4 ms·

> but if he allows the Facebook project to move forward under other groups that are also within the Kennedy school, Move forward in the direction the dean and

by Beldin 3y ago

> but if he allows the Facebook project to move forward under other groups that are also within the Kennedy school, Move forward in the direction the dean and Facebook want, or in the direction the original team wanted to explore? Because it doesn't seem - at all - that the two are equivalent. And it is not misleading to call out replacing a non-bribe-able PI with a susceptible or even already bribed one.

jcheng 3y ago
I was not nearly clear or explicit enough in my comment, apologies for that. In sections 25 and 26 (page 14), the whistleblower report talks about the origins of the project. Dr. Donovan acquired the entire archive of the Facebook Files, and reached out to Dr. Latanya Sweeney, who she calls her "most trusted colleague": > I chose to work with Dr. Sweeney because she was the shoulder I leaned on when I needed to decode the politics of HKS. I regard Dr. Sweeney to be brilliant at computer science, the foremost authority on privacy in technology, and had a vision to build the FB Archive on the base of a data sharing platform that she had designed previously. Donovan's vision was to build "a searchable archive of these documents for the public interest" and hold training workshops for other researchers. So Dr. Sweeney's lab built it, as was the plan; and held training workshops, which was a little hurtful to Donovan as she was not invited into that process. After the fact, Sweeney summed up her view of their respective contributions in a private email to Donovan: > The technological IP (design, architecture, and implementation) in FBarchive belongs to the Lab [i.e. Sweeney] alone. No one can claim IP over the original content of course, but the Lab also has IP in the redaction strategy used. Your team contributed the citation reference used to identify each image and document, and of course, you were part of the original concept. This is the kind of details that we will document on the history page. And implies, like it's not even worth asserting directly, that TASC's contributions are historical, not current. A couple of responses later, Donovan says: > TASC made many contributions including getting the documents and categorizing them, as well as promoting the archive in public forums, and having my team write testimonies and 1pagers, reviewing abstracts and holding office hours with students and so many meetings. Dr. Donovan's complaints with the project as delivered seem to mostly NOT be that she wanted it to be different than it was, but rather, that the history page contains blatant lies that minimize Dr. Donovan and TASC's contributions. And also that it is incredibly unjust that she brought this highly valuable asset to the table, and without cause was not only shut out, but basically fired, and her historical contributions scrubbed. (Section 42.) (To be clear, this is a sad and frustrating tale and if I was Donovan I'd be pissed too.)

by Beldin 3y ago

jcheng 3y ago

I was not nearly clear or explicit enough in my comment, apologies for that. In sections 25 and 26 (page 14), the whistleblower report talks about the origins of the project. Dr. Donovan acquired the entire archive of the Facebook Files, and reached out to Dr. Latanya Sweeney, who she calls her "most trusted colleague": > I chose to work with Dr. Sweeney because she was the shoulder I leaned on when I needed to decode the politics of HKS. I regard Dr. Sweeney to be brilliant at computer science, the foremost authority on privacy in technology, and had a vision to build the FB Archive on the base of a data sharing platform that she had designed previously. Donovan's vision was to build "a searchable archive of these documents for the public interest" and hold training workshops for other researchers. So Dr. Sweeney's lab built it, as was the plan; and held training workshops, which was a little hurtful to Donovan as she was not invited into that process. After the fact, Sweeney summed up her view of their respective contributions in a private email to Donovan: > The technological IP (design, architecture, and implementation) in FBarchive belongs to the Lab [i.e. Sweeney] alone. No one can claim IP over the original content of course, but the Lab also has IP in the redaction strategy used. Your team contributed the citation reference used to identify each image and document, and of course, you were part of the original concept. This is the kind of details that we will document on the history page. And implies, like it's not even worth asserting directly, that TASC's contributions are historical, not current. A couple of responses later, Donovan says: > TASC made many contributions including getting the documents and categorizing them, as well as promoting the archive in public forums, and having my team write testimonies and 1pagers, reviewing abstracts and holding office hours with students and so many meetings. Dr. Donovan's complaints with the project as delivered seem to mostly NOT be that she wanted it to be different than it was, but rather, that the history page contains blatant lies that minimize Dr. Donovan and TASC's contributions. And also that it is incredibly unjust that she brought this highly valuable asset to the table, and without cause was not only shut out, but basically fired, and her historical contributions scrubbed. (Section 42.) (To be clear, this is a sad and frustrating tale and if I was Donovan I'd be pissed too.)