You are translating "legal threat" into "asking for data". And your 'learning' comment makes me think this is a cause for you. That's fine, and I even applaud what I take to be the motivation behind it.
But,
- That does not make one in to the other. Misinterpretation or no, the researcher (who was being deceptive, remember) is responsible for how the message was written. I don't know about you, but I don't usually end my polite requests with references to counterparty legal responsibility. When someone starts trying to sound law-talky, it is in no way paranoid or unreasonable to become concerned about what they might be up to.
The problem here is not that USians enjoy suing each other, or that people and businesses underutilize data protection laws. The problem is that an academic study was performed in a way that caused panic in this, our imperfect world (and object of study).
- I also find the idea that an academic study should (also? or primarily?) be an instrument of "cultural learning" deeply troublesome. I'd hope that IRBs would smack that sort of thing down.
But,
- That does not make one in to the other. Misinterpretation or no, the researcher (who was being deceptive, remember) is responsible for how the message was written. I don't know about you, but I don't usually end my polite requests with references to counterparty legal responsibility. When someone starts trying to sound law-talky, it is in no way paranoid or unreasonable to become concerned about what they might be up to.
The problem here is not that USians enjoy suing each other, or that people and businesses underutilize data protection laws. The problem is that an academic study was performed in a way that caused panic in this, our imperfect world (and object of study).
- I also find the idea that an academic study should (also? or primarily?) be an instrument of "cultural learning" deeply troublesome. I'd hope that IRBs would smack that sort of thing down.