I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
The core issue here is that the system under which they were working, and the researchers themselves, did not consider this work to amount to unethical human experimentation - even though the work directly involved infiltrating and exploiting humans and human social systems. There is no mention of this nor of any substantial desire to understand or address this systemic failing and, until there is an unconditional acceptance of responsibility for the harm caused and a real actionable change for the better with accountability, I don't see how we can consider this matter to have been apologised for.
This bit just reads like "sorry you're upset".
I would have expected something along the lines of "sorry, we should have asked the maintainers and we understand why it was wrong not to", instead of "sorry, we didn't ask the maintainers, but this is why we didn't".
Legitimately these folks have some kind of personality defect. They observed something that everyone already knew and then decided to act on it and pretend they were doing something interesting and new rather than just being twats. They should be treated exactly as should be based on their actions, regardless of their claims of being researchers. This would be a perfect cover for being on the take from a government agency. They should be investigated to ensure they aren't actual malicious actors.
It takes almost no imagination to think of hundreds of "security vulnerabilities" in the world, yet the vast majority of people realize that it's dumb to act on those observations.
[signed personally, by every involved researcher, professor, IRB member, and all of the relevant university leadership including the board]
Something like that would do nicely, in my opinion. Then they'd have to absolutely follow through on it. Ideally, they'd also ask involved members of the community so harmed, among other experts, to independently review and watch the process to ensure no further harm is being done, progress is made, and public accountability is kept.
I wouldn't trust those researchers again, not for anything. Free software depends heavily on trust. It's astonishing that it works so well; but if you break trust, it's very hard to repair the fractures.
The legal arrangements around free software are fairly fluid, because there hasn't been much case-law, because there's not much money sloshing around for Free Software developers to pay lawyers. Banning pull-requests from that college is much cheaper than sueing.
I hope the whole uni stays banned until the ethics board issues their own apology.
Then let it go, I say. People make mistakes. We shouldn't blame everyone for the mistakes of a few.
But we have to protect the Linux kernel; billions of people depend on it's correctness.
While I had a bunch of notes about what makes the sentiment behing an apology meaningful, it's really separate from the issue that this should have been done privately. A public apology is just another thing about them and their message. They're performing and trying to draw in sympathetic members of an imaginary audience. There is no humility in public displays. I would be surprised if anybody asked for it, and doing it without asking is just more of the same type of behavior. There is no such thing as a public apology.
That said, I have no doubt they have suffered personally over this, and have some compassion for that suffering itself, but not sympathy for this performance. There is no gesture that restores trust. When their contributions and acomplishments become more remarkable than this issue, they will have restored it, but like most things, there is no "back" to go to. Maybe that static analyzer will be the ultimate bug finder, as succeeding at that is probably their only out.
You seem to be implying that one apology is as good as another and that is absolutely not true. To me is is absolutely unfair to expect that people will treat a zero effort "sorry your feelings were hurt" apology the same as a deeply heartfelt apology by someone who feels deep remorse.
By it's nature, an apology should be an act of making amends to a person your have wronged. If the words of your apology don't do that, you have failed, even if you had good intentions.
If the author of the apology isn't a native speaker of english, this seems like a document of sufficient significance to merit asking a friend or colleague for a proofread. (Which you should do in a case like this even if English is your first language.)
Software is complex. Wasting maintainer's time is harmful to the maintainers and to those who use the software. If the goal is to explain what sort of exploits to be on the look-out for, just write the paper without doing the exploits.
As for the letter, their goal is to recover their reputations, not to apologize. I suppose a lawyer helped them in spots, but there is still a certain truth that shines through: they want to continue on doing this sort of thing, because they are oh-so-clever and their work is oh-so-valuable. Nice try, but the academic community may be better off without these folks doing this sort of research and influencing students to follow their methods.
Listing the harm you caused is also an important part of the public record, so that anyone else considering a similar scheme in the future can see what consequences were agreed to have happened the last time.
As far as giving benefit of the doubt, it's likely not done out of malice in the first place. Just a combination of poor reasoning and doesn't exactly clear up if they even considered alternatives to control their variables. Unfortunately, it seems like they were already given the benefit of the doubt from their first offense, but did not take any lessons away from that, so it would be understandable if the maintainers kept their ban.
In sum, they show not remorse for doing wrong.
I completely agree their experiment is unethical. However, it's not actually clear cut to most researchers the ethical bounds of their work, especially for study papers that's never really been explored before. Ethics in of itself is largely a active subtopic for many areas in CS, not only security research. AI is one area where qualifying potential harm to human beings remains largely controversial. Ask any ML scientist, and they'll tell you that determining the ethics of a project is not their responsibility.
