Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
ACL were happy to publish techniques for automatically unveiling Chinese dissidents despite ethical objections during review.
Surely they were good for many other things besides. If you don't publish research that can have bad applications, you don't publish anything.
it's alarming that you became an academic without giving a shit for ethical concerns. Unbelievable.
Science is about objective factual knowledge. A degree is a certificate about objective factual knowledge.
Perhaps, but this was the use enumerated, and motivation used. Who knows if it was accidentally good for anything else?
So, just out of curiosity, and to engage in this debate: Where would be the line for you? Is there something that should not be a matter of research, or, if that has happened already, publication thereof?
You can publish something showing awareness and countermeasure suggestions?
"Yeah, this machine shoots ten innocent people in the face, but it also has a button that gives candy to kids!"
Then you know how the machine works and you can protect the innocent one against it.
You're going to be the best person positioned to point out what the potential misuses of the research, and possible ways of mitigating/avoiding/tracking those misuses. Seriously, the blinkered nature of your views is just incredible.
Given how you've responded to ethical concerns, I think I'm okay if you don't publish anything.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
