Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 201 posts

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#111

Post by ysavir »

jonathanmayer wrote: post #64
ysavir wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for clarifying! Makes sense. A few follow up questions: 1. Do you expect the opt-in nature of these studies to impact their findings? 2. To compensate for the voluntary nature of the studies, do you think researchers in general will still be incentivized to find data sources that are less respectful of people's privacy and don't require an opt-in to the study?

> 1. Do you expect the opt-in nature of these studies to impact their findings? The Rally participant population is not representative of the U.S. population—these are users who run Firefox (other browsers coming soon), choose to join Rally, and choose to join a study. In research jargon, there's significant sampling bias. For some studies, that's OK, because the research doesn't depend on a representative sample. Fo…

Got it. Thanks Jonathan!

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#112

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

xpe wrote: post #107
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Rally is transparent about how your data is used If Rally was not transparent about this, then you would not have seen that and would not have gotten emotionally triggered by it. But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study.

> But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study. The commenter referenced Rally's privacy policy. It is not specific to a particular study.

I’m being charitable and leaving room for the possibility that they provide a tighter set of policies for some studies or revise their general policy to make commercial use be a study-by-study determination.

Or, just don’t opt-in to any of the Rally studies. Your call, it’s your data.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#113

Post by cycomanic »

ysavir wrote: post #47
jonathanmayer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common research methods have significant limitations. Web crawls, for instance, usually don't realistically simulate user activity and experiences. Lab studies often involve simplified systems that don't generalize to the real world. Surveys yield self-reported data, which can be very unreliable. Rally studies, by contrast, reflect real-world user activity and experiences. In science jargon, Rally enables field studi…

Thanks for clarifying! Makes sense. A few follow up questions: 1. Do you expect the opt-in nature of these studies to impact their findings? 2. To compensate for the voluntary nature of the studies, do you think researchers in general will still be incentivized to find data sources that are less respectful of people's privacy and don't require an opt-in to the study?

Regarding 2. that would run afoul of many ethics boards at universities. Generally they require that (informed) consent has been given to take part in the study.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#114

Post by xpe »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #98
splistud wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem with large internet platforms is that parts of 'my data' is inextricably linked to 'your data', even to the extent that 'my data' only exists on some platforms as data points in 'your data'. In that sense any opt-in choice given to another is yet another privacy breach on their 'contacts' for example. I've seen the opinion expressed that part of the reason society allows this type of surveillance…

> In that sense any opt-in choice given to another is yet another privacy breach on their 'contacts' for example. That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research. Rally is not a social network platform. It is a social science platform. There is no reason for it to be directly, as a platform, concerned with your contacts. Per their FAQ: > We abide by a series of principles known as…

>> In that sense any opt-in choice given to another is yet another privacy breach on their 'contacts' for example. That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research.

> That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research.

As I understand it, the commenter's point does not rest on 'contact' linking being present. Their point is that any kind of data linking provides a reindentification risk.

Regarding the risk of data linkages, how confident are you that Mozilla and others with access to the data will manage it ...

1. ... up to the currently-accepted level of knowledge (including hopefully some theoretical guarantees, if possible, and if not, mitigations with known kinds of risk) and ...

2. ... that the current level is acceptable given that history of data privacy doesn't paint a rosy picture?

To be open, I'm not interested in your confidence level per se, but rather the reasoning in your risk assessment. I want to weight the various factors myself, in other words. For example, you appear to have more confidence in IRB's than I do.

Knowing the history of the "arms race" between deidentification and reidentification, I don't put a whole lot of trust in Institutional Review Boards. Many smart, well-meaning efforts have fallen prey to linkage attacks. They are insidious.

P.S. In my view, using "non-sequitor" here is a bit strong, perhaps even off-putting. It is only a "non-sequitor" because you are making different logical assumptions than the commenter. Another approach would be to say "your conclusion only holds if..." This would make your point without being so pointed. It also helps show that you want to understand the other person's assumptions.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#115

Post by analognoise »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #71
cpeterso wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rally studies, by contrast, reflect real-world user activity and experiences. In science jargon, Rally enables field studies and intervention experiments with excellent ecological validity. Rally users are all opt-in. How does that impact the design of a Rally study and the conclusions you can draw from it?

