Researchers Release Profile Data on 70,000 OkCupid Users Without Permission (vox.com)

An anonymous users shares a Vox report: 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. The researchers, Emil Kirkegaard, Oliver Nordbjerg, and Julius Daugbjerg ran software to "scrape" the information off OkCupid's website and then uploaded the data onto the Open Science Framework, an online forum where researchers are encouraged to share raw data to increase transparency and collaboration across social science.

Comments

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The data was already public! What are you whining about?

Re:Bullshit

[ShanghaiBill]

The data was already public!

Also, only a moron would use their real name to create a profile on OkCupid. I met my wife on Match.com, and she didn't tell me her real name until our 2nd date. Many of these sites specifically recommend that you don't use your real name, and that you don't reuse a photo that is already online, since someone could then use Google Image search to find your Facebook profile.

Re:Bullshit

[gweihir]

a) It was not public. Access required an account (with associated agreement to their TOS).
b) European privacy laws says the data belongs to the users, and each one has to explicitly agree to its uses

This was a criminal act. At the very least these people should lose their academic titles or hope of getting one.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Eliminating gender-specific semantics when making statements about things that do not have genders is not "degeneration." It is progress.

Tables do not have genders. It doesn't make any sense at all. Tables don't breed, for God's sake. By any reasonable definition of "gender," tables simply don't qualify. So it harmfully over-complicates communication if you must refer to a table as if it has a gender, and change other words around it to reflect this fact. It is outright stupid.

People have genders. Many animals have genders. Some plants even have genders. All for clear biological reasons. When referencing their genders adds clarity, the language should do so. In all other cases, it should not.

Read Before Posting

[SuperKendall]

I'm not going to name any names, but *several* Slashdot users appear not to be able to read summaries with any degree of accuracy - the data is not public, but only AVAILABLE TO OkCupid USERS (yes, that is what the summary actually says).

*Very* important distinction.

Re:Read Before Posting

[gweihir]

When you create an account, you accept their Terms of Service. Hence, this may well have been a criminal act.

Re:From the not-a-story dept.

[gweihir]

Making it public IS permission.

1. It was not made public, it was only accessible after you created an account and hence agreed to their TOS.
2. European privacy law says even if made public, it can only be used for the purpose it was made public for (e.g. Phone-Book). Anything else requires explicit agreement by the data owner, and that is the respective person. No such agreement was obtained.

Seriously, understand the facts first. This was a criminal act.