A9.com: Gotta Be Something Wrong With This
So here's a technology and ethics question I can't answer.
Suppose I'm doing some research at work, and don't want to incur Lexis's charges. (There's something in me that rejects the idea of paying for Lexis fees for preliminary research, given that often I'm just correcting my ignorance of a matter, rather than hitting the complicated facts.) Heretofore, I've mostly used Google to find some basic sources and plan out a research strategy before even thinking of a paid research database. But that's slowly changing.
In the last few days, I've taken to using both Google and A9, Amazon's search engine, though not at work (update: and not for work purposes), for reasons I describe below. A9 doesn't have the scope that Google does, but it's curiously good at indexing legal websites, which gives it an edge on legal issues. And more importantly, it gives me a history of websearches stored in folders. Nowadays, I often find myself searching with both Amazon and Google simultaneously, seeing what I can find before I have to hit a pay service: Google for the better results, Amazon for the history.
What worries me about this is the idea of using it at work. First, there's the confidentiality issue: if A9 is storing searches under my name, then presumably they're able to figure out (a) what I was searching for, and perhaps (b) why I wanted it. There may be client confidentiality concerns with regards to this. (On the other hand, I may be being overly, or perhaps insufficiently paranoid. After all, it wouldn't take much for Google to compile a similar dossier on me, although it would be slightly more difficult because they'd have to use IP tracking.) I haven't really thought that one through yet.
But secondly, A9 offers a discount on Amazon purchases if you use it over a certain amount. As of yet, I've not reached that threshold, but given the amount of research I do, I'm sure I'll hit it soon. That benefit, of course, is keyed to my account, and couldn't be recouped by either my employer or any client for whom I might be researching.
So what I'm wondering is this: do I run into any ethical problems from accepting a discount for using a research tool for client work? (Update: As I said, I've not used it at work yet, so I guess that ought to be, "Would I run into any ethical problems?")
Update: On the other hand, I may simply stop using Amazon on moral, rather than ethical grounds:
How can we afford this?
Sponsored links revenue — from the small text-based ads on A9.com and Amazon.com search results pages — will help offset costs we incur through the Instant Reward promotion. With our automatic π/2% Instant Reward, we are effectively sharing with you some of the money we collect from sponsored links, i.e. sharing the pi.
I don't know if it's against the Model Rules, but puns like that are simply evil.
Comments
Don't Westlaw and Lexis store searches as well? In any case, if you're really concerned about this, you could just sign out.
Not quite understanding the ethical dilemma regarding the discount. For example, I have free Lexis and Westlaw access this summer because I'm working for a professor. If during the course of that access, I accumulate points through playing their games or whatever, I don't feel like I'm cheating the professor or the service. Like A9 probably does, they want me to become addicted to their services, and will give out candy to get my time.tdlesmyPosted by: PG | June 5, 2005 11:04 AM
As I see it, this is really no different from paying for a business expense using a creditcard with 1% cashback and then claiming your receipts.
Posted by: Bateleur | June 5, 2005 11:05 AM
Right, PG, but if you sign out, you lose the ability to store your search history--it doesn't have a logon ID with which to record your searches--and so the whole advantage of using A9 drops by the wayside.
Further, there's a huge difference between being a research assistant to a law professor, and being in a law firm. I may be wrong here--tell me if I am, please--but being a research assistant doesn't fall within the scope of "provision of legal services" such that it invokes the Model Rules at all.
In any event, the confidentiality concerns with Lexis and Westlaw are much smaller. They are, after all, meant to be used by lawyers, and while I've not looked into it, I'd suspect there's much more in the way of ironclad guarantees of privacy between Lexis and its customers. After all, Lexis isn't (I hope) getting rich off reselling customer information.
Posted by: A. Rickey | June 5, 2005 11:09 AM
It's not in a legal setting, but back before the USPTO trademark database was online for free on the Web, I had to do quite a lot of trademark searchs on Compuserve for my employer, on my personal account. They had no problem with paying the marginal cost of the searchs, whether or not I got any use-based discounts or bonuses to my account for it.
And Dialog and friends have always given bulk discounts when you pass certain usage tiers, and freelance info miners normally recoup the lower costs as profit, same as in ANY other industry when the materials cost falls with bulk and your retail price stays the same, and profit rises.
You wouldn't even be charging clients per search since A9 is free for you to use, and it sounds like the billed time savings to the client from your use of the history feature probably even saves them money, so I don't myself see a conflict.
Do read that privacy policy fine print, though!
gysfjPosted by: David Mercer | June 5, 2005 06:34 PM
You could ask your employer about using Google and A9.
lopelvPosted by: buddha | June 5, 2005 09:18 PM
After all, Lexis isn't (I hope) getting rich off reselling customer information.
Not very much, but other people may be.
Posted by: PG | June 6, 2005 12:21 AM
There's no ethical problem with collecting the discount yourself, just as you don't have an ethical obligation to turn down frequent flier miles collected on business trips. Enjoy!
As for the confidentiality concerns: You do (or more properly your supervisor does) have an obligation to keep client information confidential. How that impacts your specific duty here is somewhat contingent; disclosure that you were looking for standards of relevancy under the Federal Rules of Evidence is unlikely to compromise client confidences, whereas a more specific search into, say, the enforceability in foreign jurisdictions of anti-sandbagging clauses may reveal or jeopardize your client's business moves. If disclosure of your searches could hurt the client, and if searching on A9 will or might result in such disclosure, you're obligated to keep to the more discrete Westlaw & Lexis. But that's an individual determination you have to make for each search.
cefaPosted by: Tony the Pony | June 6, 2005 02:41 PM
Why not create two separate accounts on Amazon, one for personal use and one for business use? Then you can keep the two sides separate.
cycjPosted by: RM | August 3, 2005 11:39 AM