Corpus 2

[TokyoBouncyBall]

A summary would be good and I might do one later but Aston, data scraping, astonishing lack of contrition…

I noted a while back that this "PhD" will require a lot of padding and this would likely be in the form of quote/examples. If direct quotes can not be used, how is she going to frame the examples? Using @Boiledbeetle's example above, I don't think just changing the pronouns to third person will cut it.

"She'd come home early from a week away with the kids as one broke his arm and found her husband in the bedroom in her knickers and bra and great aunt violets wedding dress with her best makeup smeared all over his face when he was supposed to be at a work conference in Scunthorpe".

Still pretty outing for a real life poster.

"No, they cannot delete all the studies using the original dataset as some of these are published. The findings (including those published) will have helped with developing further work and funding which Aston has benefited from."

Highly influential and well-cited papers absolutely do get retracted, a recent example was in today's Times:

"Alzheimer’s study pulled over data tampering"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0c115c01-1e8b-4245-b211-041f2c839820?shareToken=8fbf97d8001e993e80d76b190bdd4b1a

Retraction Watch:
https://retractionwatch.com/

Previous papers (at least the one I read) had sought consent from individual users as well as Mumsnet, spent a lot of time carefully considering impact and ethics.

A wholly different kettle of fish, imo.

@TokyoBouncyBall If we are going to get any sort of advice from any of the lawyers from Legal Feminist (these include Naomi Cunningham, Anya Palmer, Audrey Ludwig - and possibly more) we will need to have some funds, and someone prepared to collect funds and instruct lawyers, and this probably needs to be done under their real name.

AFAIK AL works exclusively from a law centre in Suffolk, so may not be able/willing to be instructed for this. I think NC accepts public access - i.e. where members of the public can instruct a barrister directly. Not sure re AP.

There is also that data lawyer who commented on AL tweets who may be able to help. I can't remember his name, but he was from Mishcon de Reya. (I wonder whether someone who specialises in data/data protection may actually be the best bet here? There is plenty of precedent to demonstrate that expressing GC views is (1) lawful, and (2) not transphobic by default, whether the team at Aston understand that or not. The interesting/more complicated question here is "what right(s) do we have to prevent our data being used in this way?" I'm sure there are more questions, but that seems to be the starting block.)

I found this interesting:

https://oxylabs.io/blog/is-web-scraping-legal

So, is web scraping activity legal or not? It is not illegal as such. There are no specific laws prohibiting web scraping, and many companies employ it in legitimate ways to gain data-driven insights.

However, there can be situations where other laws or regulations may come into play and make web scraping illegal. For example:

1. Your web scraper should not log in to websites or web pages and then download data. By logging in to any website, users have to agree to the Terms of Service (ToS), which may forbid activity like automated data collection.

2. There is a misconception that you can do whatever you want with publicly available data. While there may be fewer restrictions for scraping publicly available data – as opposed to private information – you still have to ensure that you are not breaching laws that may apply to such data.

One example would be downloading copyrighted data. Usually, it includes designs, layouts, articles, videos, and everything that can be considered creative work.

Well, the Mumsnet logo is certainly copyright protected. Surely all the written material can also be considered to be creative work, too?

Aston initially said that they wanted to cross reference, in order to identify users on other sites, didn't they? Would that not count as doxxing? It's not generally illegal in the UK, unless there's malicious intent or result, such as harassment of a poster.

everything that can be considered creative work.

Given thr MN fondness for impromptu poetry, that should be a lot of posts off limits - enough to prevent auto-scraping.

Most definitely not my finest work

Impromptu Poem

erm...

Bugger the words aren't there
To say just how we feel
About the Aston data scrape
But we did do something real.

We created t shirts towels and bags
Put them on a website too
We sold them to the other hags
Cos we think Aston's poo!

https://grimut-gerbils.teemill.com/product/corpus-souvenir/

https://grimut-gerbils.teemill.com/

I wonder if Free Speech Union might be interested in this.

I daresay a few Mumsnetters may be members.

@JustineMumsnet No. That's not good enough. If you're happy to acept any thieving, data scraping, woman hating postgrad getting there grubby mitts on MY data wenever they feel like it id like you to delete every post I've made under every name I've used. This might not have any effect on the Aston thieves but will stop any further illegal use.
I'm not sure if I have posted anything identifying and it would have a deleterious effect on me if I'm ID'ed.
If you want to pass the buck to us it will affect your ability to attract advertising because so many of us will be silenced. If you don't take responsibility for this I don't want to contribute to your advertising revenue. Try monetising your forum when it looks like a swiss cheeze.

Seconded.

If the T&Cs change over time, and one of the terms is that they'll just be updated and it is a user's responsibility to keep up with what changes have been made, then clear information needs to be given on ALL topics on the forum that anything users commit to posting on them may be used for other purposes until posters ask for their deletion. Whether the data harvesters are adhering to the Ts and Cs that applied when the user posted, or not, some years later, and potentially, in conflict with the Ts and Cs that users assumed they were happy to accept at the time they posted.

Also that everyone must be compliant (at least) and cautious (as a sensible measure) about minors' data, I assume, due to the safeguarding stuff inherent in that - as may happen on a website that claims to be aimed at parents as a very key user group.

My head hurts already, trying to see what logic is fraying there.

To my sadness, I feel the same Eden. I want my voice to be absent from any future sandboxes.

Which is a shame really. I’ve liked my voice on here.

