CCPA Scam – Human subject research study conducted by Princeton University • Hacker News Board

Re: CCPA Scam – Human subject research study conducted by Princeton University

#61

Post by neworbit » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 2:07 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #26

Ross Teixeira, the PhD student that did this, had the brazen nerve to post this lie on Twitter: Responses to the study have been overwhelmingly positive, and I particularly appreciate the notes of encouragement that some websites have sent. We look forward to sharing results in the coming year, with the goals of identifying best practices and informing future policy making. https://mobile.twitter.com/RossTeixeira/sta…

Would anyone be interested in organizing a class action lawsuit against Ross Teixeira and Princeton?

Re: CCPA Scam – Human subject research study conducted by Princeton University

#62

Post by jeroenhd » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 2:08 AM UTC

kstrauser wrote: post #6

I'm the person who wrote that blog post. I got an email from a fake person in France who asked several questions about my small social media site's CCPA compliance, then ended the letter with: > I look forward to your reply without undue delay and at most within 45 days of this email, as required by Section 1798.130 of the California Civil Code. I thought I was about to be sued by someone who was the equivalent of a…

Poignant detail: the Radboud professor that's part of this "research" has experience in dark patterns so he knows damn well what he's doing. By his own words, from his website:

> I also study anonymous communication networks such as Tor, and investigate deceptive and manipulative (dark) design patterns

Radboud has policies about informed consent [1] that were clearly ignored, or were explained away with the idea that informing should be allowed afterwards to not taint the experiment (even though this is just a basic data policy).

I believe the recipients of these emails should file a complaint against Teixeira's co-conspirator as well. Contact information for the Radboud ethic's board can be found at [2], though the documentation is mostly aimed at students.

[1]: https://www.ru.nl/rdm/collecting-data/informed-consent-ethic...

[2]: https://www.ru.nl/science/research/about-our-research/ethics...

Re: CCPA Scam – Human subject research study conducted by Princeton University

#63

Post by jimmar » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 2:10 AM UTC

User23 wrote: post #20

Serious question: why should academic institutions be held to a higher standard than commercial ones? Google and Facebook, to just name two, routinely perform human subject research without informed consent as a matter of course. That's what A/B testing is. Ethically speaking the fine print in the ToS obviously isn't actually informed consent, even if the law says it is. I don't see why being a for-profit company sho…

Researchers in the past were pushing experiments too far. Infecting people with diseases without consent, torturing people psychologically, providing no post-experiment care, etc. I do research on human subjects, and while I often complain about the paperwork, I'm glad that researchers have to carefully consider the potential harm and benefits that research participants can face.

But as far as other manipulations done by corporations? It's hard to say when something should require permission. Technically, a used car salesman is doing some kind of experiment when trying different sales tactics on people. But, I wouldn't make him fill out an IRB application. The same could be said of charities asking for donations who tug at your heart strings, or just about any other human interaction.

Re: CCPA Scam – Human subject research study conducted by Princeton University

#64

Post by ineedasername » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 2:10 AM UTC

dangrossman wrote: post #52

ineedasername wrote: post #26

Ross Teixeira, the PhD student that did this, had the brazen nerve to post this lie on Twitter: Responses to the study have been overwhelmingly positive, and I particularly appreciate the notes of encouragement that some websites have sent. We look forward to sharing results in the coming year, with the goals of identifying best practices and informing future policy making. https://mobile.twitter.com/RossTeixeira/sta…

> Responses to the study have been overwhelmingly positive 7 days ago my response to this study included that the "vague legal threat at the end of your mail is immoral and gross". I guess he considered that a positive.

Sure, after all he is studying public policy on technology. Maybe from his perspective it is very interesting and useful for his research to see this response. Scaring the crap out of people over compliance with technology-related laws would seem to have some bearing on understanding the role of public policy. Of course it crosses into human research, so it's unethical since he did not have approval for that.

Re: CCPA Scam – Human subject research study conducted by Princeton University

#65

Post by dangom » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 2:13 AM UTC

kstrauser wrote: post #29

labcomputer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might be worth reaching out to Princeton's IRB? https://undergraduateresearch.princeton.edu/compliance/human...

Done, thanks. I'm not sure what the difference is between that and their RIA ( https://ria.princeton.edu/report-concern ), but now I've reported it to both.

You should report this to the IRB. The research is conducted on information obtained by interacting with humans, and therefore should be classify as Human Subjects Research [1].

Waivers of informed consent can be obtained under some circumstances, for example in the case of a retrospective study where the data has already been collected and contacting subjects would be difficult/unnecessary, or it can be shown to adversely affect the outcomes of the study [2, search for waiver].

But regardless, even if informed consent were to be waived, the fact that this is human research means that the researchers should be trained in Research Ethics and Good Clinical Practice (even if the research is not clinical), and understand that the goal is always to minimize risk for the participants - risk which was clearly not properly evaluated under the current project.

[1] https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/research.htm [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/46.116

Re: CCPA Scam – Human subject research study conducted by Princeton University

#66

Post by jonas21 » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 2:14 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #44

ajkjk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could you know it's a lie?

Because he said the response was overwhelming positive at the same time that he is dealing with anxious & irate recipients of his messages.

I'd be willing to believe that, say, 90% of the responses were polite, positive customer-service language, and the other 10% were anxious and irate.

Re: CCPA Scam – Human subject research study conducted by Princeton University

#67

Post by vulcan01 » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 2:14 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #48

dang wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok we've squeezed that in above. Thanks!

And thanks. I was concerned that might be too much adaptation. Apparently not.

I'm not a moderator (obviously) but I've noticed that when the article's original title is sufficiently vague (like for this one) the mods allow for a lot of leeway in the title as long as it is representative of the article.

Re: CCPA Scam – Human subject research study conducted by Princeton University

#68

Post by hannasanarion » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 2:16 AM UTC

User23 wrote: post #20

Serious question: why should academic institutions be held to a higher standard than commercial ones? Google and Facebook, to just name two, routinely perform human subject research without informed consent as a matter of course. That's what A/B testing is. Ethically speaking the fine print in the ToS obviously isn't actually informed consent, even if the law says it is. I don't see why being a for-profit company sho…

The ethical bar isn't "never do human testing on anybody ever".

If an A/B test is likely to cause people harm (the 2012 Facebook Depression Experiment comes to mind), then it should absolutely be held to the same IRB standard as academia.

The point of IRB is to ensure that your human testing doesn't cause anybody any material or psychological harm. "Human testing" isn't a bad word, it's just something that needs to be done with care.

Re: CCPA Scam – Human subject research study conducted by Princeton University

#69

Post by fallingknife » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 2:16 AM UTC

User23 wrote: post #20

Serious question: why should academic institutions be held to a higher standard than commercial ones? Google and Facebook, to just name two, routinely perform human subject research without informed consent as a matter of course. That's what A/B testing is. Ethically speaking the fine print in the ToS obviously isn't actually informed consent, even if the law says it is. I don't see why being a for-profit company sho…

How is that even remotely similar? FB ran an a/b test. These guys sent bogus legal threats.

Re: CCPA Scam – Human subject research study conducted by Princeton University

#70

Post by malwarebytess » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 2:18 AM UTC

I'm confused how this is human experimentation. Were they not merely collecting information on how a site handles these requests? Is it because they erroneously sent emails to sites that do not fall under the umbrella of the law they were examining?

An email asking an organization for answers to questions is human experimentation?

I must be missing something.