4 ms·

“They are extremely careful about your concern” requires that we trust both their intentions and their competence, which should not be assumed. “None of the re

“They are extremely careful about your concern” requires that we trust both their intentions and their competence, which should not be assumed. “None of the researchers care about you” - strawman, no one said that or thinks that, and it’s irrelevant. “Everyone involved promises not to identify anyone” - see response to first point. I think the other points are valid though.

jacobr1 5y ago
> “Everyone involved promises not to identify anyone” - see response to first point. They legally promise via some form a non-disclosure agreement. A violation means they are liable in the case they are the source of a breach, which can both provide incentives and recourse. Certainly not ironclad, but it is stronger than just a vague "promise."
- OnlineGladiator 5y ago
  It's stronger, but still pretty weak. In my experience people willfully ignore NDAs all the time. I think it's only lawyers who take them seriously, or at least pretend to take them seriously. First you have to care enough to go after the NDA breaker. Then you have to have enough evidence to legally demonstrate they broke the NDA. Then you have to pursue legal action. This all costs time and money, and even then there's a good chance you can't actually prove anything. You have to seriously piss off someone (most likely a large corporation) with a lot of time and money for it to matter that you broke an NDA.
huitzitziltzin 5y ago
> strawman, no one said that or thinks that, and it’s irrelevant. OP said he didn’t want to be de-anonymized. Either the researchers do that themselves or the data is stolen and someone else does it. For the first group, I tried to explain why the researchers themselves aren’t going to and why. So I’m not sure no one thinks it and it’s not irrelevant.
- playpause 5y ago
  Sorry, that came across a bit harsh. But… > Either the researchers do that themselves Has anyone suggested that? I don’t think anyone is concerned about the motives of MIT researchers.
  - DuskStar 5y ago
    > I don’t think anyone is concerned about the motives of MIT researchers. Until you become a public figure with the wrong set of opinions, maybe.

jacobr1 5y ago

> “Everyone involved promises not to identify anyone” - see response to first point. They legally promise via some form a non-disclosure agreement. A violation means they are liable in the case they are the source of a breach, which can both provide incentives and recourse. Certainly not ironclad, but it is stronger than just a vague "promise."

OnlineGladiator 5y ago
It's stronger, but still pretty weak. In my experience people willfully ignore NDAs all the time. I think it's only lawyers who take them seriously, or at least pretend to take them seriously. First you have to care enough to go after the NDA breaker. Then you have to have enough evidence to legally demonstrate they broke the NDA. Then you have to pursue legal action. This all costs time and money, and even then there's a good chance you can't actually prove anything. You have to seriously piss off someone (most likely a large corporation) with a lot of time and money for it to matter that you broke an NDA.

huitzitziltzin 5y ago

> strawman, no one said that or thinks that, and it’s irrelevant. OP said he didn’t want to be de-anonymized. Either the researchers do that themselves or the data is stolen and someone else does it. For the first group, I tried to explain why the researchers themselves aren’t going to and why. So I’m not sure no one thinks it and it’s not irrelevant.

playpause 5y ago
Sorry, that came across a bit harsh. But… > Either the researchers do that themselves Has anyone suggested that? I don’t think anyone is concerned about the motives of MIT researchers.
- DuskStar 5y ago
  > I don’t think anyone is concerned about the motives of MIT researchers. Until you become a public figure with the wrong set of opinions, maybe.