as powerful, yet |
|             | nearly invisible, are social norms, the most           |
|             | influential form of group control.                     |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Norms       | Norms are "regular patterns of behavior or thinking    |
|             | that come to be accepted in a group as the usual way   |
|             | of doing things (Keyton, 1999)" Unlike rules, which    |
|             | are explicit guidelines of behavior, norms are         |
|             | implicit guidelines of behavior that emerge as the     |
|             | group evolves. These conventions, though unsaid, are   |
|             | powerful enough to shape group members' conduct,       |
|             | viewpoints, and interaction. Norms become apparent     |
|             | early in the group's formation. They are typically     |
|             | developed as members observe each other and become     |
|             | cohesive. What is acceptable and not acceptable is     |
|             | just understood as group members come to know each     |
|             | other. Norms and rules determine how, when, and why    |
|             | decisions are made; they also are instrumental in      |
|             | whether a leader emerges from the membership or if the |
|             | group members maintain equal status. The understood    |
|             | rules dictate how an EM team evaluates and allocates   |
|             | authority---a concept that suggests leadership, as     |
|             | well as power.                                         |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Authority   | Studies show that most groups need a leader to plan    |
|             | meetings and empower members to carry out tasks.       |
|             | Leaders are also ultimately responsible for the        |
|             | management of conflict. So called "leaderless" groups  |
|             | usually have an unofficial leader that gradually       |
|             | assumes the leadership role (Brown and Miller, 2000;   |
|             | Ellis and Fisher, 1994) This "leader emergence" is     |
|             | evident in many groups, especially groups that must    |
|             | make critical decisions. Leader emergence is found to  |
|             | be common in emergent groups at disaster scenes.       |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Some outstanding leaders are faced with contentious    |
|             | groups: groups composed of dominators, aggressors,     |
|             | conformists, or naysayers. Most leaders, however, find |
|             | that their greatest challenge is managing members who  |
|             | consistently conform to majority or minority           |
|             | influence.                                             |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Majori      | The majority/minority concept discussed here does not  |
| ty/minority | relate to consensus---it instead refers to tendencies  |
|             | of task group members to be influenced to conform to a |
|             | majority opinion or minority opinion. Little research  |
|             | has been done in this area, however, studies have      |
|             | shown that minority dissent is many times as powerful  |
|             | in swaying group decision as is majority consent       |
|             | (Hartley, 1997). Interactions among group members and  |
|             | members of majority and minority subgroups should be   |
|             | examined to determine the communication similarities   |
|             | and dissimilarities. Recent research shows that having |
|             | a small majority consensus---52% to 48%---sways the    |
|             | undecided members toward the majority view as much as  |
|             | having a large majority consensus---82% to 18%         |
|             | (Martin, Gardikiotis and Hewstone, 2002).              |
|             | Interestingly, minority influences were posited to be  |
|             | stronger, regardless of the consensus size, if their   |
|             | views were highly distinctive from the majority views. |
|             | A markedly atypical view is given even greater         |
|             | consideration by group members (Hartley, 1997).        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Inte        | Interdependence is apparent in the group system as     |
| rdependence | members interact and respond to each other. The        |
|             | attributes of the members---personality, skills,       |
|             | attitudes---affect the experiences of all of the other |
|             | members in the group. These attributes of all of the   |
|             | members also affect cohesiveness, relationships, and   |
|             | member satisfaction. Conversely, cohesiveness,         |
|             | relationships, and member satisfaction affect the      |
|             | behaviors and attitudes of all of group members.       |
|             |                                                        |
|             | The output of the task dimension is productivity; the  |
|             | output of the social dimension is cohesiveness---which |
|             | are also interdependent. The more productive the group |
|             | is, the more cohesive it is. The more cohesive the     |
|             | group is, the more productive it is (Bonito, 2002;     |
|             | Ellis and Fisher, 1994; Harris and Sherblom, 2002;     |
|             | Keyton, 1999; Mabry, 1999; Meyers and Brashers, 1999)  |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Conflict    | Conflict can be defined as recognition by all group    |
|             | members that there are differences, disagreements,     |
|             | contradictory or irreconcilable desires among group    |
|             | members (Sell, Lovaglia, Mannix, Samuelson and Wilson, |
|             | 2004). Conflict can be exacerbated or diminished based |
|             | on group behaviors during a heated discussion          |
|             | (Sillince, 2000). Conflict can be described as either  |
|             | affective or substantive. Affective conflict involves  |
|             | an emotional conflict or struggle that is usually      |
|             | based on selfish or personal issues. It may involve    |
|             | differences of opinions, interpretation of rules, or   |
|             | attitudes toward established norms.                    |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Substantive conflict involves intellectual opposition  |
|             | to the content of ideas or issues pertinent to the     |
|             | decision. It may involve bargaining, negotiations, or  |
|             | intellectual evaluation. The advantages to conflict    |
|             | outnumber the disadvantages.                           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Structure   | Interdependence also exists in the flow of information |
|             | between and among EM team members. As the members      |
|             | sharing of information becomes more organized, a       |
|             | structure becomes evident. This structure includes     |
|             | both intangible and tangible frameworks that organize  |
|             | group interaction. Two forms of group structure are    |
|             | networks and proxemics. Networks are links between and |
|             | among members that develop into recurrent patterns for |
|             | the exchange of information. Proxemics, sometimes      |
|             | called group ecology, is concerned with how group      |
|             | members arrange, use and are affected by physical      |
|             | space in their interaction with others.                |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

