Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

Post by bonzini » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 6:52 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #160

juliansimioni wrote: post #91

This apology fails from the 5th word: "We sincerely apologize for any harm..." While there are other requirements, a sincere apology cannot in any way entertain doubt about the fact that there WAS harm. Truly acknowledging the harm done is foundational to a real apology, and most of us (myself included) end up sneaking in weasel words or phrases like this. Psychologically, its nice for the apologizer, since it allows…

This is probably because they don't mean the apology, they were forced to write it by their administrators. And to be honest, I kind of agree with them. I don't really see what they did here as particularly bad. They demonstrated a very serious vulnerability in the linux kernel development process. I guess the harm they caused was wasting maintainers time, a bit? But what we all got out of it is the knowledge that re…

Post by fighterpilot » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 6:56 AM UTC

bonzini wrote: post #201

darawk wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably because they don't mean the apology, they were forced to write it by their administrators. And to be honest, I kind of agree with them. I don't really see what they did here as particularly bad. They demonstrated a very serious vulnerability in the linux kernel development process. I guess the harm they caused was wasting maintainers time, a bit? But what we all got out of it is the knowledge that re…

What is the serious vulnerability? That sometimes bugs slip through?

Post by shkkmo » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 7:00 AM UTC

tmotwu wrote: post #60

sombragris wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they had malice, but the breach of elemental ethics is just appalling. They show no remorse for being trusted and abusing that trust and good faith. They show no remorse for using human beings as involuntary guinea pigs. In sum, they show not remorse for doing wrong.

For me, it's not learning the lesson the first time around. I completely agree their experiment is unethical. However, it's not actually clear cut to most researchers the ethical bounds of their work, especially for study papers that's never really been explored before. Ethics in of itself is largely a active subtopic for many areas in CS, not only security research. AI is one area where qualifying potential harm to…

Post by darawk » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 7:12 AM UTC

doomrobo wrote: post #194

darawk wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Says who? Me and common sense. I don't believe consent is relevant when there is no risk of harm to the subject. IRBs and the GDPR are overly aggressive on this point, probably as a reaction to real and important violations of privacy. But the idea that A/B testing the color of your CTA button on a landing page requires informed consent is absurd.

There's lots of systemically horrible things that can happen if you're not careful about what you allow. If you're interested why these ethical principles exist in the United States, I suggest you at least skim the Belmont Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Report

Post by jmchuster » Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 7:15 AM UTC

Bootvis wrote: post #182

lynndotpy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a nitpick to me, since the rest of the apology uses the proper choices of words, though. "The method used was inappropriate", "we made a mistake", etc. The apology is also specific about what they did wrong despite their intentions. It really is a good apology after reading past the first six words.

ESL here. How correct is it to use ’any harm’ to mean ‘all harm’.