4 ms·

> With respect, it just doesn't matter whether you think the researchers were doing a service or not. I wasn't making a case that the study was fine and had no

> With respect, it just doesn't matter whether you think the researchers were doing a service or not. I wasn't making a case that the study was fine and had no problems. I was making a comment on, broadly, "money wasted because of this". Whether the study was problematic or not (it seems like it was), everyone scared by this email was only scared because they'd stuck their head in the sand with regard to laws that have been enacted that put certain requirements on some people, and whether they are affected or not. As I see it, there are a few possible general outcomes of the email: One, you know what your requirements are, if any, and you respond appropriately. Two, you don't know what your requirements are, and you look up your requirements, and respond or take further action at that time. For the majority of people, that fall into this case, that's probably "do nothing". Three, you don't know, go immediately to a lawyer, and burn a lot of time and money with that lawyer, for them to either tell you it doesn't affect you or to ask you WTF you're doing operating something like you are without knowing the simplest of things that could affect you. In all those cases, you are left off either with the same or more knowledge about your legal responsibilities online. In the cases where you waste resources using a lawyer (in some cases a lawyer would not be a waste, but possibly something you should have done previously), I think that's people overreacting to their own (possibly longstanding) negligence in understanding their own situation. For what it's worth, whether the study was conducting in a way that was acceptable is irrelevant this specific question. Any individual could email asking a similar question entirely legitimately.

anamax 5y ago
Cool, so it's acceptable to send the analogous e-mail regarding immigration status to lots of people.
- kbenson 5y ago
  I mean, that probably makes you an asshole if you do it, like the people that ran this study, but honestly, everyone should know their immigration status, right? If some random person emails you asking your immigration status, I think most people should know how to deal with that. I don't think it would be acceptable to impersonate any sort of official in that exchange, but that wouldn't be analogous to this situation either.
  - anamax 5y ago
    There's no impersonation involved; the analogous email would say that the sender would notify authorities about the recipient based on the answers. It's unclear how this would be more or less random than the e-mail to websites. And you'd be just as quick to defend such an asshole, right?
    - kbenson 5y ago
      > There's no impersonation involved; the analogous email would say that the sender would notify authorities about the recipient based on the answers. No, the analogous email would say it would notify the authorities if they didn't answer in the legally required timeframe (which doesn't exist). Honestly, it's a fairly tortured example that doesn't fit well. First, the person requesting in reality is the person making sure their own rights are being honored (whether erroneously or not) based on real laws, while your example is some random person asking others about information that is not really their business. Second, which is based upon people presenting somethign publicly. It's more analogous to going up to someone that has a shop on a public street and requesting info on their current health inspector rating, which is required by law to be shown (for restaurants). A public website is public. You get something be being public, but that might also expose you to liability. > It's unclear how this would be more or less random than the e-mail to websites. Hopefully it's not unclear anymore. > And you'd be just as quick to defend such an asshole, right? I'd be just as quick to say that yes, that person is an asshole, but I don't think you can necessarily attribute all the lost time and money to looking into their request as wasted, unless it's the short amount of time it takes to tell them to go to hell. If someone is unhappy because they wasted hours or money on an attorney because some random person asked them their immigration status, well that's probably something they should have worked out already, if it was that important, so the time isn't "wasted". In other words, it's entirely possible for an asshole to accidentally cause you to do something beneficial for yourself that you should have done long ago. That doesn't make them less of an asshole, but I also wouldn't consider it their fault them for the time you spent finally getting your shit together. Notice how I'm not really defending someone being an asshole, just making a note about outcomes? Perhaps you should look at that and my past statement before continuing down a path of accusing me of "defending" someone.

anamax 5y ago

Cool, so it's acceptable to send the analogous e-mail regarding immigration status to lots of people.

kbenson 5y ago
I mean, that probably makes you an asshole if you do it, like the people that ran this study, but honestly, everyone should know their immigration status, right? If some random person emails you asking your immigration status, I think most people should know how to deal with that. I don't think it would be acceptable to impersonate any sort of official in that exchange, but that wouldn't be analogous to this situation either.
- anamax 5y ago
  There's no impersonation involved; the analogous email would say that the sender would notify authorities about the recipient based on the answers. It's unclear how this would be more or less random than the e-mail to websites. And you'd be just as quick to defend such an asshole, right?
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > There's no impersonation involved; the analogous email would say that the sender would notify authorities about the recipient based on the answers. No, the analogous email would say it would notify the authorities if they didn't answer in the legally required timeframe (which doesn't exist). Honestly, it's a fairly tortured example that doesn't fit well. First, the person requesting in reality is the person making sure their own rights are being honored (whether erroneously or not) based on real laws, while your example is some random person asking others about information that is not really their business. Second, which is based upon people presenting somethign publicly. It's more analogous to going up to someone that has a shop on a public street and requesting info on their current health inspector rating, which is required by law to be shown (for restaurants). A public website is public. You get something be being public, but that might also expose you to liability. > It's unclear how this would be more or less random than the e-mail to websites. Hopefully it's not unclear anymore. > And you'd be just as quick to defend such an asshole, right? I'd be just as quick to say that yes, that person is an asshole, but I don't think you can necessarily attribute all the lost time and money to looking into their request as wasted, unless it's the short amount of time it takes to tell them to go to hell. If someone is unhappy because they wasted hours or money on an attorney because some random person asked them their immigration status, well that's probably something they should have worked out already, if it was that important, so the time isn't "wasted". In other words, it's entirely possible for an asshole to accidentally cause you to do something beneficial for yourself that you should have done long ago. That doesn't make them less of an asshole, but I also wouldn't consider it their fault them for the time you spent finally getting your shit together. Notice how I'm not really defending someone being an asshole, just making a note about outcomes? Perhaps you should look at that and my past statement before continuing down a path of accusing me of "defending" someone.