# Appendix E

+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| ## G        |                         |                              |
| roups as op |                         |                              |
| en systems  |                         |                              |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| System      | System                  | EM organization              |
| concepts    |                         |                              |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Wholeness   | -   Every component of  | -   Every member affects and |
|             |     a system affects    |     is affected by every     |
|             |     and is affected by  |     other member.            |
|             |     every other         |                              |
|             |     component.          |                              |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
|             | -   The system, though  | -   The organization, though |
|             |     it has many         |     it has many members,     |
|             |     components, assumes |     assumes an identity as a |
|             |     an identity as a    |     unit.                    |
|             |     unit.               |                              |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
|             | -   A change in one     | -   A change in one member   |
|             |     component effects   |     effects changes in all   |
|             |     changes in all      |     other members            |
|             |     other components    |                              |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
|             | -   The whole is        | -   The outcome of           |
|             |     different from the  |     collaboration is         |
|             |     sum of the parts    |     different from the       |
|             |                         |     combined outcomes of the |
|             |                         |     same people working      |
|             |                         |     alone.                   |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Openness    | -   An open system      | -   A group self-regulates:  |
|             |     self-regulates: it  |     it receives and examines |
|             |     receives processes  |     new information for      |
|             |     new information,    |     relevance and            |
|             |     then discards what  |     reliability, then        |
|             |     it does not need to |     discards the irrelevant  |
|             |     survive.            |     and unreliable.          |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
|             | -   It freely exchanges | -   Group members interact   |
|             |     information with    |     outside the group,       |
|             |     the environment.    |     freely exchanging ideas. |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Structure   | -   All systems have    | -   Group members have       |
|             |     spatial             |     spatial relationships as |
|             |     relationships:      |     explained by positions   |
|             |     components that are |     within a communication   |
|             |     above, below,       |     network.                 |
|             |     beside, behind, or  |                              |
|             |     facing.             |                              |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Function    | -   Each component of a | -   Each member in a group   |
|             |     system has a        |     has a role that          |
|             |     function that       |     complements other group  |
|             |     complements the     |     roles.                   |
|             |     other components.   |                              |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Evolution   | -   Systems             | -   Groups continuously      |
|             |     continuously        |     transform as they        |
|             |     transform through   |     interact.                |
|             |     interactive         |                              |
|             |     processes.          |                              |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Inte        | -   System components   | -   Group members depend on  |
| rdependence |     depend on other     |     other group members to   |
|             |     components for      |     fulfill their goals.     |
|             |     proper functioning  |                              |
|             |     and replenishing.   |                              |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Feedback    | -   A system sustains   | -   A group sustains and     |
|             |     and adapts through  |     adapts through the cycle |
|             |     feedback: responses |     of interaction and       |
|             |     to input and        |     feedback among its       |
|             |     output.             |     members.                 |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| > (Bales,   |                         |                              |
| > 1999;     |                         |                              |
| > Fisher,   |                         |                              |
| > A., 1974; |                         |                              |
| > Hare, A.  |                         |                              |
| > Paul,     |                         |                              |
| > 1962;     |                         |                              |
| > Mabry,    |                         |                              |
| > 1999)     |                         |                              |
+-------------+-------------------------+------------------------------+

