5 ms·

* When you do something to people to see how they act, it's a human experiment. The purpose of this study was officially "to understand how websites would respo

* When you do something to people to see how they act, it's a human experiment. The purpose of this study was officially "to understand how websites would respond to real users" * The participants / subjects of the study are people, not "websites" as the study claims. Websites don't read and respond to emails, people do. * The participants of this study were selected without their consent * The participants were not told that they are in a study, nor the purpose of that study * The participants were lied to, as the researcher pretended to be someone else * The researcher deliberately communicated in a way that heavily implied legal consequences if they don't get what they demand * The researcher's threats and demands do not actually match what is afforded to them by the law * The study caused undue stress and financial losses (e.g. hiring lawyers) to the participants, including those that were not subject to CCPA at all. I don't care what labels you choose to put or not put on it, it's a shitty, abusive study that should have never passed ethics review.

seoaeu 5y ago
> When you do something to people to see how they act, it's a human experiment. That's not the official definition an IRB would use. The official definition is a lot less broad than a lot of people on this thread seem to think. It requires that are collecting biospecimens, identifiable private information, or certain kinds of information about a specific person. [0] [0]: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/research.htm https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/research.htm
- gpm 5y ago
  You're misreading it, the definition quoted on that page is very broad, specifically a human subject is the following with irrelevant clauses in or's removed and replaced with [or ...]: > a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research: > - Obtains information [or ...] through [... or] interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information [or ...]; or > - [...] The actual legal definition is here [1], and further clarifies that "interaction" is very broad, specifically "Interaction includes communication [or ...] between investigator and subject." This clearly qualifies OP as a human subject and this as human subjects research. [1] Search "(e)(1) Human subject": https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/revised-common-rule-regulatory-text/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/...
  - seoaeu 5y ago
    The key phrase is: > a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research: The mere fact that you're interacting with a human doesn't trigger it. If you're associated with a university, I'd encourage you to reach out to your IRB and ask them. The fact that the researchers in this case specifically were told by their IRB that it wasn't human subject research should be a good hint
    - wtallis 5y ago
      Can you explain a bit more why you added emphasis to "about whom" in the clause you quoted? I don't see how those two words create any kind of exception; this research gathered information about how the humans behaved in response to the requests and threats. Are you accidentally reading an "is" into that clause to interpret it as "about whom an investigator is conducting research"? What matters is not whether the researcher considers the human to be the target of the research, but whether the human (or their privacy) is actually affected by the research.
    - adminprof 5y ago
      This is actually the most technically correct answer on this page. Everyone is going by their own opinions about definitions of what constitutes human subjects research, rather than starting from the primary sources. IRB guidelines are dictated by the federal government "common rule", a common standard adopted by all institutions that receive federal funding. "about whom" is a key criteria from the federal government to determine whether something fits the definition of human subjects research. Here's a quote from HHS: "The phrase ‘about whom’ is important. A human subject is the person that the information is about, not necessarily the person providing the information. In the case of biospecimens, the human subject is the person from whom the specimen was taken." https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/OHRP-HHS-Learning-Module-Lesson2.pdf https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/OHRP-HHS-Learni... Reading that, it's clear that the Princeton study does not fit the definition of human subjects research. The complainants may be able to sue for damages to the university, but not because the study was improperly classified as human subjects.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  IRB's emerged as mandated bodies governing the intersection of research & humans in the wake of the 1974 NRA and subsequent Belmont Report. That report explicitly states that it is more that just biomedical, but also behavioral research that is covered. "do something to people to see how they act" fits pretty well within the domain of "behavior". If you are doing research with an institution governed by an IRB then you cannot do anything involving a human being without it getting reviewed by the IRB. There are criteria whereby the IRB may exempt the research from a full review, but only the IRB can make that determination. Perhaps the #1 absolute goal of the IRB is to assess potential adverse impacts of the research on any humans involved. It should be clear from the comments here, and if you read through any of the links to twitter threads, that people were adversely impacted by this study either through anxiety, time spent unecessarily, and perhaps money. I might understand (though disagree) with a point of view that said these adverse results were not foreseeable, but review of the study itself under an IRB for its involvement of humans was absolutely required.
nyolfen 5y ago
this might be the definition of human experiment in everyday speech but it is not for the purposes of an IRB -- they would have to be collecting PII from the subjects
- wtallis 5y ago
  Collecting PII is a sufficient condition to qualify it as human subject research, but it is not a necessary condition.
patmcc 5y ago
I think there's a scale issue here - if they email an entity that the CCPA actually applies to (for profit, >$25mil revenue, etc.) then it's likely going to a customer service rep who has a policy to follow and doesn't have any skin in the game, and at that point I'd agree it's not really a human experiment. Like if they emailed google with these questions, I wouldn't bat an eye. When they email a single person who runs a website, that's very different.
- wtallis 5y ago
  Even the customer service rep case may become problematic, if the entity they represent is not adequately prepared to comply with the law. Then the rep's decision of how to respond to a difficult and awkward inquiry could potentially impact things like their criminal or civil liability, employability, or reputation—things that the regulations are concerned with.
UncleMeat 5y ago
> When you do something to people to see how they act, it's a human experiment. All AB testing is a human experiment?
- xena 5y ago
  I'd be willing to argue that AB testing is human experimentation.
- azernik 5y ago
  It involves human subjects, it is probably not "research" in the meaning of IRB rules.

