Okay, I have to admit, this was very well handled on your part. It's really good guidance.
Cheers, Al Iverson On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 8:49 AM yuv via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > UPDATE: > > * I had waited for the answer to my direct note to Jonathan Mayer and > fell asleep. It arrived at 01:44 EST. This morning I replied to him. > With a direct line of communication open, the letter higher up is on > hold. > > * They are currently not sending emails and will be publishing an FAQ > soon. The issue that is relevant for mailop is, at least temporarily, > defused. The feedback I have given them with regard to the spam issue > is that: > > The study abused the mechanism created by the laws to deliver its > questionnaire to an email address whose purpose is only to receive > legal GDPR/CCPA requests. Maybe, on balance, such minor abuse could be > tolerated as an efficient, low-cost shortcut to reach the person better > placed to answer the study's questionnaire. However, the obfuscation > of the sender; the use of fraudulent identities; the covert and > indirect questions; all void any possible justification, whether the > study does or does not constitute human subjects research. > > [...] > > (a) put your questions in a direct plain view survey form on the web > instead of covering them up with hypothetical facts scenarios; > > (b) identify yourself as the sender instead of using covert domains and > false identities; > > (c) use a strict opt-in logic: the first email is the last one unless > the subject responds; and the first email has all the elements for the > subject to make an informed consent decision. > > > * On the big issue, the ENROLLMENT OF HUMAN SUBJECTS WITHOUT CONSENT > into the study, I have been told that "[t]he IRB determined that our > study does not constitute human subjects research." I do not have the > reasons for such determination, but this is the fault line at the > moment. I have offered to Jonathan my opinion that: > > The IRB's determination stands corrected (of course without admitting > fault, given the litigious contest of the land). Behind every website > there is an operator and in most cases, the end-operator is a human > subject, or an organization within which a human subject bears ultimate > responsibility for processing the study's emails. That human deserves > respect [Belmont Report]. > > In the context of GDPR/CCPA, the mechanism they create and the > obligations and sanctions they impose, the study as designed resulted > in the ENROLLMENT OF HUMAN SUBJECTS WITHOUT CONSENT. > > It is work in progress. I am trying to identify who at Princeton would > be the optimal recipient of my letter. A Researcher Misconduct > Complaint to the DoF would only deal with the individual researcher's > integrity and would not prevent the IRB from making further misguided > decisions on the coerced enrollment of humans. At this time I am not > seeking to punish the researchers. I wait to see how the dialog with > Jonathan unfolds. > > > On Thu, 2021-12-16 at 22:10 -0700, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > > I don't buy the silly mistake. Not the second time around. > [...] > > But the fact that the student repeated the action and apparent lack > > of caring completely negates both "silly" and "mistake" in my head. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law > > > -- > Yuval Levy, JD, MBA, CFA > Ontario-licensed lawyer > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > -- *Al Iverson /* Deliverability blogging at www.spamresource.com Subscribe to the weekly newsletter at wombatmail.com/sr.cgi DNS Tools at xnnd.com / (312) 725-0130 / Chicago (Central Time)
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
