3 ms·

Just curious, and I'm genuinely asking as someone who thought the letter seemed well-intentioned: what should they have put in the apology letter?

by rajup 5y ago

spectralblu 5y ago
> we did that because we knew we could not ask the maintainers of Linux for permission, or they would be on the lookout for the hypocrite patches. This bit just reads like "sorry you're upset". I would have expected something along the lines of "sorry, we should have asked the maintainers and we understand why it was wrong not to", instead of "sorry, we didn't ask the maintainers, but this is why we didn't".
- wang_li 5y ago
  "It's just a prank dude!" Legitimately these folks have some kind of personality defect. They observed something that everyone already knew and then decided to act on it and pretend they were doing something interesting and new rather than just being twats. They should be treated exactly as should be based on their actions, regardless of their claims of being researchers. This would be a perfect cover for being on the take from a government agency. They should be investigated to ensure they aren't actual malicious actors. It takes almost no imagination to think of hundreds of "security vulnerabilities" in the world, yet the vast majority of people realize that it's dumb to act on those observations.
R0b0t1 5y ago
They should have addressed why the kernel maintainers felt the way they do. As it is now they are trying to rationalize their actions instead of showing they have made an attempt to understand why their research was questionable.
justinjlynn 5y ago
> We are sorry for the harm we've caused by our unethical experimentation involving members of the Linux community. In accordance with community standards and a desire to avoid benefiting from our ethical failure, we have requested the immediate retraction of the papers and other published work resulting from this unethical experimentation. We are also working together with our institutional leadership to address the systemic and individual failings which permitted this unethical research to take place. As a result of this, we will publicly prepare a report regarding the actions taken and potential systemic changes which will ensure these actions do not reoccur and further harm is not caused. Out of an abundance of caution and because experience has shown our judgement, as is, to be questionable, no further research similar in nature to the research in question will be undertaken by this institution or these researchers until proper community consultation has taken place regarding the report and proposed changes to systemic review are implemented. Once again, we take full responsibility for any harm we have caused and we will work to ensure that such harm never occurs again. We hope that, at some point, we may regain your trust and confidence and, if you'll permit us, to work alongside you. [signed personally, by every involved researcher, professor, IRB member, and all of the relevant university leadership including the board] Something like that would do nicely, in my opinion. Then they'd have to absolutely follow through on it. Ideally, they'd also ask involved members of the community so harmed, among other experts, to independently review and watch the process to ensure no further harm is being done, progress is made, and public accountability is kept.
- rajup 5y ago
  That makes sense, thanks!
- tkgally 5y ago
  Good suggestion, especially getting the IRB involved. The board failed to recognize that the target of the research was not inanimate software but human beings.
  - justinjlynn 5y ago
    Thank you and my point precisely. This was both an individual and systemic failure and must be treated and rectified as such with all due seriousness.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  I'd consider that a pretty good apology, if that were the one they had made. I'd like to see it expressed by the university ethics board, not just by the researchers. I wouldn't trust those researchers again, not for anything. Free software depends heavily on trust. It's astonishing that it works so well; but if you break trust, it's very hard to repair the fractures. The legal arrangements around free software are fairly fluid, because there hasn't been much case-law, because there's not much money sloshing around for Free Software developers to pay lawyers. Banning pull-requests from that college is much cheaper than sueing. I hope the whole uni stays banned until the ethics board issues their own apology. Then let it go, I say. People make mistakes. We shouldn't blame everyone for the mistakes of a few. But we have to protect the Linux kernel; billions of people depend on it's correctness.
lolinder 5y ago
It's not so much a question of what they should have put in but what they should have left out. There was an awful lot in there justifying what they did, and relatively little that acknowledged that it was wrong.
motohagiography 5y ago
I am not a stakeholder in this, and my comment is about apologies, even though as a lifelong linux user and technologist responsible for deploying it, I still think there should be a real investigation. While I had a bunch of notes about what makes the sentiment behing an apology meaningful, it's really separate from the issue that this should have been done privately. A public apology is just another thing about them and their message. They're performing and trying to draw in sympathetic members of an imaginary audience. There is no humility in public displays. I would be surprised if anybody asked for it, and doing it without asking is just more of the same type of behavior. There is no such thing as a public apology. That said, I have no doubt they have suffered personally over this, and have some compassion for that suffering itself, but not sympathy for this performance. There is no gesture that restores trust. When their contributions and acomplishments become more remarkable than this issue, they will have restored it, but like most things, there is no "back" to go to. Maybe that static analyzer will be the ultimate bug finder, as succeeding at that is probably their only out.

