5 ms·

I would be very much interested in seeing the IRB submission/application that was submitted for this study. I wonder whether or not it was mischaracterized to t

I would be very much interested in seeing the IRB submission/application that was submitted for this study. I wonder whether or not it was mischaracterized to the IRB, or written in such a way as to diminish the problematic aspects.

nightpool 5y ago
From TFA: We submitted an application detailing our research methods to the Princeton University Institutional Review Board, which determined that our study does not constitute human subjects research. The focus of the study is understanding website policies and practices, and emails associated with the study do not solicit personally identifiable information. This came up during the Linux security patch debacle as well. IRB guidelines are focused on a narrow set of harms based in historic abuses of medical research, and don't necessarily condemn the types of deception available here. As TFA points out, “secret shopper” methods are common in academic research of business practices.
- dcow 5y ago
  This is exactly what I don't understand about the whole thing. People are arguing that this was unethical but the researchers literally proposed the study to their review board which said "go ahead it's not a human subjects research study and does not need consent and is not by that virtue unethical". Perhaps the review board was wrong, people make mistakes, whatever. But assuming the review board was correct in its analysis of the situation (and who are we really to challenge that unless there's a glaring negligent tier mistake), I have yet to hear an argument that dissects the ethics of this case and clearly lays out what ethical quandary we have on our hands and where the line was crossed. It really seems to me that people are conflating "annoying" with "unethical". Sure, spamming people is annoying. But how is it unethical? I had the same questions about the linux kernal security patches issue. Annoying waste of a few maintainers time, arguably yes for some definition of waste. But unethical? How so and can someone link me to literature detailing the ethical framework that disallows otherwise legal activity in good faith pursuit of knowledge because someone got annoyed in the process? I think that would be an interesting read.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bryan0 5y ago
    I think you bring up a good point: that some of the blame going to the researcher really should be directed at the review board itself. It’s their responsibility to catch cases like this. The fact that some people who were included in the study without their consent are upset and angry, means they failed this responsibility. I think what you are missing though, is that just because something passed a review board, that does not make it ethical. Review boards, like everything else, will make mistakes.
  - jmull 5y ago
    The emails purported to come from individuals, but were (1) written in an aggressive, legalistic style, and (2) directed at individuals who were not subject to CCPA and not equipped to deal with regulatory demands of it. This caused significant anxiety on the part of the individuals who received this email, since it implied they would be subject to legal action if they did not provide a sufficient reply. It caused them to take significant action -- e.g., to research the law (that they aren't subject to), to determine if/how they could comply with a CCPA data access request if they had to, to consider retaining legal representation, etc. It came off as some kind of scam or mistake, but one that had to be taken seriously. You could read some of the blog posts from people who received these emails to understand the effect it had on them. It might also help you to read the email they received and imaging receiving the same for a site for a personal blog or one-man shop.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    People aren't upset about it being annoying. People are upset that it read as a threat and resulted in people spending money to hire a lawyer because they thought they were about to get dragged into court.
  - matkoniecz 5y ago
    > Sure, spamming people is annoying. But how is it unethical? Spamming is unacceptable, unwanted, illegal and unethical for quite obvious reasons, namely (1) negative effects do not justify benefits (2) spammer gets benefits at cost of others (3) it is annoying (4) its is not needed. Rare exceptions may apply, it is not one of them.
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  As it may be of interest to someone, here's the HN discussion of the University of Minnesota Linux kernel bug scandal, from April. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26887670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26887670

nightpool 5y ago

From TFA: We submitted an application detailing our research methods to the Princeton University Institutional Review Board, which determined that our study does not constitute human subjects research. The focus of the study is understanding website policies and practices, and emails associated with the study do not solicit personally identifiable information. This came up during the Linux security patch debacle as well. IRB guidelines are focused on a narrow set of harms based in historic abuses of medical research, and don't necessarily condemn the types of deception available here. As TFA points out, “secret shopper” methods are common in academic research of business practices.

dcow 5y ago
This is exactly what I don't understand about the whole thing. People are arguing that this was unethical but the researchers literally proposed the study to their review board which said "go ahead it's not a human subjects research study and does not need consent and is not by that virtue unethical". Perhaps the review board was wrong, people make mistakes, whatever. But assuming the review board was correct in its analysis of the situation (and who are we really to challenge that unless there's a glaring negligent tier mistake), I have yet to hear an argument that dissects the ethics of this case and clearly lays out what ethical quandary we have on our hands and where the line was crossed. It really seems to me that people are conflating "annoying" with "unethical". Sure, spamming people is annoying. But how is it unethical? I had the same questions about the linux kernal security patches issue. Annoying waste of a few maintainers time, arguably yes for some definition of waste. But unethical? How so and can someone link me to literature detailing the ethical framework that disallows otherwise legal activity in good faith pursuit of knowledge because someone got annoyed in the process? I think that would be an interesting read.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bryan0 5y ago
  I think you bring up a good point: that some of the blame going to the researcher really should be directed at the review board itself. It’s their responsibility to catch cases like this. The fact that some people who were included in the study without their consent are upset and angry, means they failed this responsibility. I think what you are missing though, is that just because something passed a review board, that does not make it ethical. Review boards, like everything else, will make mistakes.
- jmull 5y ago
  The emails purported to come from individuals, but were (1) written in an aggressive, legalistic style, and (2) directed at individuals who were not subject to CCPA and not equipped to deal with regulatory demands of it. This caused significant anxiety on the part of the individuals who received this email, since it implied they would be subject to legal action if they did not provide a sufficient reply. It caused them to take significant action -- e.g., to research the law (that they aren't subject to), to determine if/how they could comply with a CCPA data access request if they had to, to consider retaining legal representation, etc. It came off as some kind of scam or mistake, but one that had to be taken seriously. You could read some of the blog posts from people who received these emails to understand the effect it had on them. It might also help you to read the email they received and imaging receiving the same for a site for a personal blog or one-man shop.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  People aren't upset about it being annoying. People are upset that it read as a threat and resulted in people spending money to hire a lawyer because they thought they were about to get dragged into court.
- matkoniecz 5y ago
  > Sure, spamming people is annoying. But how is it unethical? Spamming is unacceptable, unwanted, illegal and unethical for quite obvious reasons, namely (1) negative effects do not justify benefits (2) spammer gets benefits at cost of others (3) it is annoying (4) its is not needed. Rare exceptions may apply, it is not one of them.
MaxBarraclough 5y ago
As it may be of interest to someone, here's the HN discussion of the University of Minnesota Linux kernel bug scandal, from April. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26887670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26887670