#  Appendix F

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## OSIS/RAINS Background                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| OSIS is based on RAINS established Connect & Protect program, a wide  |
| area network project that connects schools, government agencies and   |
| other organizations in Portland, Oregon (Fisher, D., 2004). Connect & |
| Protect program -- a cooperative effort between RAINS and the City of |
| Portland\'s Bureau of Emergency Communications (BOEC) -- allows the   |
| conveyance of real-time emergency information among more than 60      |
| local public safety stakeholders including 911 centers, schools,      |
| hospitals, hotels, and banks. Alerts can be received through PCs,     |
| personal digital assistants or cellular phones (RAINS, 2004). BOEC    |
| was the first 9-1-1 Dispatch Center in the country to participate in  |
| this program. Oregon's 9-1-1 center simultaneously implemented        |
| Connect & Protect with RAINS-Net in Portland, in August 2003. RAINS   |
| designed the program to be a "scalable, affordable model" (below) and |
| therefore usable anywhere -- locally or nationally in cities and      |
| rural areas.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image2.png){width="4.049305555555556in"                     |
| height="2.2465277777777777in"}                                        |
|                                                                       |
| RAINS began as a result of 9/11, 2001. Several Oregon companies       |
| united as Oregon RAINS, a regional emergency response network. RAINS  |
| grew to include more than 60 companies and six research universities  |
| by the time it deployed RAINS-Net in 2003 (Jackson, 2004).            |
|                                                                       |
| Since then it has recruited agencies in two states, Virginia and      |
| Washington -- RAINS is optimistic that OSIS will attract at least 10  |
| states in the near future. Already it is the first "statewide system  |
| in the country that will be able to send emergency alerts securely    |
| online" (Robinson, 2003).                                             |
|                                                                       |
| RAINS hopes that OSIS can become the nation's prototype for sensitive |
| information exchange (Robinson, 2004). Wyatt Starnes, co-founder of   |
| RAINS, confirmed that OSIS encourages the use of specialized Web      |
| Services and additional standards including XML, Common Alert         |
| Protocol, WS-Security, WS-Security Policy, WS-Trust, SAML -- but it   |
| does not force users to follow specific form when implementing these  |
| services (What\'s next? 2004). RAINS believes its major advantage of  |
| OSIS is its non-proprietary approach -- it can be used by both        |
| government and private organizations who need to share sensitive      |
| information without forgoing free market competition (ESRI, 2004;     |
| RAINS-Gauge, 2004). Currently, all government and first responder     |
| organizations using the RAINS-Net system are employing OSIS (What\'s  |
| next? 2004).                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

#  Appendix G

## Homeland Security Act (2002)

### Section 201: Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection

To review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements in the
policies and procedures governing the sharing of law enforcement
information, intelligence information, intelligence-related information,
and other information relating to homeland security within the Federal
Government and between the Federal Government and State and local
government agencies and authorities.

The major purpose of the Act was to establish the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) whose "primary mission is to protect our
Homeland" (Bush, G. W., 2002). The DHS outlined seven priorities for
completion in 2005. Priorities 1, 2, and 5 specifically address tactics
to develop shareable information systems.

### Priority 1

The DHS intends to establish a Homeland Security Information Network
(HSIN), a computer-based counterterrorism communications network
designed to strengthen the two-way flow of threat information that will
be available to all 50 states, 5 territories, Washington, D.C., and 50
other major urban areas. Its major function will be to prevent terrorist
attacks, but it may also serve as a tool during crisis management. (DHS
Press Office, 2004).

### Priority 2

The DHS intends to initiate measures that will significantly improve
interoperability among firefighters, police officers and other emergency
personnel who need to be in contact and share equipment during
catastrophes.

### Priority 5

The DHS intends to implement the National Incident Management System
(NIMS). NIMS will offer a "consistent nationwide template to enable
federal, state, local and tribal governments and private-sector
organizations to work together effectively to prepare for, prevent,
respond to, and recover from a terrorist attack or other major disaster"
(United States Department of Homeland Security, 2005).

# 

[^1]: Interestingly, there are 1.375 million nonprofit organizations in
    the U.S. with 11 million meetings being held daily (Weitzel and
    Geist, 1998). In spite of this incredible number of meetings---and
    the importance of smooth information flow in and among EM
    organizations---public management organizations conduct few field
    studies in information flow.

