Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of org/meetings/2015SummerDevMeeting/ResearchEthicsNotes

Oct 2, 2015, 2:18:42 PM (4 years ago)



  • org/meetings/2015SummerDevMeeting/ResearchEthicsNotes

    v1 v2  
    2020* It is lowest risk to gather information about your own activity (e.g. your client, your hidden service).
    2121* These guidelines should be used for self-assessement, and they will also serve as a template for notification to Tor.
     22* Tor should provide (non-exhaustive) examples of specific types of unacceptable activity. For example, it is not acceptable to run an HSDir, harvest onion addresses, and do a Web crawl of those onion services.
    2223* General guidelines
    2324  1. Only collect data that is acceptable to publish. In the case of encrypted or secret-shared data, it can be acceptable to assume that the keys or some shares are not published.
    3334  * The notification process should be private to prevent researchers from being scooped, but we should make it clear that public discussion is preferred.
    3435  * It should be acceptable for proposals that don’t receive a response within X time to proceed with waiting longer (e.g. X=7 days).
     36  * The review group should provide thoughts and recommendations about compliance with the research guidelines. They may work with the researcher to improve the research plan.
    3537  * Who should be in the group?
    3638    * Tor people already have little time.
    4446* The review group can request that certain details about an approved proposal be released (e.g. identity of researchers) to preempt rumors and FUD about ongoing research.
    4547* Review group process may be used as a way to provide guidance to researchers who do not have expertise in designing safe experiments.
     48* In the case of researcher mistakes, unanticipated results, or a significant change in research plans that may violate research guidelines, the review group should be notified.
    4750=== Outreach to research communities ===