undefined | Better HN

0 pointsskeeter20202y ago0 comments

it sounds like his initial invoice was quite clear in the work completed, then updated at the client's request. So while you can argue moral grounds for not doing this work, I don't think there's illegality, i.e. conspiracy.

0 comments

pciexpgpu2y ago

I mean if you are a professor and knowledgeable in how the startup uses the data, it’s hardly justifiable that “oh crap i didn’t know they were using it for illegal purposes”.

They were totally complicit allegedly.

romellem2y ago

This is spoken to [in the full complaint][1]. The data scientist was told Frank really did have 4 million users, and the scientist only needed to generate this "synthetic data" as a way to "anonymize" their "real" data. I.e. the scientist was duped:

  JAVICE told Scientist-1 [...] that she had a database of approximately 4 million
  people and wanted to create a database of anonymized data that mirrored the
  statistical properties of the original database (the “Synthetic Data Set”).
  
  [After JAVICE sends Scientist-1 the data], Scientist-1 understood that the data
  available via the Access Link Email -
  **a data set of approximately 142,000 people** (emphasis added) -
  was a random sample of a larger database which contained data for approximately
  4 million people. In fact, that data represented every Frank user who had at
  least started a FAFSA.

[1]: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1577861...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse