I just posted on the subject of Liability and Volunteers in
disaster in an effort to provide a comprehensive resource that would hopefully
add clarity to this complex and multi-faceted issue. In my continued
exploration of the subject I came across the Commons Lab at the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. In a nutshell, the
Commons Lab "seeks to advance research and independent policy analysis of
emerging technologies, with an emphasis on their social, legal, and ethical
implications." They have articles on:
Basically, they have lots of interesting things to read that focus
on the nexus of emerging technological platforms and their role in creating
social change...but the article that caught my attention is this: Responding to Liability: Evaluating and Reducing Tort
Liability for Digital Volunteers, apropos given Friday’s posting.
Responding to Liability: Evaluating and Reducing Tort Liability for Digital Volunteers
Full Disclosure, I didn't know what a Tort was...so for those of
you who aren't up on your legal terminology a Tort is:
A civil
wrong which unfairly causes
someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal
liability for the person who
commits the tortious act, called a tortfeasor. (Thanks Wikipedia)
The article focuses on Digital Volunteers and the liability issues
that come with engaging in this brave new digital world in a post-disaster
context. Because of the application of Volunteers in this way is so new, courts
are still evaluating the potential exposure individuals and groups face by
engaging in these types of activities. In the absence of definitive guidance, the
article outlines challenges and opportunities related to Liability and the innovative
work being done along the digital frontier.
An aspect of the article that surprised me though is that it
focuses on the group rather than the individual and encourages as a mitigation strategy
the instituting and formalization of processes and procedures through
incorporation. For some
reason I see this strategy as running counter to what makes this form of
Volunteering so attractive to so many: anonymity and autonomy. While it’s
easier to plug in and help an already established structure that has definition
than acting on your own, I feel that one of the aspects of virtual engagement
that appeals to so many is the freedom to do and act how they see fit given the
context. It’s with this belief that I find the focus on the group over the
individual surprising.
As more discussion and
opportunities to see firsthand how Virtual Volunteers engage in response, as
both individuals and groups become available, the ability to forecast how best
to indemnify these good Samaritans will become clearer.
Until then, if you are
interested in lending a digital hand the hashtag #SMEM (Social Media Emergency
Management) or groups like crisis mappers, Ushahidi, or VOSTs (Virtual
Operation Support Teams) are good ways to learn more about the opportunities
that exist.
One thing is for certain,
the way in which Volunteers engage in response and recovery efforts are
changing, and while it may be difficult to accurately foresee all the speed
bumps along the way towards their seamless integration, the energy and desire
to help those in need is always welcomed.
No comments :
Post a Comment