Deception is a necessary part but not the key. The key is potential for distressing a real human being. The problem is that we live in a legal Society where everyone is at risk of life-altering legal consequences.
Oh, our society, especially America's, is overly litigious. I agree.
But, pushing back a bit (in good faith), do you think asking an entity for your data, or asking them to delete it, should really be considered unusual and panic provoking? I said in another comment the same thing, but do you think this could be a moment of cultural learning?
I recall seeing Ralph Nader speak at a fundraising event 20 years ago and asking the crowd "how many people have actually tried to sue someone?" and in a room of hundreds only a few hands went up.
And a year ago when I took my landlord to small claims it was insane how complex the process was and how many paperwork pitfalls are in the way to disqualify you. I remember sitting on the half-day zoom call and watching case after case get thrown out because plaintiffs "forgot to file proof of service" or whatever. I'm generally good with paperwork and still nearly missed out.
There may be some people in America who are overly litigious but for the general population the legal system is wholly inaccessible.
It doesn’t matter. This isn’t a case where an individual would be suing. This is the government regulation coming down on someone after being flagged by “a victim”.
In a perfect world, I do not think it should be stressful, but we don't live in that world. I think a stress response is reasonable, given the risk of legal consequences.
Perhaps it is a learning moment, but I think the lesson should be to consider the impact of these kinds of studies.
I'm sure it is a learning experience for bloggers as well, and some of them will learn that hosting a Blog is not worth the legal risk and take it down
The fact that everyone violates the law in some form, and anyone with sufficient will and resources could ruin a life with legal proceedings is why we have the concept of standing in American law. It acts as a filter so that only someone with skin in the game can bring suit. It is one protection against abuse, and why laws like that give anyone standing Texas abortion ban and forthcoming California gun legislation are problematic.
You are translating "legal threat" into "asking for data". And your 'learning' comment makes me think this is a cause for you. That's fine, and I even applaud what I take to be the motivation behind it.
But,
- That does not make one in to the other. Misinterpretation or no, the researcher (who was being deceptive, remember) is responsible for how the message was written. I don't know about you, but I don't usually end my polite requests with references to counterparty legal responsibility. When someone starts trying to sound law-talky, it is in no way paranoid or unreasonable to become concerned about what they might be up to.
The problem here is not that USians enjoy suing each other, or that people and businesses underutilize data protection laws. The problem is that an academic study was performed in a way that caused panic in this, our imperfect world (and object of study).
- I also find the idea that an academic study should (also? or primarily?) be an instrument of "cultural learning" deeply troublesome. I'd hope that IRBs would smack that sort of thing down.
