…as geographers we are always trying to tell a persuasive story, one that will convince others, and stand up to their rigorous and perhaps skeptical scrutiny. Whether the story is told quietly, or infused with a sense of strident urgency, all convincing descriptions lie within rhetoric – the old, and in its original meaning thoroughly honorable, art of persuasion.

Peter Gould, The Geographer At World (1985: 325)

It is entirely appropriate to contest Dobson’s and Fisher’s claim that “the countless benefits of LBS are countered by social hazards unparalleled in human history” (p. 47). I note the Oregon State team’s concern that public should not be given “the wrong impression that GIS technology is ‘bad technology.’” I sense a slight misreading of the authors’ rhetorical intent, however.

The section of the Oregon State team’s wonderful Web resource called “A Response to the Dobson and Fisher article” notes that the term “alarmist” implies that “a message is false or exaggerated.” It follows that alarmism is either malicious or capricious, neither quite honorable. If “alarmist” were to be placed on one end of a continuum of attitudes about geospatial technologies, the other end might be “boosterist.” The continuum of attitudes that concern Dobson and Fisher, I think, ranges from “unaware” to “aware,” or perhaps from “unquestioning” to “critical.” They are no more alarmist about the risks than they are boosterist about the benefits they cite, if I read them right.

The Oregon State team argues that while “the threat of abuse is real … it can be effectively prevented.” Much to their credit, the Web resource includes useful statistics on slavery and human trafficking, as well as a list of concrete actions that can be taken to prevent such criminal activity. If it is true that awareness of an abuse is prerequisite to its prevention, then Dobson’s and Fisher’s rhetorical intent is valid. Perhaps, as Professor Dobson suggested, the medium of asynchronous and asynchorous (different places) communications rendered the rhetoric, and the subsequent discussion, less effective than it otherwise might have been. In any event, the thoughtful and useful Web resource attests to the importance of the topic, and reflects well on the scholarship and conscientiousness of the Oregon State team. I thank you all for the contribution. This has been an enlightening experience, in several ways.

Best wishes for the holidays,
David (Dibiase, Penn State)