seoaeu 5y ago

> When you do something to people to see how they act, it's a human experiment. That's not the official definition an IRB would use. The official definition is a lot less broad than a lot of people on this thread seem to think. It requires that are collecting biospecimens, identifiable private information, or certain kinds of information about a specific person. [0] [0]: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/research.htm https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/research.htm

gpm 5y ago
You're misreading it, the definition quoted on that page is very broad, specifically a human subject is the following with irrelevant clauses in or's removed and replaced with [or ...]: > a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research: > - Obtains information [or ...] through [... or] interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information [or ...]; or > - [...] The actual legal definition is here [1], and further clarifies that "interaction" is very broad, specifically "Interaction includes communication [or ...] between investigator and subject." This clearly qualifies OP as a human subject and this as human subjects research. [1] Search "(e)(1) Human subject": https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/revised-common-rule-regulatory-text/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/...
- seoaeu 5y ago
  The key phrase is: > a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research: The mere fact that you're interacting with a human doesn't trigger it. If you're associated with a university, I'd encourage you to reach out to your IRB and ask them. The fact that the researchers in this case specifically were told by their IRB that it wasn't human subject research should be a good hint
  - wtallis 5y ago
    Can you explain a bit more why you added emphasis to "about whom" in the clause you quoted? I don't see how those two words create any kind of exception; this research gathered information about how the humans behaved in response to the requests and threats. Are you accidentally reading an "is" into that clause to interpret it as "about whom an investigator is conducting research"? What matters is not whether the researcher considers the human to be the target of the research, but whether the human (or their privacy) is actually affected by the research.
  - adminprof 5y ago
    This is actually the most technically correct answer on this page. Everyone is going by their own opinions about definitions of what constitutes human subjects research, rather than starting from the primary sources. IRB guidelines are dictated by the federal government "common rule", a common standard adopted by all institutions that receive federal funding. "about whom" is a key criteria from the federal government to determine whether something fits the definition of human subjects research. Here's a quote from HHS: "The phrase ‘about whom’ is important. A human subject is the person that the information is about, not necessarily the person providing the information. In the case of biospecimens, the human subject is the person from whom the specimen was taken." https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/OHRP-HHS-Learning-Module-Lesson2.pdf https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/OHRP-HHS-Learni... Reading that, it's clear that the Princeton study does not fit the definition of human subjects research. The complainants may be able to sue for damages to the university, but not because the study was improperly classified as human subjects.
ineedasername 5y ago
IRB's emerged as mandated bodies governing the intersection of research & humans in the wake of the 1974 NRA and subsequent Belmont Report. That report explicitly states that it is more that just biomedical, but also behavioral research that is covered. "do something to people to see how they act" fits pretty well within the domain of "behavior". If you are doing research with an institution governed by an IRB then you cannot do anything involving a human being without it getting reviewed by the IRB. There are criteria whereby the IRB may exempt the research from a full review, but only the IRB can make that determination. Perhaps the #1 absolute goal of the IRB is to assess potential adverse impacts of the research on any humans involved. It should be clear from the comments here, and if you read through any of the links to twitter threads, that people were adversely impacted by this study either through anxiety, time spent unecessarily, and perhaps money. I might understand (though disagree) with a point of view that said these adverse results were not foreseeable, but review of the study itself under an IRB for its involvement of humans was absolutely required.

nyolfen 5y ago

this might be the definition of human experiment in everyday speech but it is not for the purposes of an IRB -- they would have to be collecting PII from the subjects

wtallis 5y ago
Collecting PII is a sufficient condition to qualify it as human subject research, but it is not a necessary condition.

patmcc 5y ago

I think there's a scale issue here - if they email an entity that the CCPA actually applies to (for profit, >$25mil revenue, etc.) then it's likely going to a customer service rep who has a policy to follow and doesn't have any skin in the game, and at that point I'd agree it's not really a human experiment. Like if they emailed google with these questions, I wouldn't bat an eye. When they email a single person who runs a website, that's very different.

wtallis 5y ago
Even the customer service rep case may become problematic, if the entity they represent is not adequately prepared to comply with the law. Then the rep's decision of how to respond to a difficult and awkward inquiry could potentially impact things like their criminal or civil liability, employability, or reputation—things that the regulations are concerned with.

UncleMeat 5y ago

> When you do something to people to see how they act, it's a human experiment. All AB testing is a human experiment?

xena 5y ago
I'd be willing to argue that AB testing is human experimentation.
azernik 5y ago
It involves human subjects, it is probably not "research" in the meaning of IRB rules.