4 ms·

Apart from the understandable annoyance (anger) of being experimented on and the scandal that this somehow got approved by the UMN ethics board I did find the r

Apart from the understandable annoyance (anger) of being experimented on and the scandal that this somehow got approved by the UMN ethics board I did find the reaction to this somewhat interesting in that the kernel community was willing to immediately ban every one from UMN (a university of significant size) and investigate/revert all patches originating from UMN. In contrast I don't believe the reaction was anywhere near that strong when it came out that the NSA likely subverted a crypto standardisation process. Should the kernel community have reacted at least equally as strong (if they did and I'm just not aware of it please educate me).

ilamont 6y ago
From the UMN response signed by the Computer Science & Engineering department head and associate department head: The study was focused on understanding a system by identifying mechanisms through which security issues could be introduced in Linux software. Therefore, purely as a technical matter, this study did not qualify as “Human Subjects Research” and received no further scrutiny or oversight from the IRB. Importantly, even if one believed the study did involve human research subjects (perhaps due to the interactions and the incidental collection of email addresses), the study would clearly be exempt from IRB oversight pursuant to 45 CFR 46.104(D). In other words, the UMN IRB acted properly in this case. Full response: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z3Nm2bfR4tH1nOGBpuOmLyoJVEiO9cUq/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z3Nm2bfR4tH1nOGBpuOmLyoJVEi...
- cycomanic 6y ago
  Ok I guess this shows my ignorance on what constitutes human research (although I'm outside the US and definitions might be different here). I have to say this is a good response letter from the department.
anonydsfsfs 6y ago
> In contrast I don't believe the reaction was anywhere near that strong when it came out that the NSA likely subverted a crypto standardisation process It was pretty strong. There were many calls to remove the chair of the IETF CFRG group because of his association with the NSA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6942145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6942145

ilamont 6y ago

From the UMN response signed by the Computer Science & Engineering department head and associate department head: The study was focused on understanding a system by identifying mechanisms through which security issues could be introduced in Linux software. Therefore, purely as a technical matter, this study did not qualify as “Human Subjects Research” and received no further scrutiny or oversight from the IRB. Importantly, even if one believed the study did involve human research subjects (perhaps due to the interactions and the incidental collection of email addresses), the study would clearly be exempt from IRB oversight pursuant to 45 CFR 46.104(D). In other words, the UMN IRB acted properly in this case. Full response: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z3Nm2bfR4tH1nOGBpuOmLyoJVEiO9cUq/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z3Nm2bfR4tH1nOGBpuOmLyoJVEi...

cycomanic 6y ago
Ok I guess this shows my ignorance on what constitutes human research (although I'm outside the US and definitions might be different here). I have to say this is a good response letter from the department.

anonydsfsfs 6y ago

> In contrast I don't believe the reaction was anywhere near that strong when it came out that the NSA likely subverted a crypto standardisation process It was pretty strong. There were many calls to remove the chair of the IETF CFRG group because of his association with the NSA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6942145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6942145