Live data from Hacker News

I was part of a human subject research study without my consent

christine.website

271–280 of 382 posts

Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a British perspective this sound like madness. We have a tradition of referring baseless legal threats to the precedent of Arkell v Pressdram.

A non-baseless threat so referred would land you in deep trouble, however. I think the core issue here is not being able to distinguish the two cases easily.

Absolutely, and I'm sure this is very industrially & culturally-specific experience. I don't blame OP for not being able to distinguish. (though I wouldn't have even read the whole email before hitting delete)

Personally I've told some expensive solicitors to get lost successfully, and for some I've engaged my own & spent tens of thousands. I suppose I tended to be aware of legal risks that I was running in my old business.

But lawyers are trying to get a result for their client as fast as possible. So if they've sent you something full of hand-waving jargon, they're either not very good at communicating (& not the kind of lawyer used to taking things further) or they're trying to intimidate because they've not got anything substantial to say.

Also (in my xp) it's rare that a lawyer won't clarify something they've written unless they're being paid to intimidate, and (in the UK at least) a judge will have short shrift with a plaintiff if pre-trial communications were insubstantial and intimidatory. You can't just be summoned to court with no idea what you did wrong.

Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent

#272
post #78
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just going to tag along to my comment above. I can't help but notice the difference in tone of the responses to this article vs. the one yesterday ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29599553 ) which I did not see. It seems those who participated in the thread yesterday had a quite different opinion.

As the author, I wonder how much me being not quiet but not an asshole about being nonbinary and having furry stickers in the article makes people start hitting the vitriol button.

Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent

#273
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well for starters they are lying and misreprenting themselves and the basis for their query. They say they are a data subject from Nice and represent that they are going to make a request under the CCPA. In actual practise they are a researcher from Princeton. If you don't think that's an ethical problem then I don't see it's worth discussing further. When you say "If I as an ordinary citizen..." you essentially make…

It really depends on your ethical framework doesn't it? People lie all the time for good reasons. Are those actions unethical? Further, I am struggling to see who was harmed here or how there was any ill intent. On top of that, the results of this study seem like they would be enlightening. It seems like society should want this experiment to be able to take place. Certainly a western liberal understanding of ethics…

"People lie all the time for good reasons. Are those actions unethical?" is whataboutism of the worst kind. We're not talking about any other hypothetical case where a person might lie for good reasons. We're talking about this case, and the lie/misrepresentation was at the heart of why it was unethical.

Secondly, you say you don't see who was harmed - the person who posted the original blog post was clearly harmed. She had a panic attack she was so stressed about the legal implications of the implied threat. The fact that someone else may perhaps have not found receiving this email stressful doesn't really matter - that was the effect on her and it was harmful on its face. Remember that people have different life circumstances which affect things like this - someone who was short of money may see a legal threat with implied financial consequences such as this as an existential threat.

Secondly the people who paid money for legal advice were very clearly also harmed. Their harm has a specific monetary value.

Your "put another way" extrapolation is just a complete straw man. Noone here other than you is talking about observing people in the park. This is about a research study which sent an email which some people saw as scammy or threatening in order to gather data about how small websites handle data subject access requests.

Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: Some grammar, and minor clause clarification in second-to-last paragraph. Yes, frequently. And throwaway. About once a week, I pick an account in my LastPass collection, and initiate the following process: 1. Initiate a CCPA data request using a form or email, and I always include language about the timeline. I am not a lawyer, I'm just a person. 2. Then, once I have the data, I delete the account. I'm trying t…

Even if what you are doing is "legal" it seems abusive as hell to me, especially if it is ever targeted at a smaller company or person like in the OP's case. Why are being so difficult? Why don't you find something more useful to do with your time instead of making others jump through idiotic hoops out of some misplaced sense of justice?

EDIT: Spelling, formatting,

(Same person, another throwaway, my bad.)

I imagine that for some companies it is difficult, and to the extent that I feel a 'sense of justice' about it, I would hope that my efforts help the organization (or single person, acknowledging that) set up a process to handle this.

I'm *genuinely* not trying to be abusive though. It's *extremely important* that consumers have the ability to exercise their data and privacy rights.

I'm not that old (mid 30s), but genuinely much of the data I have on the internet was put there when I was an actual child. And it's still there. This is actually one of the first times I've posted in *years* online. I really want to delete *almost everything*. Note in my OP, I said I worked at Google. I quit, because although I actually think ad targeting and the surveillance network are actually okay-ish, I wanted to opt-out myself, on both ends. So far, this decision has cost me 250k USD personally (if I calculate out the opportunity cost since I quit, just so far). And for the websites/apps I do still use, I donate some amount of money per year. OK, maybe I'm a freak, I really do think this stuff is important.

