4 ms·

Does this qualify as a legal threat? It just seems like a reminder of existing laws, like one sees in all manner of contracts or Terms of Service. Like the "yo

Does this qualify as a legal threat? It just seems like a reminder of existing laws, like one sees in all manner of contracts or Terms of Service. Like the "you are obligated to pay within X days" you see on your credit card statements. Or even if there is a legal threat, do you take it seriously unless you know the source? People regularly get calls saying they are in violation of tax law and must pay.

progman32 5y ago
Maybe not "officially", if such a bright line exists. But in practice, a "reminder" of a law including a legal citation and phrases such as "without undue delay" will be interpreted as a threat in many circles. Whether or not it will be seen as a credible threat is a function of the recipient's risk tolerance, prior experience, familiarity with legal processes, etc. Hiring a lawyer ($$$) isn't out of the question if the recipient is unsure or has a low risk tolerance (as, perhaps, an individual blogger might have). It is a little cruel for a researcher to assume every recipient will respond neutrally. I've received legit legal threats over email from very serious people. I'm certain they would have escalated to more "official" channels if the situation wasn't resolved to their satisfaction (if you're curious, it was a contractor billing issue that was being ignored by my HOA. I was caught in the crossfire). The fact that random scammers are calling folks claiming they're violating tax law isn't a justification for researchers to engage in similar acts. Do you agree?
quadrifoliate 5y ago
> People regularly get calls saying they are in violation of tax law and must pay. This is an interesting point you bring up, which merits diving into a bit further. I think it's precisely because CCPA is so new that this experiment is more unethical than if they were just calling up people saying "you owe money to the IRS, send me gift cards". The IRS spends a ton of money every year telling people that these calls are scams; but Christine or the operator of freeradical.zone likely had no such public service announcements from the State of California. On the other hand, they probably did hear news items about this new data privacy law that California passed, and thought the emails were from actual individuals.
pdonis 5y ago
> It just seems like a reminder of existing laws, like one sees in all manner of contracts or Terms of Service. An email purportedly from an individual is not the same as a contract or terms of service issued by a corporation from which I am getting a service. If I, as an individual, were to send you an email asking, for example, if you are paying all the taxes you legally owe, am I just giving you "a reminder of existing laws"? Or are you going to start wondering who I am and why I am asking and wonder if something is going on behind the scenes? > People regularly get calls saying they are in violation of tax law and must pay. Yes, that's true. And people who make such calls are regularly considered unethical scammers who do not deserve any consideration. So why should we treat researchers who send similar emails any differently?
JabavuAdams 5y ago
Unless one is socially inept, it reads as a veiled threat. When someone asks one a question, it is likely to the point of certainty that social humans will consider (1) who is asking (2) why are they asking (3) what is the tone and (4) what is the text of the question. Failing to understand this or refusing to acknowledge it just means that one is bad at humans.
- JabavuAdams 5y ago
  Lol, so on re-reading this, my tone comes off as patronizing and dickish. Unintentional demonstration.

progman32 5y ago

Maybe not "officially", if such a bright line exists. But in practice, a "reminder" of a law including a legal citation and phrases such as "without undue delay" will be interpreted as a threat in many circles. Whether or not it will be seen as a credible threat is a function of the recipient's risk tolerance, prior experience, familiarity with legal processes, etc. Hiring a lawyer ($$$) isn't out of the question if the recipient is unsure or has a low risk tolerance (as, perhaps, an individual blogger might have). It is a little cruel for a researcher to assume every recipient will respond neutrally. I've received legit legal threats over email from very serious people. I'm certain they would have escalated to more "official" channels if the situation wasn't resolved to their satisfaction (if you're curious, it was a contractor billing issue that was being ignored by my HOA. I was caught in the crossfire). The fact that random scammers are calling folks claiming they're violating tax law isn't a justification for researchers to engage in similar acts. Do you agree?

quadrifoliate 5y ago

> People regularly get calls saying they are in violation of tax law and must pay. This is an interesting point you bring up, which merits diving into a bit further. I think it's precisely because CCPA is so new that this experiment is more unethical than if they were just calling up people saying "you owe money to the IRS, send me gift cards". The IRS spends a ton of money every year telling people that these calls are scams; but Christine or the operator of freeradical.zone likely had no such public service announcements from the State of California. On the other hand, they probably did hear news items about this new data privacy law that California passed, and thought the emails were from actual individuals.

pdonis 5y ago

> It just seems like a reminder of existing laws, like one sees in all manner of contracts or Terms of Service. An email purportedly from an individual is not the same as a contract or terms of service issued by a corporation from which I am getting a service. If I, as an individual, were to send you an email asking, for example, if you are paying all the taxes you legally owe, am I just giving you "a reminder of existing laws"? Or are you going to start wondering who I am and why I am asking and wonder if something is going on behind the scenes? > People regularly get calls saying they are in violation of tax law and must pay. Yes, that's true. And people who make such calls are regularly considered unethical scammers who do not deserve any consideration. So why should we treat researchers who send similar emails any differently?

JabavuAdams 5y ago

Unless one is socially inept, it reads as a veiled threat. When someone asks one a question, it is likely to the point of certainty that social humans will consider (1) who is asking (2) why are they asking (3) what is the tone and (4) what is the text of the question. Failing to understand this or refusing to acknowledge it just means that one is bad at humans.

JabavuAdams 5y ago
Lol, so on re-reading this, my tone comes off as patronizing and dickish. Unintentional demonstration.