Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
1–10 of 384 posts
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#2I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write. It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me.
I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#3I was reading this thread... https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh...
The Linux kernel team had to revert changes in over 200 files. They will also have to go back and review hundreds of commits to make sure they do not contain any malicious code.
The technical effort in addition to all the time spent dealing with the backlash of this is a waste of time for a lot of people doing important work that benefits everyone.
So, what else can be said... Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. To Mr. Lu, Wu, and Pakki: enjoy your ban and worldwide press coverage.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#4I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
Indeed. This letter is an attempt to justify and rationalise their actions. Essentially, it amounts to saying "we're sorry you were offended and felt hurt by our legitimate work but we had no choice but to lie to you and unethically experiment on you without your consent or we wouldn't have been able to do it". Their statement is not an actual apology, even if it is phrased in the language of apology, and it is an excellent example of what not to write if you are seeking forgiveness.
The core issue here is that the system under which they were working, and the researchers themselves, did not consider this work to amount to unethical human experimentation - even though the work directly involved infiltrating and exploiting humans and human social systems. There is no mention of this nor of any substantial desire to understand or address this systemic failing and, until there is an unconditional acceptance of responsibility for the harm caused and a real actionable change for the better with accountability, I don't see how we can consider this matter to have been apologised for.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#5I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
I agree, but let's give them a little extra benefit of the doubt. I thought as I was reading it that it seemed stilted and forced, then I wondered if the author(s) don't speak / write English as a primary language.
I'll be interested to see how they react to feedback / responses.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#6This is a textbook non-apology and is just further reason to keep this researcher (and whoever else was involved) banned from ever contributing again.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#7I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
I was just about to post: "This is a great apology."
Context is everything, of course. I think you're right that it's tainted by the fact that they absolutely did not have a choice, and coming from people who've deceived the same tribes they're now trying to apologize to.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#8I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
Indeed. This letter is an attempt to justify and rationalise their actions. Essentially, it amounts to saying "we're sorry you were offended and felt hurt by our legitimate work but we had no choice but to lie to you and unethically experiment on you without your consent or we wouldn't have been able to do it". Their statement is not an actual apology, even if it is phrased in the language of apology, and it is an ex…
Just curious, and I'm genuinely asking as someone who thought the letter seemed well-intentioned: what should they have put in the apology letter?
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#9I find it false.
There were months of opportunity for contrition.
They seemed a little too proud of their paper for Oakland'21, and this note comes much too late, for the message to be sincere.
Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle
#10I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
I was just about to post: "This is a great apology." Context is everything, of course. I think you're right that it's tainted by the fact that they absolutely did not have a choice, and coming from people who've deceived the same tribes they're now trying to apologize to.
And what of the merits? If the previous 190 patches were indeed legitimate it strikes me as overly vengeful to pull them in a "punish the son for the sins of the father and the father for the sins of the son" kind of way.