Researchers just released profile data on 70,000 OkCupid users without permission – Vox
A group of researchers has released a data set on nearly 70,000 users of the online dating site OkCupid. The data dump breaks the cardinal rule of social science research ethics: It took identifiable personal data without permission.
The information — while publicly available to OkCupid users — was collected by Danish researchers who never contacted OkCupid or its clientele about using it.
The data, collected from November 2014 to March 2015, includes user names, ages, gender, religion, and personality traits, as well as answers to the personal questions the site asks to help match potential mates. The users hail from a few dozen countries around the world.
From: Researchers just released profile data on 70,000 OkCupid users without permission – Vox
I don’t mind the whole “we found that 46% of our base prefers mayonnaise to mustard, 42% mustard to mayonnaise, and 8% had no preference” thing. It’s when they say “here are the identifying details of the people who hate mustard” and then lists them that I wander from “perfectly fine, what’s the big deal” to “WHAT THE HELL YOU JUST KNOW ONE OF THOSE MAYO BASTARDS IS GOING TO KILL A MUSTARD PERSON NOW AND IT WILL BE ALL YOUR FAULT”.Report
This is pretty standard operating procedure for research on social media.Report
It would be nice if the identifier was just a sequential number, or a foreign key into a different database.Report
If it’s all publicly available, then there is no private information to be protected.Report
Well, coming out of an environment where fingerprint cards are passed around like playing cards, I have strong feelings about personal identifying information in any context…
Also, it was freely available to other users of the site, not necessarily the general public at large. I think that a case can be made that the contract under which the information was provided only is applicable within those bounds.Report
That’s a good point, if the information were only available to other users, and there was the reasonable expectation that harm would be done were the information to be leaked.
I think though that we should stop being outraged every time something on the internet is used in a way that the original posters did not intend, as the entire purpose of the internet is as a public space, especially in the case of something as innocuous as noninvasive social science research.Report
Hah, I guess all those profiles I read talking about how no one had use of the profile data without authorization really had some legal force…err no.
Thank god I’m semi anonymous on that site, and didn’t use real names / info. Fair warning, if you see a guy who’s name is similar to this one and talks about world domination, that’s me…maybe. 🙂Report
Another point of view on the same event…
https://ironholds.org/blog/when-science-goes-bad-consent-data-and-doubling-down-on-the-internet/Report
So it turns out this is as massive a breach of privacy as “I read the phone book”?Report