I personally know Jonathan and hugely respect his work.
I could believe that because he is an actual lawyer it was harder to imagine the panic that recipients who have no understanding of the law would experience. But I think that more likely is that the response was a bit of a fluke. Way stranger stuff has been done by security and privacy researchers with the go-ahead from their IRB. This feels to me like this is a methodology that isn't universally agreed on but is not especially uncommon that tripped a response from the internet. The conclusion is more that people should not necessarily take the existence similar research as indication that the broader community is okay with these methodologies.
I suspect Meyer's work is in part preparatory to lawfare in order to force websites to pay for lawyerly services. The letter is akin to a fire insurance company knocking on doors while carrying a torch.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
He's got a PhD and a JD from Stanford and has chosen a faculty position and has done a nontrivial amount of unpaid work for various privacy rights organizations. He obviously isn't motivated by money.
Frankly you are great at knocking a strawman down. Jonathan Mayer likely has some motivation for those efforts. I made no claim to the motivation being remunerative or not.
Do you have an alternative hypothesis of a motivation other than preparation for a "public-interest" lawfare campaign?
Actual legitimate research to understand existing privacy legislation, which can be used by policymakers to iterate and ensure that legislation is effective without being wasteful.
He previously worked in a senator’s office so I do suspect he knows how the sausage is made. And yeah, the staff writing bills do look at this sort of material. It is just one part of a bigger picture but it isn’t just throwing research into a void.
I could believe that because he is an actual lawyer it was harder to imagine the panic that recipients who have no understanding of the law would experience. But I think that more likely is that the response was a bit of a fluke. Way stranger stuff has been done by security and privacy researchers with the go-ahead from their IRB. This feels to me like this is a methodology that isn't universally agreed on but is not especially uncommon that tripped a response from the internet. The conclusion is more that people should not necessarily take the existence similar research as indication that the broader community is okay with these methodologies.