Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't see a legal threat in the original email.
> ... as required by Section 1798.130 of the California Civil Code.
That’s not a threat. A threat would be, “I’ll sue you if you don’t comply with my request”.
I was part of a human subject research study without my consent
61–70 of 382 posts
Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent
#62Can someone help me understand the ethical problem here? If I as an ordinary citizen contacted the webmaster with a similar worded email, the result would have been the same. The fact is that this “experiment” did not create any more or additional stress than is created for normal citizens/businesses simply engaging in normal legal activities. If submitting such a request has the potential to cause such undue stress,…
This argument amounts to "If something can happen , then it's okay for a researcher to cause it to happen in order to study the result." I hope it's obvious why that is a poor ethical standard for what constitutes acceptable research practice.
If the way it was caused to happen was unethical then yes I see a problem. But it’s not, so no, it’s not clear to me, hence why I asked.
Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent
#63> My name is Maya Mishina, and I am a resident of Novosibirsk, Russia. If i received such an email, I would mark it as spam and move on with my life. Why did this blogger take it seriously? Does she take other forms of spam so seriously? I do feel for her stress and anxiety, but I also have to question her mental ability to filter noise. Life must be quite stressful for her overall.
> If i received such an email, I would mark it as spam and move on with my life. Why did this blogger take it seriously? Because "I'm stupid and fell for a phishing email" doesn't grab eyeballs on Patreon/Twitter like "without my consent" does among the circles they run in. > I also have to question her mental ability to filter noise. Life must be quite stressful for her overall. We're talking about someone who is a…
While I have no stake in the "furry" game, the fact that you seem to think that a person should be disregarded because they're a "furry" is only very slightly above outright calling them a slur.
Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent
#64Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent
#65A 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…
What specifically is there to fear from an email like this? For one the sender opens by admitting they are not protected by the CCPA, and a quick reading about this law shows it does not apply to an individual's personal blog.
If a Russian were able to file suit in California, wouldn't the defendant have a chance early on to ask a judge to dismiss it?
I'm trying to sound naive because I want some gory details.
Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent
#66A 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.
Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent
#67The Institutional Review Board doesn't seem to be much of an "ethical board" given they don't consider the stress this causes the human side of the website operators. How did they conclude this doesn't count as "human subjects research" given the expectation is to measure a human response to an email (framed as from a person)?
In particular, to an email which: 1. does not disclose that this is a research survey; 2. does not inform the recipient that they can decline to participate without any adverse consequence (as they state in their study FAQ), instead doing entirely the opposite - ending the mail with an assertion (untrue for most recipients) that they have a legal duty to respond; 3. lies about the origin of the email, inventing a fak…
You are the first person in this thread to concisely state the major ethical failings. These 4 things are universally required in human subjects research (or IRB-exempt HSR) and it's black-and-white unethical to omit them.
Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument amounts to "If something can happen , then it's okay for a researcher to cause it to happen in order to study the result." I hope it's obvious why that is a poor ethical standard for what constitutes acceptable research practice.
If the way it was caused to happen was unethical then yes I see a problem. But it’s not, so no, it’s not clear to me, hence why I asked.
Lying about your identity and failing to reveal that the reason for your inquiry is that it is part of an academic research project would be the ‘unethical’ part.
It is unacceptable to do something to a person so you can study the way they behave, without first obtaining their consent to participate in such a study.
You can observe how people behave when they are subjected to the same stimulus naturally; you can ask them if it’s okay to subject them to a stimulus to see how they react; but you can’t just do something to them and write down what happens.
Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent
#69Earlier 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.
Maybe not "officially", if such a bright line exists. But in practice, a "reminder" of a law including a legal citation and phrases such as "without undue delay" will be interpreted as a threat in many circles. Whether or not it will be seen as a credible threat is a function of the recipient's risk tolerance, prior experience, familiarity with legal processes, etc. Hiring a lawyer ($$$) isn't out of the question if the recipient is unsure or has a low risk tolerance (as, perhaps, an individual blogger might have). It is a little cruel for a researcher to assume every recipient will respond neutrally.
I've received legit legal threats over email from very serious people. I'm certain they would have escalated to more "official" channels if the situation wasn't resolved to their satisfaction (if you're curious, it was a contractor billing issue that was being ignored by my HOA. I was caught in the crossfire).
The fact that random scammers are calling folks claiming they're violating tax law isn't a justification for researchers to engage in similar acts. Do you agree?
Re: I was part of a human subject research study without my consent
#70Earlier 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.
To be clear, I find the ability for anybody to threaten anybody else with a lawyer to be problematic for many reasons. The legal system in the US sucks and I would love to see some sort of social remedy to this type of lopsided interaction and abuse of power. If that happened in this case that’s part of my question: perhaps there’s noting wrong with the “experiment” itself but rather with wording that might imply leg…
> The request simply asked for a prompt response as required by law. That’s quite a stones throw from “I’ll sue you and take you for everything you own if you don’t reply”...BTW, if you are actually being threatened by a lawyer then they send certified mail or show up at your door.
I think you are expected random people operating websites to share your knowledge of the legal system. I know you're right, but most people who operate a website likely don't, and these emails make them spend unnecessary time, money figuring that out; not to mention mental distress.
I find this not dissimilar from a standard "I'm in prison, but know where a million dollars are buried, send me money" email scam; and if researchers were sending those around as tests to see who was gullible, they would be promptly end up on several blocklists. I don't see how this is different; and therein lies the ethical problem. Quite a few people seem to agree.