The ethics around research that involves deception have been pretty well established and are are several good comments here explaining them.
Every scientist is personally respsible for the ethics of the research they conducts. Full Stop, no caveats allowed.
If your research is in an area where the ethics are controversial or grey, that means your need to spend MORE time considering the ethics of your research, not that you get a free pass from being responsible.
If a any scientist espouses the opinion that determining the ethics of their projects is not their responsibility, they should be permanently barred from recieving grant money.
Ethics in computing research remains an active research area. This incident will be used as a case study in the future, but it's not that well established. Many people have been using anecdotals, which honestly don't fit the scenario because so many variables and parameters distinguish other types of pentesting from this. And disappointingly, not a single post has actually produced the documents that establish this.
Arguably the first set of guidelines for ethics in computer security research [1] was published in 2012 and not yet widely taught in Ethics lectures (I only know about it because I learned Computer Security from one of the authors).
On identifying harms:
> "Challenges identifying harms in ICTR environments stem from the scale and rapidity at which risk can manifest, the difficulty of attributing research risks to specific individuals and/or organizations, and our limited understanding of the causal dynamics between the physical and virtual worlds. As with all exploratory research, it can be challenging to articulate benefits such that subjects can make informed decisions. In ICTR our ability to qualitatively and quantitatively foresee the probable benefits is particularly immature."
On this type of research:
> "Research of criminal activity often involves deception or clandestine research activity, so requests for waivers of both informed consent and post hoc notification and debriefing may be relatively common as compared with research studies of non-criminal activity."
This isn't a huge change from 30 years ago since Moor [2] wrote his thesis on Computer Ethics, see:
> "A typical problem in computer ethics arises because there is a policy vacuum about how computer technology should be used. Computers provide us with new capabilities and these in turn give us new choices for action. Often, either no policies for conduct in these situations exist or existing policies seem inadequate. A central task of computer ethics is to determine what we should do in such cases, i.e., to formulate policies to guide our actions."
Researchers themselves are far from educated on this topic; you won't ever explore this in depth unless you're in this particular sub-field. IRB/REB boards are considered the most qualified but are possibly too outdated to navigate around this. It's a whole mess, there is currently a lot of questionable research in many areas of computing, but the clock moves forward.
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CSD-Men...
[2] https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/spring06/pap...
These guys are malicious clowns, who came up with an idea that would hurt Linux, but advance their careers, and they went all in on it.
To me, it's always a distinct sign that an apology isn't sincere when it hedges apologizing for "any harm" that they might have caused. In my mind, a sincere apology clearly acknowledges harm that has been caused and apologizes for that.
There is no need for the researchers to be in any specific state of mind or even apologetic as long as they don't try to submit bad faith patches again.
Really the only reason there is even a need for a public apology is to signal how much pressure they are under so other people think twice before doing the same silly thing. Otherwise they could just apologise to the maintainers directly.
I'll be interested to see how they react to feedback / responses.
Either this is a bald-faced lie or they didn't think through the implications of their research, neither of which bode well for their trustworthiness in future. However, if it's the latter, then they possibly deserve additional leeway.
On the other hand, I wonder whether this letter would have eventuated without the ban - if not, then they've likely been forced to write it, in which case any remorse is either selfish (i.e. they've been professionally reprimanded and feel bad about getting caught, or making such an egregious error in judgement), or hollow.
> I agree, but let's give them a little extra benefit of the doubt. I thought as I was reading it that it seemed stilted and forced, then I wondered if the author(s) don't speak / write English as a primary language.
https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/
It looks like you might be right about this, but I think that reading it as stilted and forced is still accurate.
Context is everything, of course. I think you're right that it's tainted by the fact that they absolutely did not have a choice, and coming from people who've deceived the same tribes they're now trying to apologize to.
They university, and indeed, the researchers, only acted once the ban was imposed - i.e. they were getting away with it without reputational damage, and only once it was stained did they actually do anything.
ETA: GKH on reverting the patches[1]
> This patchset has the "easy" reverts, there are 68 remaining ones that need to be manually reviewed. Some of them are not able to be reverted as they already have been reverted, or fixed up with follow-on patches as they were determined to be invalid. Proof that these submissions were almost universally wrong.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh...
https://lwn.net/Articles/854064/
What the authors did is wrong, so did GKH actions. Let's be honest in calling BS out.
Yeah, the authors are claiming those past 190 patches are fine... but they also essentially did the same thing when they submitted the intentionally bad patches too.
So the question is, how much do you trust them right now? And given they just submitted intentionally bad patches, I don't think it's very surprising they don't have a whole lot of trust.
