Good question, I was also thinking of this when reading about the Explore 9/11 app. I think the main concern is what kind of narrative form mobile storytellers choose to use and whether this narrative form is appropriate in the context of the disaster. For example, I would see a dramatization of a tragic event bordering on inappropriate especially as it puts viewers in the position of experiencing or re-living the event again and again. I think hearing the stories and experiences of those who actually lived through the event is much more appropriate and gives a mobile story much more dynamic range. There are so many ways to look at any given event, I suppose it depends on what aspect of that event mobile storytellers are trying to memorialize. 

On the other hand, I think timing plays a part as well. There are people who reenact the Civil War everyday to which many people do not find offense. In any type of storytelling based on natural disasters and tragic events, the storyteller should always step back and think about how he/she should time the release of a story in order to not cause offense to any individuals or groups. 

I agree with Kapiolani about timing. As they say "time heals wounds." At the same time we should also be sensitive to those are were or knew of people who were personally affected by these disasters. People are more sensitive to a certain issue when it's still fresh in their memory so memorializing disasters should be taken with sensitive with people's connection to the disaster. 

Excellent question, Marc! Kapio and Godwin really are hitting the nail on the head with these explanations. Timing is absolutely key. It is excellent to have these mobile applications up and running quickly, but there is also a huge key to succeeding, which Godwin brought up very precisely, doing so in a cautious manner that doesn't upset those who are hurting because of their connection to the disaster. A lot of times, people think they are helping to solve a problem when it is really just reopening a wound.

Great food for thought, Marc! 

I like the idea of having multiple narratives, sometimes overlapping and sometimes not, that are part of the mobile storytelling environment (embedded in the same place); there actually is a subfield of studies on "dark" tourism, which some of you might find interesting to look into, but, I think, it's natural for people to want to learn about, and respond to tragic situations, whether those are very recent, like the school shootings in Oregon (maybe embedded memorials would work well in that case), or historical, like in the Civil War example. In our Blackfeet app project, http://sixtyfourflood.com/, which I think touches on many of these same questions and issues, we were focused primarily on giving voice to the disenfranchised (who did not have the opportunity to speak much about this tragedy when it happened, 50 years ago). There are many serious ethical issues with embedding information in a place, particularly when it relates to inscribing meaning to a living person, and how that person must face the inscription at all times while in that place, or when thought of in relation to that place. It's sort of like spraying graffiti on the wall, in a sense, if people can see it, and there is no legitimate way to respond. So maybe a key ethical element in this sort of storytelling is the development of agency in the audience, in which people have the sovereignty to interpret and respond to place-based stories in their own ways (as in saying not all stories are "read" the same way by the entire audience), and they also have ways to comment on the stories, add to them and build them, provide counter-narratives and complementary narratives, to basically open up the story space to all who want to participate.