Mumsnet Corpus

[TokyoBouncyBall]

Not a TAAT, but a bit of googling as a result of a now deleted thread has led me to this:

https://fold.aston.ac.uk/handle/123456789/18

I note it says that the License is uncertain. Can you confirm that you have given permission for posts to be used in this way, or is there something that Aston might like to look into?

I note it says Users who wish to access this dataset must make a detailed application to FoLD and the researcher, as well as potentially gain additional agreement from an external organisation before they can be approved for access.

Given one of the uses it is being put to, I think it is a bit dubious to say the least.

TBF “playing in the sandbox” is fairly standard terminology where sandboxes exist. It’s used all the time where I work (not Aston)

It is irritating terminology though.

It's used in academia to denote a gathering of academics who are brainstorming.

Sandbox is a technical term in this context

It's utterly ludicrous that they've stated they have no intention to identify authors when that's the entire purpose of the research. Utterly ludicrous. It's quite frankly insulting that they think we're too stupid to read the actual words they've written and understand them.

The presentation shows them doing exactly what they've said they're not doing ffs! If they'd chosen me to stalk analyse, they'd have found, under various usernames, my town, my first name, my actual bloody face from when I posted a photo on style and beauty!, and god knows what else that I can't remember. Never mind all the personal stuff like relationship and child related things. If I'm posting something identifiable I obviously use a throwaway name, but that's no help if they can merge them all together!

So even if their research aim is not to find out that I'm Mary Jones from Sevenoaks, there's no saying that that's not exactly what they will do via just the content of my MN posts.

We don't know why for sure, but the two other website scrapes the researchers uploaded onto the Forensic Linguistic Database were a white supremacist discussion forum and a child sex abuse discussion forum from the dark web. Assuming these are two of the three, the likely reasons for not naming are:

Not to drive traffic to these sites
Not to alert users of these sites that they have been scraped
So that the researchers weren't publicly linked with this content
And, particularly in the case of second one, the data may have been provided by a law enforcement agency. Searching for that kind of site is likely to have the researchers end up on all kinds of watch lists otherwise. If so, it may have been part of the terms under which the data was provided that the site was not named.

I remember the MN-intern-who-breached-GDPR-for-ideological-reasons debacle

I don't think GDPR had necessarily come into Iaw at that stage. The posts were made on Twitter on 17 April 2018. GDPR came into force across the then EU on 25 May of that year and was incorporated into the new Data Protection Act 2018 on 23 May.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3226060-The-MNHQ-Moderation-Team-Thread-2

I remember this as I was heavily involved in my own organisation's DPA preparation at the time as it affected us.

Thanks for the explanation of 'sandbox'. It's a long time since I did my linguistics degree, so this kind of thing was definitely not around!

I still object to them talking about 'playing' in it though.

Thanks, too, @GreenSmithing for your suggestion. I wonder, though, why they named Mumsnet specifically? I can understand the reasons for not naming the others, but surely they should also have anonymised Mumsnet? They could have said - if they had to say anything - that it was a parenting site, as there are others that it could be.

Still, by naming Mumsnet they have made it obvious that we/all of us here, are being 'used' for their research!

Up to now my request to delete everything from conception to 1st April 24 has also been ignored.

Where are you all off to when this is over? I'll follow.

In tech it's a kind of semi-technical term for an experimental area or a protected area where you can try things out which isn't quite the real thing. e.g. I have a "sandbox course" which is not a real course with students but an online area where I can try out bits of educational technology like a new kind of online quiz for myself, before I put it in my real courses. And "play" is often used to mean an informal experiment, try things out, explore, without specific aims or restrictions.

So I don't find the language offensive. Whether Mumsnet data should be used used in this way is a different question.

I'm well aware of what the word 'play' might mean in this context. But words matter! And knowing the 'other' meaning of the word also feeds into how I have interpreted what they're doing with our data.

The fact that seemingly people cannot ask for retrospective deletion of posts is concerning (if not illegal).

