Live data from Hacker News

UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

cse.umn.edu

1–10 of 332 posts

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#2
This is a great statement, they confirm they're aware of the issue, they acknowledge the concerns and they set out their intention to gather the full facts whilst suspending the operation of the research in the meantime. They also acknowledge the systematic way the need to deal with this.

I hope their follow up is as thorough but I want to applaud this, it's a good approach.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#5
That was quick. I'm glad they will look into this and I hope we don't see this kind of research in the future.

This story reminded me of facebook experimenting on their users to control their emotional state (but they said users were volunteers because "terms of service"...)

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#8
post #2

This is a great statement, they confirm they're aware of the issue, they acknowledge the concerns and they set out their intention to gather the full facts whilst suspending the operation of the research in the meantime. They also acknowledge the systematic way the need to deal with this. I hope their follow up is as thorough but I want to applaud this, it's a good approach.

I also think it's a good response but I think an apology would be in order - perhaps left out because it can be considered an admission of guilt.

The way their statement stands they can investigate themselves and determine they did nothing wrong, we'll have to see what they say down the road.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#9
I found these statements by the associate department head interesting: https://twitter.com/lorenterveen/status/1384955467051454466

> I do work in Social Computing, and this situation is directly analogous to a number of incidents on Wikipedia quite awhile ago that led to that community and researchers reaching an understanding on research methods that are and are not acceptable.

and https://twitter.com/lorenterveen/status/1384966202301337603

> Yes! This was an IRB 'failure'. Again, in my area of Social Computing, it's been clear for awhile that IRBs often do not understand the issues and the potential risks/harms of doing research in online communities / social media.

An interesting question is IMHO who people actually tried to contact in the first round of this getting publicity (and I guess how many did so at all), and if leadership should thus have been aware earlier that there was controversy worth looking into.

Re: UMN CS&E Statement on Linux Kernel Research

#10
post #4

It was a good idea to ban the uni entirely, cause that way they had to respond.

Anyone saying that it was a bad idea to ban the entire University isn't looking at the big picture. I look at it from a very philosophical standpoint:

The entire idea of an academic (research) institution can be summarized as "an entity representing a group of trusted people who act in good faith of that institution". The moment one of your researchers acts in bad faith, or shows that they cannot be trusted, it's clear that the institute cannot be trusted until the institute takes decisive restorative action. By banning the University, you are saying "we no longer trust you in your authority as an institution until it can be made clear that this isn't a systemic problem."... you are not saying "every single person at the University is terrible" as it was framed by some commenters in the other thread.

This is why, in any broad case, it's so upsetting when an institution of any variety doesn't take clear responsibility for the behavior and actions of its members or representatives (take for example the police, or the federal government). When that is true, the behavior of any member of that institution should be subject to scrutiny and distrust. It's not a complicated social phenomena.

Post reply on HN