And if you don't trust them, then you've got 190 patches active from an untrusted source with a history of submitting bad patches. That's not a particularly good situation. Why wouldn't you revert them?
The specifics of the situation make the whole thing substantially murkier, in my (entirely unrelated) opinion. But take a broad enough view, and this is pretty much the default path. However the specifics make this a bit of an oddly exceptional situation, all things considered.
Blocking an entire University seems extreme; but just think of it as a sanction on the University's ethics board. I think a (short, and very explicit) apology from the ethics board ought to suffice, to get the Uni off the hook.
And I think those researchers should not be allowed near Free Software again, unless their pushes are going to be rigourously scrutinised.
- "We are sorry for the harm we caused" instead of "We're sorry for any harm we caused"
- Not trying to explain their actions in the first paragraph of the apology! I think most folks are aware of their intent by now, and leading with yet another explanation just makes the whole thing feel disingenuous
- Avoid saying things like "this has been painful for us as well"
Unfortunately, it has so many hallmarks of a non-apology, and it's hard to look past those given the context.
As others have mentioned, they can clear this up with their actions going forward, but it will take time to rebuild trust.
Is that a thing? Like there's some non-apology Bingo card you can fill out? I don't see a connection between the criteria you listed and genuine-vs-false contrition.
You may perceive these things one way, but ultimately you can't know the minds of others well enough to tell if they are sincere or not about anything. You don't get to just declare yourself the arbiter of their feelings because they used "any" instead of "the".
I would expect it to be there and would minimize attempts to marginalize my apology with direct, precise, and inclusive language.
For every word created or omitted to those ends, the number of negative comments will be reduced.
Fact is people take it how they take it and feel what they feel.
There really is no "can't" in any of that.
...which is why the consistent feedback to those ends is here in the discussion.
How else is this to be done and be meaningful, not easily gamed?
Serious question.
I tend to have pretty dry affect at certain hours of the day, which has caused considerable frustration for myself and others when I know I'm sincere but they don't. Nor does it make much sense to me for that sort of mind-reading to take place democratically. What do we then gain from it?
At best, you get an apology for a misunderstanding over the previous apology, plus a second draft that the masses might like better. Then you still get that lingering contingent that says "you just did that to placate people! Now we really know you don't mean it!"
The cultural apparatus for "Saving Face" is completely broken on a build failure for missing dependencies.
Well constructed apologies are hard to seethe over.
This one could be better.
Many, myself included, believe it should have been.
The words are there. It's not up to us to decide if they're "genuine". No one's a mindreader.
The tendency to view apologies as fake seems more often to reflect how harshly we view the one making it.
It's like telling your partner "I'm sorry if I hurt you". No, you hurt them. Apologize for hurting them.
Agency returns as trust does.
Regardless, you can't genuinely apologize for things that aren't in your control. (You can and should empathize and sympathize with their feelings about it.) It may be a convenient fiction at times, but there are many downsides to this type of boundary blurring. I think you do the recipient a disservice by implying they have no agency—especially if they believe you. You also face the danger that your apology seems insincere or you misjudged their feelings, which could actually make matters worse.
If we really had complete agency over our feelings then I guess we’d all just choose to feel great all the time. Doesn’t seem to work that way.
In my view, the extent to which we can influence the emotions of another is the extent to which the recipient themselves has given implicit permission to do so; which is to say, they have agency. I don't think that simplifies into being able to choose to feel great any old time we like. I also don't think it at all excuses bad behavior or justifies a lack of empathy. But I will say that I feel a lot more good moments and less frequent and intense bad moments since I adopted this view and took responsibility for my own emotions.
There is no universal rule that can be applied to determine when one vs. the other is appropriate, but seemingly innocuous actions can have negative impact, and apologizing for the innocuous thing may not always make sense.
To be clear, this is not universally true. There are situations where apologizing for the action makes sense, and situations where the action that led to a negative outcome are either inconsequential on their own, or there might be a myriad of factors leading to the need for an apology.
Apologizing for the action can also come across as disingenuous or passive aggressive in the wrong context. This is especially true when the action is well-intentioned, but has the wrong effect. Taken to an extreme, this sounds like "I'm sorry I tried helping".
The phrasing is such that it acknowledges harm was done. It's an apology, full-stop.
You have to acknowledge (in full) what it is that you are apologising for. That's the most important thing. Promises are meaningless.
It's not possible to "be genuine"; especially in a public post, nothing is genuine, everything is PR and smoke. Both the researchers and their ethics board need to grovel. If they did that, this tornado-in-a-teacup could be over in a month or two.
But keep those researchers banned.
The first two sentences seem sincere. This reads as a real apology.