241–250 of 382 posts
I got an email from them too, asking about GDPR compliance. Isn't unsolicited mass email illegal under the GDPR? Maybe I should threaten to sue them .
I got an email from them too, asking about GDPR compliance. Isn't unsolicited mass email illegal under the GDPR? Maybe I should threaten to sue them .
GDPR is about storing personal data. Why should it be illegal to send emails to whatever address you like?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This I think is a typical example of having to hold two opposite thoughts at the same time. Yes, it's a bad thing to do, it's pretty obvious that it'll scare the bejesus out of some people and even worse, have some chilling effect. On the other hand the pendulum on ethical boards has gone waaaay in the other direction to the point where a lot of very useful research doesn't get done. The most vivid example being that…
This is an interesting take. What "very useful research" is being blocked by which IRBs? FWIW, the author of the essay at the link you provided seems deeply ignorant of why IRBs exist. "Mere resident doctors weren’t allowed to do studies on their own. They would probably screw up and start building concentration camps or something. " really?
Human challenge trials. Hundreds of thousands of dead later, and we're still using statistics to answer questions like "is Omicron ignoring immunity", instead of answering them definitely in a few days with an absolute minimum of risk. I'd volunteer for that, btw, so would literally millions. But it's just not inside the Overton window. This isn't wisdom or caution. It's plain cowardice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because I didn't consent.
Then please cite which paragraph of the GDPR says that consent is required for sending an email to someone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deception is allowed, but should be scrutinized carefully to determine if it is necessary. In this case, it was not necessary. The researcher could have easily just said "we want to know if you are compliant with CCPA for the purpose of doing this research, could you tell us your policy please" https://research.oregonstate.edu/irb/research-involving-dece... quotes: a) Psychologists do not conduct a study involving de…
Are you sure that this is applicable to OP's situation? It appears to be a set of guidelines, not a requirement. And in fact, I'm skeptical that there are requirements, except on a university-by-university basis -- which is to say, the process seems much less formal than people are saying. For example, I would feel comfortable with this study if at the bottom it said "Just kidding, we're actually researchers. Can you…
University researchers are required to abide by ethical standards to prevent abuse of test subjects. One would assume that this should also include not randomly targeting people with deceptive emails causing them mental suffering and unnecessary legal costs.
Maybe then their executives will seriously review what their researchers are doug9.
A lot of people mocking the author or others for being scared and worried are basically blaming the victim here, and I would like them to stop. The nature of legal practices in the USA is such that the answers to "Are you totally in the clear legally?" and "Will you lose significant amounts of money proving in random courts that you are in the clear legally?" are often both yes. As a result, any researchers who send…
Yep I posted this hoping to raise awareness, but the reaction was not what I expected. In the US even a meritless legal threat will require hiring a lawyer to ensure you are in the clear which requires significant amount of money, in addition to the stress. Researchers should never be putting anyone in that position.
So what happens when a site receives a CCPA inquiry from an actual person concerned about privacy instead of a researcher under a fake identity? The site still needs to determine if the law applies to them and if so what they must do to satisfy their obligations, so a real inquiry should be as costly and as stressful as a research inquiry.
Does this suggest that privacy laws such as CCPA (and GDPR) which create obligations for sites to deal directly with users on privacy matters are a bad idea? Should such laws instead require users to go through some state agency as an intermediary which would then only contact the site on behalf of the person if the agency determines that the user's data at the site is covered?