Some US women use these sites. Imagine a US poster who shared information about a miscarriage a few years ago. Who, using jigsaw identification could be identified and now lives in a state where women can be prosecuted/ jailed for miscarriage. Even if she cannot be prosecuted retrospectively (which isn't a given), that could still be used against her should she be unlucky enough to suffer a further miscarriage.

This is very worrying for women's rights, particularly given the focus on 'hate crimes' in the original information unearthed - it's almost as if the PhD student was anticipating a time when a woman naming reality or talking online could become illegal - as it now pretty much is in Afghanistan.

And now definitely is in Scotland...!

This is one of my concerns because stalker, but equally, they could get it terribly wrong I guess and "identify" the wrong person. It's not inconceivable that more than one person has a writing style (maybe from school, area, dialect, age etc) like mine.

It's all a shit show and I'm getting unreasonably angry at MN not deleting my previous posts under all names. It's not like this was a knee jerk reaction here, I thought about this overnight. I want the stuff deleting and if thats not going to happen, just delete everything. And I'll just randomly make up emails and usernames monthly. If i want to come back.

I'm wondering, reading the page whether this would count as a cyberincident. An awful lot of data was stolen and used for purposes not intended, which included financial gain (getting research money).

Doesn't seem to define cyber incident anywhere.

One principle of open science is 'as open as possible as closed as necessary' when it comes to sharing data and reporting results. So generally, the researcher would be expected to state where the data came from, unless they had legitimate reasons not to. The reasons I suggested upthread would be legitimate reasons to withhold this information, otherwise the default position is that the data source should be shared.

Again, I don't know if this is the reason why the results have been reported in this format, but in the circumstances it seems a plausible explanation.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/how-to-make-a-data-protection-complaint/

You have the right to complain to an organisation if you think it has not handled personal information responsibly and in line with good practice.
When can I complain to an organisation?You can complain to an organisation about how it is handling yours or other people's information; if it:

• has not properly responded to your request for your personal information;
• is not keeping information secure;
• holds inaccurate information about you;
• has disclosed information about you;
• is keeping information about you for longer than is necessary;
• has collected information for one reason and is using it for something else; or
• has not upheld any of your data protection rights.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/the-right-to-object-to-the-use-of-your-data/

You have the right to object to an organisation processing (using) your personal data at any time. This effectively means that you can stop or prevent the organisation from using your data. However it only applies in certain circumstances, and they may not need to stop if the organisation can give strong and legitimate reasons to continue using your data.
When can I object?

You can only object to processing when the organisation is using your data:

• for a task carried out in the public interest;
• for the exercise of official authority;
• for their legitimate interests;
• for scientific or historical research, or statistical purposes; or
• for direct marketing purposes.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/your-right-to-be-informed-if-your-personal-data-is-being-used/

An organisation must inform you if it is using your personal data. It should provide detailed information on the following:

• Why it is using your data.
• What type/types of data it is using.
• How long your data will be kept.
• If it is going to transfer your data to third parties, the names or categories of recipients, and the reasons for the transfer.
• Information if it is going to transfer the data overseas, including the country involved and what will be done with the data.
• Your information rights.
• Where the data is from.
• If it is using the data in profiling (a type of automated processing where your personal data is used to analyse or predict things such as your performance at work, economic situation, health, personal preferences and interests).
• How to contact the organisation.
• Your right to complain to the ICO.

This is called ‘privacy information’. The organisation should give you privacy information at the time it collects your data. If it obtains your data from another source, it should provide privacy information within one month. It may do so in the form of a privacy notice. This is called your ‘right to be informed’.

There’s so much going on here you could almost get a PhD out of it.

Then perhaps the term should be retired. In engineering, terms like 'master/slave' have recently been removed; maybe this one should be, too.

Why on earth do people think that “play” and “sandbox” are offensive terms? Hardly comparable to master / slave!

Play implies they don't see that people are behind the data. By dehumanising the data subjects they can cause real life harm to members of the forum and fail to recognise the impact of those actions.

I don't think the term is offensive per se. I think it comes across as a bit crass and lacking in empathy to talk about "playing" with the language around women's fertility treatment in that way.

It’s just a standard term though.

I play around with data all the time - doesn’t mean I don’t understand that there are people behind that.