I’ve been harsh, but fair. I’ve been funny (in my opinion). I’ve been sad and happy. I’ve been a nippyhoor. I’ve imparted wisdom. I’ve made myself look as though I haven’t two brain cells to rub together. I’ve been comforting. A gobshite. A bard.

I’ve been everything I am in real life. And more.

And now someone has made me feel as though they’ve taken that voice for nefarious purposes.

And for the first time in my life, someone has made me go wheesht.

💚 🤍 💜 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Edited because I added wrong quote

I'll just stop posting. Too much faff.

Agreeing with everything said about the personal sensitivities and indeed dangers here, but I really want the quite shameful academic shoddiness of the whole exercise shown up as well.

The problem with silencing women is we don’t get to tell our stories from a women’s point of view.

When I was much younger, a man in a dress with heavy make-up and stubble masturbated at me, whilst looking straight into my eyes. I couldn’t get away from the ladies toilets fast enough. To put it into context, several years later a man sitting near me in the cinema masturbated whilst we were all watching a film that had naked women in. That’s the two occasions in my life it’s happened to me. The first incident was much scarier because it was directed at me and it was just me and him. I will always remember his eyes and how physically more powerful he was.

Does this make me wary of men in women’s toilets? Yes.
Does this make me more wary if men are wearing dresses and have heavy make up on? Yes.
Does it make me subconsciously look at escape routes and make sure I am visible and not trapped? Yes.
Do I want to use ‘gender neutral’ toilets that are private? No.

But does this make me transphobic? I would argue no, as it is human nature to avoid a future situation on the basis of a prior horrible experience. I doubt the man was thinking he was a woman but what you see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears is what forms how you react in the future.

And it’s not fair if women’s safety can’t be talked about. And I can’t feel safe if a man is given immunity by wearing stereotypically women’s clothes. That is my experience and the only ‘power’ I have in that situation is the ability to talk about it.

I have no idea if the above experiences and reactions falls under Aston/Eden/Nicci’s definition of transphobic. It’s scary if it does because it makes women more helpless.

It’s a bit like Kafka’s The Trials. Aston researchers have said mumsnet are definitely guilty but mumsnetters have no idea what the crime is, if they will be tried and no way of having a defence.

Do I want to use ‘gender neutral’ toilets that are private? No.

Nor do I. Nothing to do with trans issues, I just don't want to use the same loo as men because they're diagusting. I had to use some at a Starbucks recently, and the man in the before me had not only failed to lift the seat - and pissed all over it, he'd also pissed right up the lid.

Even if they don’t care about us uppity, dried up terves, they should care about the LGBT kids we talk about on the LGBT Children board.

Unless EP and supervisors are just big ol hypocrites…

@AstonUniversityScrapedMyCorpus Totally agree. Everyone is live and let live. Then occasionally you or your children are in a vulnerable position and you need advice. And people give advice if they have experience. When it involves parents worried about their children, that’s a new low.

I have done a lot of thinking before and after posting yesterday (12.25) and I do not give permission for any researchers at Aston to use my post in the PhD. I do not give them permission to try and link me to other accounts or my real life. The thing is, if it were not for my family, I probably would.

Aston must realise they are compromising more than just the women talking on here - it will be the lives (and stories) of children now in their teens, twenties and thirties.

I am so glad there are women standing up and talking about these issues in real life. But the vital difference is they don’t expose their families and certainly wouldn’t tell their stories.

Aston are doing the opposite - they are effectively going after the children.

Can Aston ensure that any stories involving children, or people who were children at the time, will not be quoted? Or that people quoted and identified by their quotes, can not be found elsewhere talking about their children? After all, we offer advice and discussion based on our own life experiences that are not repeated in every post.

This network of mums didn’t sign up for this. We would not have exposed our children.

@Iamiams
Who knows, maybe Eden's mum has been on here at some time. Perhaps posting about how her DD thinks biology is a hate crime?

and I do not give permission for any researchers at Aston to use my post in the PhD. I do not give them permission to try and link me to other accounts or my real life.

Likewise @Iamiams I feel the same.

Sadly, I don’t think they care about consent.

I’m not satisfied with Aston or mumsnets responses.

Mumsnet must inform the users of this massive data breach immediately.

Aston Uni & Eden are doing what they want, they don’t care, they need to be outed in the media to highlight their nefarious behaviour, who the funders are, their research is completely flawed, the libelling, harassment & doxxing of users is wholly unethical.

So class action or whatever it is called in the UK?

Quite a lot of users seem dissatisfied with this response.

More would be unhappy if they knew.

I am completely gobsmacked that this hasn't been announced on the relevant boards. Ideally, everyone who has been impacted should have had a message or an email to alert them.

In my view, years ago, Mumsnet took a remarkably laidback attitude to their mod who doxxed FWR users before leaving her job. And, in the present, they’re taking a remarkably laidback attitude to Aston Uni and Eden’s behaviour towards site users.

Given the behaviour of other tech/social media companies with regard to their users’ data and privacy in recent years, it makes me suspicious re the reticence from Mumsnet to inform all site users, the reticence to fully legally pursue all of these dodgy data misusers, and the reticence to report things to the ICO; it makes me wonder what Mumsnet know about their own data handling processes that they don’t want the public or the ICO to know.

I know it’s often more realistic to assume cock up over conspiracy but Mumsnet’s behaviour (or lack of it) on this issue is not filling me with confidence.