What would you suggest I do? Leave all my data online? As I said, in my cases, I was an actual child (those COPPA things did nothing to stop me), and this is, so far, a really effective way at getting places to delete my data. Maybe it's because they're "scared" of the law, but you know, then the law is working. Before, nobody responded to my deletion requests, and many websites had no option to delete. As a libertarian-ish person, this is a clear win for the consumer in terms of "coercive power of the state being used to create a framework that increases net freedom".

I am open to being wrong though! Let me delete all of my data first though so I don't have to do this again.

Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent

#275
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been on the internet since before Al Gore invented it. I’ve seen more crappy stuff from lawyers all the time. Remember, in the US, you do not need a reason to sue someone. A friend just got sued by a guy who tried to by his house for some BS reason. Trust me, stupid stuff happens.

Bet he heard about that by some method other than email ;)

Ha! Good point. But then his was an actual suit, not a threat.

Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent

#276
> I go out of my way to ensure that this website handles as little user data as possible. I have gone so far to do this that the only unique identifiers I deal with are IP addresses…

This page uses Cloudflare so they’re offloading data collection but it’s still being done, right?

Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent

#277
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve clearly never dealt with lawyers very much. The implied threat is pretty obvious to those that have.

Lawyers don’t imply potential litigation, they are quite explicit.

It depends on what they are doing. A lawsuit is explicit, as is a contract. But a Cease & Desist may or may not be explicit.

Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent

#278
I went to their website, and it says:

Note from Jonathan Mayer, the Principal Investigator Hi, my name is Jonathan Mayer. I’m the Principal Investigator for this academic research study. I have carefully read every single message sent to our research team, and I am dismayed that the emails in our study came across as security risks or legal threats. The intent of our study was to understand privacy practices, not to create a burden on website operators, email system operators, or privacy professionals. I sincerely apologize. I am the senior researcher, and the responsibility is mine.

The touchstone of my academic and government career, for over a decade, has been respecting and empowering users. That’s why I study topics like web tracking, dark patterns, and broadband availability, and that’s why I launched this study on privacy rights. I aim to be beyond reproach in my research methods, both out of principle and because my work often involves critiquing powerful companies and government agencies. In this instance, I fell short of that standard. I take your feedback to heart, and here is what I am doing about it.

First, our team will not send any new automated inquiries for this study. We suspended sending on December 15, and that is permanent.

Second, our team is prioritizing a possible one-time follow-up email to recipients, identifying the academic study and recommending that they disregard the prior email. If that is feasible, and if experts in the email operator community agree with the proposal, we will send the follow-up emails as expeditiously as possible.

Third, I will use the lessons learned from this experience to write and post a formal research ethics case study, explaining in detail what we did, why we did it, what we learned, and how researchers should approach similar studies in the future. I will teach that case study in coursework, and I will encourage academic colleagues to do the same. While I cannot turn back the clock on this study, I can help ensure that the next generation of technology policy researchers learns from it.

Fourth, I will engage with the communities that have contacted me about this study, which have already offered valuable suggestions for future directions to simplify, standardize, and enhance transparency for GDPR and CCPA data rights processes. I very much appreciate the earnest outreach so far, and I will be reciprocating.

If you have questions or concerns about the study, please do not hesitate to reach out. I gratefully acknowledge the feedback that we have received.

Thank you for reading, and again, my sincere apologies.

Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you're making an assumption that "normal citizens" receive legal threats regularly? I can count the legal threats I've received on one hand, and I can assure you the days following them were, unfortunately, quite unpleasant (fortunately nothing came of it). Stress aside, part of the problem is the very real possibility of a subject wasting money on hiring a lawyer.

Does this qualify as a legal threat? It just seems like a reminder of existing laws, like one sees in all manner of contracts or Terms of Service. Like the "you are obligated to pay within X days" you see on your credit card statements. Or even if there is a legal threat, do you take it seriously unless you know the source? People regularly get calls saying they are in violation of tax law and must pay.

Unless one is socially inept, it reads as a veiled threat. When someone asks one a question, it is likely to the point of certainty that social humans will consider (1) who is asking (2) why are they asking (3) what is the tone and (4) what is the text of the question. Failing to understand this or refusing to acknowledge it just means that one is bad at humans.

Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent

#280
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Innovation is being destroyed to protect people's feelings. Yes, it is. This is not a bad thing. A lot of the calculuses that conclude it's a bad thing are fundamentally dehumanizing.

Calculus: Having campus-wide COVID surveillance running (before any alternative testing options had sprung up) is more important than preventing ANY RISK of someone experiencing stigma for having had COVID. I think this calculus holds up and is not that dehumanizing. I'm not saying we should get rid of all protections, but that pendulum is too far on the regulatory side right now.

In that case, just cut out the middle man and start reading their medical records. Who needs privacy?

(... And then people rationally respond to such an invasion by no longer going to the doctors and lying about their medical history...)

We can't interpret people's desire for privacy as damage and route around it. There's decades of history of scientists interacting with the public to show why that has negative consequences for society.

Post reply on HN