3 ms·
I wonder why the Data Science Professor isn't named/charged as an accomplice. Maybe they are acting as a witness for the prosecution?
by yowzadave 4y ago
I wonder why the Data Science Professor isn't named/charged as an accomplice. Maybe they are acting as a witness for the prosecution?
- my_usernam3 4y agoPlausible deniability is my non professional guess
- skeeter2020 4y agoit sounds like his initial invoice was quite clear in the work completed, then updated at the client's request. So while you can argue moral grounds for not doing this work, I don't think there's illegality, i.e. conspiracy.
- pciexpgpu 4y agoI mean if you are a professor and knowledgeable in how the startup uses the data, it’s hardly justifiable that “oh crap i didn’t know they were using it for illegal purposes”. They were totally complicit allegedly.
- romellem 4y agoThis is spoken to [in the full complaint][1]. The data scientist was told Frank really did have 4 million users, and the scientist only needed to generate this "synthetic data" as a way to "anonymize" their "real" data. I.e. the scientist was duped: JAVICE told Scientist-1 [...] that she had a database of approximately 4 million people and wanted to create a database of anonymized data that mirrored the statistical properties of the original database (the “Synthetic Data Set”). [After JAVICE sends Scientist-1 the data], Scientist-1 understood that the data available via the Access Link Email - **a data set of approximately 142,000 people** (emphasis added) - was a random sample of a larger database which contained data for approximately 4 million people. In fact, that data represented every Frank user who had at least started a FAFSA. [1]: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1577861/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1577861...