[^2]: Some historical accounts attribute the Library's obliteration to
    Julius Caesar during the Roman civil war. While chasing the mutinous
    General Pompey, Caesar ordered his soldiers to burn the Egyptian
    fleet. Some accounts report that the fire spread into Alexandria and
    into the Library. Other accounts blame the destruction on a
    religious dispute around 391 A.D. Alexandrian Jews were attempting
    to burn down a Christian church when flames engulfed the nearby
    Library. The third rendition of the loss of the Library involves the
    Moslems who seized Alexandria in 640 A.D. Accusers blame the Moslem
    leader, Caliph Omar for burning all the books upon hearing that the
    Library contained "all the knowledge of the world." Caliph Omar
    supposedly said about the Library's holdings that "they will either
    contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will
    agree with it, so they are superfluous" (Chesser, 2005).

[^3]: Attorney General John Ashcroft, who urged Congress during the
    aftermath of the 9/11 to expand governmental powers in order to
    fight terrorism more aggressively, instigated the legislation
    leading to the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act quickly became law
    October 21, 2001 without the customary consultation and hearings of
    Congressional committees. The PATRIOT Act expanded the authority of
    law enforcement agencies to allow access to records previously
    protected by open records laws. The PATRIOT Act, up for reenactment
    in 2005, made changes to many laws that can apply to library records
    and confidentiality. The amendments expanded the authority of law
    enforcement agencies. Agents can use wiretaps without making sure
    the target is actually using the phone to be tapped ([Section
    206](javascript:doWindowOpen('/SCRIPT/SLIS_LIBRARY_PRIVACY/scripts/student/serve_page.pl?1050598725+Current/effect.htm+OFF+Current/206roving.htm+','new_frame','width=600,height=420,menubar=1,toolbar=1,scrollbars=1,status=1,location=1,resizable=1,resizable=1',0))).
    They can also access library circulation records, Internet use
    records, and registration information (electronic or printed) using
    [gag
    orders](javascript:doWindowOpen('/SCRIPT/SLIS_LIBRARY_PRIVACY/scripts/student/serve_page.pl?1050598725+Current/effect.htm+OFF+Glossary/gagorders.htm+','new_frame','width=600,height=420,menubar=1,toolbar=1,scrollbars=1,status=1,location=1,resizable=1,resizable=1',0))
    and without demonstrating [probable
    cause](javascript:doWindowOpen('/SCRIPT/SLIS_LIBRARY_PRIVACY/scripts/student/serve_page.pl?1050598725+Current/effect.htm+OFF+Glossary/probable.htm+','new_frame','width=600,height=420,menubar=1,toolbar=1,scrollbars=1,status=1,location=1,resizable=1,resizable=1',0))
    ([Section
    215](javascript:doWindowOpen('/SCRIPT/SLIS_LIBRARY_PRIVACY/scripts/student/serve_page.pl?1050598725+Current/effect.htm+OFF+Current/215accessFISA.htm+','new_frame','width=600,height=420,menubar=1,toolbar=1,scrollbars=1,status=1,location=1,resizable=1,resizable=1',0))).
    They can also monitor library computer use including Internet,
    email, IP addresses and Web page URLs ([Section
    216](javascript:doWindowOpen('/SCRIPT/SLIS_LIBRARY_PRIVACY/scripts/student/serve_page.pl?1050598725+Current/effect.htm+OFF+Current/216pentrap.htm+','new_frame','width=600,height=420,menubar=1,toolbar=1,scrollbars=1,status=1,location=1,resizable=1,resizable=1',0))).

[^4]: A group is a collection of at least three people who interact with
    each other, display interdependence, establish roles within an open
    communication system, have a sense of unity and identity, maintain
    norms, and share common motives or goals with the intention of
    making a decision (Brilhart, 1978; Ellis and Fisher, 1994; Hare, A.
    Paul, 1962; Harris and Sherblom, 2002).

[^5]: Shannon & Weaver, 1947, Modified. Claude Shannon, a research
    scientist at Bell Telephone Company, attempted to maximize telephone
    line capacity with minimal distortion. He probably intended his
    mathematical theory of signal transmission for use with telephone
    technology only.