4 ms·

This is a non-apology apology. It's "I'm sorry you feel that way." I don't think I'm reading too much into it either: "I am dismayed that the emails in our stu

This is a non-apology apology. It's "I'm sorry you feel that way." I don't think I'm reading too much into it either: "I am dismayed that the emails in our study came across as security risks or legal threats." "explaining in detail what we did, why we did it, what we learned, and how researchers should approach similar studies in the future." Nothing about how it impacts their unwilling subjects. Nothing about failing to indicate they were doing an academic study. Nothing about the falsity of their legal threats.

matkoniecz 5y ago
Also "our study does not constitute human subjects research". Since when threatening people does not involve humans? Or is it some "technically, this legal term does not apply - according to our lawyer"?
- jessriedel 5y ago
  You've clipped the quote to remove the part where they are describing the opinion of the IRB, not making a claim themselves. That paragraph is describing why there was no IRB involvement, not claiming that humans wheren't involved in the research.
  - matkoniecz 5y ago
    1) IRB opinion was based upon untrue description provided by researchers 2) they themself put it into own FAQ to distract from harm they did 3) they failed to admit that this statement was untrue and misleading 4) they put it into FAQ like it would be relevant
    - jessriedel 5y ago
      I agree. That doesn't make it OK to deceptively remove context from a quote.
      - matkoniecz 5y ago
        It was opinion of both researchers and review board. What kind of deception is supposed to be present in my comment?
        jessriedel 5y ago
        Casting their description of the review board's opinion as if they were asserting their own opinion. If you want to attribute an opinion to them using a quote, find them stating their opinion and quote that.
        matkoniecz 5y ago
        It was their opinion - unless you expect that they told review board that they are going email people and board decided that it is not a human research? They also put it into FAQ in way that expressed no disagreement - and also, they decided to put it there. It was also their claim.
jessriedel 5y ago
You are misrepresenting the statement. The full quote is > I am dismayed that the emails in our study came across as security risks or legal threats. The intent of our study was to understand privacy practices, not to create a burden on website operators, email system operators, or privacy professionals. I sincerely apologize. I am the senior researcher, and the responsibility is mine. He stated the negative impact they had on study subjects (including the interpretation as legal threats), accepted responsibility, and apologized without reservations. How can you possibly claim he wrote "nothing about the falsity of their legal threats"? Researchers don't have to indicate they are doing an academic study. Ethical actions things don't become unethical simply because it's part of research.
- Beldin 5y ago
  > Researchers don't have to indicate they are doing an academic study. Actually, they do. Otherwise it's called deception research , which falls under very specific guidelines. In general, study participants should be treated decently. Deception research robs them of fully informed consent to participate in the study and is therefore by nature intently ethically over an edge. In specific cases, the benefit of the study's outcomes may offset the harm to its participants. Even then, that harm must be minimised.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jessriedel 5y ago
    Sorry, you're right, that's not the right way to say it. What I meant was deception is wrong regardless of whether it's part of an experiment. If the emails had been sent out under different false pretenses, like criminals probing for weak points, it would have been just as wrong.

matkoniecz 5y ago

Also "our study does not constitute human subjects research". Since when threatening people does not involve humans? Or is it some "technically, this legal term does not apply - according to our lawyer"?

jessriedel 5y ago
You've clipped the quote to remove the part where they are describing the opinion of the IRB, not making a claim themselves. That paragraph is describing why there was no IRB involvement, not claiming that humans wheren't involved in the research.
- matkoniecz 5y ago
  1) IRB opinion was based upon untrue description provided by researchers 2) they themself put it into own FAQ to distract from harm they did 3) they failed to admit that this statement was untrue and misleading 4) they put it into FAQ like it would be relevant
  - jessriedel 5y ago
    I agree. That doesn't make it OK to deceptively remove context from a quote.
    - matkoniecz 5y ago
      It was opinion of both researchers and review board. What kind of deception is supposed to be present in my comment?
      - jessriedel 5y ago
        Casting their description of the review board's opinion as if they were asserting their own opinion. If you want to attribute an opinion to them using a quote, find them stating their opinion and quote that.
        matkoniecz 5y ago
        It was their opinion - unless you expect that they told review board that they are going email people and board decided that it is not a human research? They also put it into FAQ in way that expressed no disagreement - and also, they decided to put it there. It was also their claim.

jessriedel 5y ago

You are misrepresenting the statement. The full quote is > I am dismayed that the emails in our study came across as security risks or legal threats. The intent of our study was to understand privacy practices, not to create a burden on website operators, email system operators, or privacy professionals. I sincerely apologize. I am the senior researcher, and the responsibility is mine. He stated the negative impact they had on study subjects (including the interpretation as legal threats), accepted responsibility, and apologized without reservations. How can you possibly claim he wrote "nothing about the falsity of their legal threats"? Researchers don't have to indicate they are doing an academic study. Ethical actions things don't become unethical simply because it's part of research.

Beldin 5y ago
> Researchers don't have to indicate they are doing an academic study. Actually, they do. Otherwise it's called deception research , which falls under very specific guidelines. In general, study participants should be treated decently. Deception research robs them of fully informed consent to participate in the study and is therefore by nature intently ethically over an edge. In specific cases, the benefit of the study's outcomes may offset the harm to its participants. Even then, that harm must be minimised.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jessriedel 5y ago
  Sorry, you're right, that's not the right way to say it. What I meant was deception is wrong regardless of whether it's part of an experiment. If the emails had been sent out under different false pretenses, like criminals probing for weak points, it would have been just as wrong.