Academic research in the social sciences is rigorously based on the concept of informed consent (i.e., opt-in), in the first place. There would be no change in terms of research design and the ability to draw scientific conclusions. edit: also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27633212 for details on research design considerations when conducting social science.

Except as noted elsewhere, Mozilla also gets the data to "improve products and services" right?

So it sounds like a nice shiny cloak for...exactly the kind of data collection nobody actually likes.

Yay for extra steps?

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#116

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

xpe wrote: post #114
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In that sense any opt-in choice given to another is yet another privacy breach on their 'contacts' for example. That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research. Rally is not a social network platform. It is a social science platform. There is no reason for it to be directly, as a platform, concerned with your contacts. Per their FAQ: > We abide by a series of principles known as…

>> In that sense any opt-in choice given to another is yet another privacy breach on their 'contacts' for example. That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research. > That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research. As I understand it, the commenter's point does not rest on 'contact' linking being present. Their point is that any kind of data link…

Thank you for your PS feedback, it is appreciated and will be incorporated.

My overall point is that if you don’t want data being captured that may provide data about your contacts, then dont opt-in to providing it.

Informed consent is the bedrock upon which social science ethics rests.

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#117

Post by yellowfish »

cpeterso wrote: post #58
jonathanmayer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common research methods have significant limitations. Web crawls, for instance, usually don't realistically simulate user activity and experiences. Lab studies often involve simplified systems that don't generalize to the real world. Surveys yield self-reported data, which can be very unreliable. Rally studies, by contrast, reflect real-world user activity and experiences. In science jargon, Rally enables field studi…

> Rally studies, by contrast, reflect real-world user activity and experiences. In science jargon, Rally enables field studies and intervention experiments with excellent ecological validity. Rally users are all opt-in. How does that impact the design of a Rally study and the conclusions you can draw from it?

Mozilla has been known to be pretty iffy when it comes to 'opt in' ( the mr. robot tie in .. etc )

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#118

Post by elliekelly »

xpe wrote: post #105
elliekelly wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I definitely did not put as much thought into my comment as I should have and I left out the critical piece of information that really ticked me off. I'm one of the nerds who actually reads the privacy documents and Rally's privacy policy[1] has a section titled "How We Use Your Information" that includes: > improving Mozilla’s existing products and services > creating and developing new products All of the ma…

>> improving Mozilla’s existing products and services >> creating and developing new products I agree that these are concerning. They seem out of place. If you want to start a petition asking Mozilla to clarify and/or remove these clauses, I would sign it.

I almost opened an issue on their GitHub[1] (one of their privacy-related documents invites people to "call them on it" if you have privacy concerns) but I decided against it because I worried about harassment from sleuthing HN readers finding me on other platforms. Such are the compromises you make as a lady on the internet sometimes.

[1]https://github.com/mozilla-rally

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#119

Post by xpe »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #112
xpe wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study. The commenter referenced Rally's privacy policy. It is not specific to a particular study.

I’m being charitable and leaving room for the possibility that they provide a tighter set of policies for some studies or revise their general policy to make commercial use be a study-by-study determination. Or, just don’t opt-in to any of the Rally studies. Your call, it’s your data.

> Or, just don’t opt-in to any of the Rally studies. Your call, it’s your data.

First, a caveat. I don't know the people behind the comments in this sub-thread. I have read almost all of them and find them to be informative and thoughtful. So thanks for that.

That said, when I read a comment like the above, what I hear is a mentality of "you are an individual, with power, if you don't like it, act individually". That mentality is not wrong, but is quite limited and incomplete. It overlooks the power and importance of individuals discussing and organizing together, which is often much more powerful than simply "voting with your feet".

Re: Rally, a novel privacy-first data sharing platform

#120

Post by Nicksil »

yellowfish wrote: post #117
cpeterso wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rally studies, by contrast, reflect real-world user activity and experiences. In science jargon, Rally enables field studies and intervention experiments with excellent ecological validity. Rally users are all opt-in. How does that impact the design of a Rally study and the conclusions you can draw from it?

Mozilla has been known to be pretty iffy when it comes to 'opt in' ( the mr. robot tie in .. etc )

>Mozilla has been known to be pretty iffy when it comes to 'opt in' ( the mr. robot tie in .. etc )

Did the instance you're referencing state it was opt-in then turn out to not be opt-in?

Post reply on HN