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

171–180 of 201 posts

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

#171

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

Ensorceled wrote: post #126
Nicksil wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then why have the linked page. If it's literally not informative enough than it's just a poorly written press release. Usually marketing pages will include just enough information and imagery to grab your attention. There will be some links embedded which ultimately lead to more and more information. Basically, if you're interested in learning more, you'll be motivated to read/click further. If it doesn't interest y…

I guess what I'm getting at is: if article does not provide enough background to even be able to participate in a discussion about the subject, it's a bad article.

The common law may no longer be “you have to read the fine print”.

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

#172

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

errantmind wrote: post #141
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surprisingly difficult to understand what this thing is or does. Social science is a hard science, in the sense that it is very difficult to comprehend the technical details without adequate training. > Seems like you can “donate” your browsing behavior to science More than that, you can donate the following, as well: > Your Rally demographics and an optional short survey For the COVID study, for example. https://r…

Just because statistics is involved doesn't make Social Science a 'hard' science

Indeed.

> Softer fields are likely to be found, even if perhaps at lower frequencies, in the physical and the biological sciences. Conversely, there is no reason why high-consensus fields should not exist in the social sciences, too.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3694152/#!po=0....

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

#173

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

lawl wrote: post #134
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shouldn't you ask the users for permission on using their aggregate data for purposes that could be different to the study they enrolled to? They do, given that you’d have been informed of that before you provided your consent by opting in to Rally data crowdsourcing. > This is exactly the data a modern Cambridge Analytica would want Kind of nice that it’d be in the hands of Mozilla, Princeton University, other tru…

> Kind of nice that it’d be in the hands of Mozilla, Princeton University, other trusted research partners, and the open web, isn’t it? No? It'd be much better to not collect that data at all.

> It'd be much better to not collect that data at all.

That may not be possible to enforce without shuttering the entire computer networking infrastructure of the world and rebuilding it on new computer science foundations.

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

#174

Post by throwaway81523 »

thombles wrote: post #7

Whoever wrote this piece is way too close to... whatever it is Mozilla is doing here. There seems to be an assumption that users will be gleeful to throw their data at legitimate researchers from legitimate institutions doing legitimate work. What "data"? Browsing history? Identity? Something else? Why? What's in it for them? Since when was giving our data to third parties a good idea? There is literally no motivatio…

Yep. "Privacy first" and "data sharing" don't belong in the same sentence.

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

#175

Post by BugWatch »

elliekelly wrote: post #159
Nicksil wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't chastising you. I don't know you so there was no way I could have known how long you've been on the internet nor your depth in experience in identity within it. I was attempting to point out some of the bigger factors feeding into your complaint, regarding the potential of people harassing you, with the intent of no more than to bring attention to something you may have overlooked, as humans tend to do so…

I don’t think it’s in any way “combative” to point out that I am indeed competent and capable of interacting with the online world safely without the assistance patronizing of strangers on the internet. And, whether your intention or not, that’s exactly what your comment was: patronizing. With undertones of “well what did you think would happen when you present yourself in such a way”. Whether you’re willing to admit…

I'd suggest looking up the "principle of charity".

Additionally, claiming the self-perceived "undertones" as "the real truth" vs clearly (and reasonably) stated (subsequent) stance/explanation indeed is confrontative, at best. In my opinion and experience.

When X claims they know better what was the intent or tone of Y's message when Y is already there precisely elaborating... X has to be realistic, admit no prior knowledge of Y (nor their idiosyncrasies, nor their style of communication), be aware of the limitations of the medium (no voice tone, no body language), and take things at face value as written (and/or ask for explanation/further details in neutral and a non-confrontational way). Y has to do the same. It really is the only way that maintains functionality of the conversation.

(Also, forseeing a potential conflict: X and Y has nothing to do with bio-sex, it just signifies two unknowns.)

At least, that's the self-defined framework I use, as a probably somewhat autistic/ADHD person (people confuse and frustrate me to no end).

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

#176

Post by yissp »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #170
thayne wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the participants are limited to people who are motivated solely by participating in research, wouldn't that add significant bias to that research?

Indeed, sampling bias is a large concern. Nonetheless, much of psychology research conducted in the US has made do with ridiculous sampling bias - the US college student is anecdotally considered to be the most-studied population in the world.

Doesn't the field of psychology have pretty serious issues with the replicability of their experimental results?

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

#178

Post by rglullis »

mushufasa wrote: post #156
jonathanmayer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Princeton research collaborator here. Glad to answer questions about Rally. > What "data"? Browsing history? Identity? Something else? That depends on the Rally study, since research questions differ and studies are required to practice data minimization. Each study is opt in, with both short-form and long-form explanations. Academic studies also involve IRB-approved informed consent. Take a look at our launch study…

I think that the motivation of 'enabling citizen science' is not a very strong one. You will get very, very skewed results, moreso than typical WEIRD, if you conduct studies on the people for whom that is sufficient motivation. A stronger motivation would be providing a product or service that tangibly adds value to someone's life. After reading this, I have no idea how Rally would provide any tangible benefits to me…

Exactly. It is so weird to see all this marketing speak that makes it sound like users can get to benefit from something, but in the end this is just something that gets people to work and provide data for free to multi-billionaire universities.

We don't any more studies or research to know that the best privacy policy is to not collect any data in the first place.

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

#179

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

yissp wrote: post #176
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, sampling bias is a large concern. Nonetheless, much of psychology research conducted in the US has made do with ridiculous sampling bias - the US college student is anecdotally considered to be the most-studied population in the world.

Doesn't the field of psychology have pretty serious issues with the replicability of their experimental results?

Indeed, anecdotally, if not empirically, that is the case. Nonetheless, psychology is a highly operationalized field.

In other words, every thorough study begins with an assessment and revision of the consensus language being used to describe reality.

On that front alone, psychology is one of the most hard sciences around.

Deep learning is directly attributable to psychology research, for what it is worth.

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

#180

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

caconym_ wrote: post #157
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some sort of pinky-promise. Nope. > * research partners are contractually obligated to abide by these procedures and protect your data.* https://rally.mozilla.org/how-rally-works/faqs/

But, realistically, what recourse do users have if there's a breach? A few years ago I got a letter from Washington State University saying that they'd obtained my personal health data (which I never directly consented to, nor had I interacted with WSU in any way prior to receiving this latter) and subsequently allowed it to be stolen by unknown malicious actors. In case you're curious, they kept the data on an unenc…

> There was some class action pittance that meant nothing to me, and WSU does not seem to have been subject to any meaningful consequences.

Class action suits, from my understanding, are about 1) compensating the initial plaintiffs, 2) setting an appropriate punitive damage to redress the harm to society, and 3) distributing that punitive damage in an equitable fashion.

You are benefiting from 2) and 3) as a claimant in a class-action. 2) is where the meaningful consequence happens, in my estimation.

Post reply on HN