However, I started having second thoughts, so what follows is to organize ideas and have it somewhere I can look back to.
2/n
What are the implications of using hacked data for research?
A short thread inspired by the fact that, before AWs took it down, #Parler was extensively hacked and user data was leaked.
However, I started having second thoughts, so what follows is to organize ideas and have it somewhere I can look back to.
2/n
First of all, there's an issue of quality. Data might be altered or incomplete, and the source cannot be considered accountable (assuming src is anonymous).
3/n
Finally, users’ privacy is at stake, since researchers could see material that users didn’t agree for other people to see.
4/n
This is all the more true in cases such as the #ParlerHack, where the leaked information is of particularly sensitive nature, and there’s a high risk of unintended consequences.
5/n
After all the data is out there, users are already exposed, and using the leaked information for rsrch (with some precautions) might not cause any additional harm.
Does this mean free for all then?
6/n
On practical grounds, there might be legal boundaries in place (depending on the context).
But more generally, from a deontology perspective I think that (as long as the resercher is not responsible for the hack) the picture is blurred.
7/n
On the other hand, I think the problem of users’ consent should not be bypassed as easily.
8/n
In fact it can be argued that using illegally obtained data for research purposes might legitimize (or even encourage) illegal or unethical behavior.
9/n
Do you know of any explicit guidelines in poli /soc sciences that address this issue?
n/n
https://t.co/IvcTXARoga
If I were a grad student in poli-sci /social psych / etc right now, I'd be getting my advisor to let me change my dissertation topic right now. The potential of this dataset is insane. https://t.co/0F5o6tUdYu
— Andrew Therriault (@therriaultphd) January 11, 2021
More from Internet
You May Also Like
**Thread on Bravery of Sikhs**
(I am forced to do this due to continuous hounding of Sikh Extremists since yesterday)
Rani Jindan Kaur, wife of Maharaja Ranjit Singh had illegitimate relations with Lal Singh (PM of Ranjit Singh). Along with Lal Singh, she attacked Jammu, burnt - https://t.co/EfjAq59AyI
Hindu villages of Jasrota, caused rebellion in Jammu, attacked Kishtwar.
Ancestors of Raja Ranjit Singh, The Sansi Tribe used to give daughters as concubines to Jahangir.
The Ludhiana Political Agency (Later NW Fronties Prov) was formed by less than 4000 British soldiers who advanced from Delhi and reached Ludhiana, receiving submissions of all sikh chiefs along the way. The submission of the troops of Raja of Lahore (Ranjit Singh) at Ambala.
Dabistan a contemporary book on Sikh History tells us that Guru Hargobind broke Naina devi Idol Same source describes Guru Hargobind serving a eunuch
YarKhan. (ref was proudly shared by a sikh on twitter)
Gobind Singh followed Bahadur Shah to Deccan to fight for him.
In Zafarnama, Guru Gobind Singh states that the reason he was in conflict with the Hill Rajas was that while they were worshiping idols, while he was an idol-breaker.
And idiot Hindus place him along Maharana, Prithviraj and Shivaji as saviours of Dharma.
(I am forced to do this due to continuous hounding of Sikh Extremists since yesterday)
Rani Jindan Kaur, wife of Maharaja Ranjit Singh had illegitimate relations with Lal Singh (PM of Ranjit Singh). Along with Lal Singh, she attacked Jammu, burnt - https://t.co/EfjAq59AyI
Tomorrow again same thing happens bcoz fudus like you are creating a narrative oh Khalistan. when farmers are asking MSP. (RSS ki tatti khane wale Kerni sena ke kutte).
— Ancient Economist (@_stock_tips) December 5, 2020
U kill sikhs in 1984 just politics. To BC low IQ fudu Saale entire history was politics.
Hindu villages of Jasrota, caused rebellion in Jammu, attacked Kishtwar.
Ancestors of Raja Ranjit Singh, The Sansi Tribe used to give daughters as concubines to Jahangir.
The Ludhiana Political Agency (Later NW Fronties Prov) was formed by less than 4000 British soldiers who advanced from Delhi and reached Ludhiana, receiving submissions of all sikh chiefs along the way. The submission of the troops of Raja of Lahore (Ranjit Singh) at Ambala.
Dabistan a contemporary book on Sikh History tells us that Guru Hargobind broke Naina devi Idol Same source describes Guru Hargobind serving a eunuch
YarKhan. (ref was proudly shared by a sikh on twitter)
Gobind Singh followed Bahadur Shah to Deccan to fight for him.
In Zafarnama, Guru Gobind Singh states that the reason he was in conflict with the Hill Rajas was that while they were worshiping idols, while he was an idol-breaker.
And idiot Hindus place him along Maharana, Prithviraj and Shivaji as saviours of Dharma.
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