Just curious, and I'm genuinely asking as someone who thought the letter seemed well-intentioned: what should they have put in the apology letter?

by rajup 5y ago

Just curious, and I'm genuinely asking as someone who thought the letter seemed well-intentioned: what should they have put in the apology letter?

spectralblu 5y ago

> we did that because we knew we could not ask the maintainers of Linux for permission, or they would be on the lookout for the hypocrite patches. This bit just reads like "sorry you're upset". I would have expected something along the lines of "sorry, we should have asked the maintainers and we understand why it was wrong not to", instead of "sorry, we didn't ask the maintainers, but this is why we didn't".

wang_li 5y ago
"It's just a prank dude!" Legitimately these folks have some kind of personality defect. They observed something that everyone already knew and then decided to act on it and pretend they were doing something interesting and new rather than just being twats. They should be treated exactly as should be based on their actions, regardless of their claims of being researchers. This would be a perfect cover for being on the take from a government agency. They should be investigated to ensure they aren't actual malicious actors. It takes almost no imagination to think of hundreds of "security vulnerabilities" in the world, yet the vast majority of people realize that it's dumb to act on those observations.

R0b0t1 5y ago

They should have addressed why the kernel maintainers felt the way they do. As it is now they are trying to rationalize their actions instead of showing they have made an attempt to understand why their research was questionable.

justinjlynn 5y ago

> We are sorry for the harm we've caused by our unethical experimentation involving members of the Linux community. In accordance with community standards and a desire to avoid benefiting from our ethical failure, we have requested the immediate retraction of the papers and other published work resulting from this unethical experimentation. We are also working together with our institutional leadership to address the systemic and individual failings which permitted this unethical research to take place. As a result of this, we will publicly prepare a report regarding the actions taken and potential systemic changes which will ensure these actions do not reoccur and further harm is not caused. Out of an abundance of caution and because experience has shown our judgement, as is, to be questionable, no further research similar in nature to the research in question will be undertaken by this institution or these researchers until proper community consultation has taken place regarding the report and proposed changes to systemic review are implemented. Once again, we take full responsibility for any harm we have caused and we will work to ensure that such harm never occurs again. We hope that, at some point, we may regain your trust and confidence and, if you'll permit us, to work alongside you. [signed personally, by every involved researcher, professor, IRB member, and all of the relevant university leadership including the board] Something like that would do nicely, in my opinion. Then they'd have to absolutely follow through on it. Ideally, they'd also ask involved members of the community so harmed, among other experts, to independently review and watch the process to ensure no further harm is being done, progress is made, and public accountability is kept.

rajup 5y ago
That makes sense, thanks!
tkgally 5y ago
Good suggestion, especially getting the IRB involved. The board failed to recognize that the target of the research was not inanimate software but human beings.
- justinjlynn 5y ago
  Thank you and my point precisely. This was both an individual and systemic failure and must be treated and rectified as such with all due seriousness.
denton-scratch 5y ago
I'd consider that a pretty good apology, if that were the one they had made. I'd like to see it expressed by the university ethics board, not just by the researchers. I wouldn't trust those researchers again, not for anything. Free software depends heavily on trust. It's astonishing that it works so well; but if you break trust, it's very hard to repair the fractures. The legal arrangements around free software are fairly fluid, because there hasn't been much case-law, because there's not much money sloshing around for Free Software developers to pay lawyers. Banning pull-requests from that college is much cheaper than sueing. I hope the whole uni stays banned until the ethics board issues their own apology. Then let it go, I say. People make mistakes. We shouldn't blame everyone for the mistakes of a few. But we have to protect the Linux kernel; billions of people depend on it's correctness.

lolinder 5y ago

It's not so much a question of what they should have put in but what they should have left out. There was an awful lot in there justifying what they did, and relatively little that acknowledged that it was wrong.

motohagiography 5y ago

I am not a stakeholder in this, and my comment is about apologies, even though as a lifelong linux user and technologist responsible for deploying it, I still think there should be a real investigation. While I had a bunch of notes about what makes the sentiment behing an apology meaningful, it's really separate from the issue that this should have been done privately. A public apology is just another thing about them and their message. They're performing and trying to draw in sympathetic members of an imaginary audience. There is no humility in public displays. I would be surprised if anybody asked for it, and doing it without asking is just more of the same type of behavior. There is no such thing as a public apology. That said, I have no doubt they have suffered personally over this, and have some compassion for that suffering itself, but not sympathy for this performance. There is no gesture that restores trust. When their contributions and acomplishments become more remarkable than this issue, they will have restored it, but like most things, there is no "back" to go to. Maybe that static analyzer will be the ultimate bug finder, as succeeding at that is probably their only out.