Ethical conundrums: Hacked data in the study of far-right violent extremism

TL;DR

This paper interrogates the ethical viability of using hacked data to study online far-right violent extremism. It presents a case-study of Iron March and Gab data and applies Ienca and Vayena's six criteria to structure reflexive ethics and risk-benefit analysis. The authors argue that, with robust mitigation, public-interest research using hacked data can be ethical, and they advocate embedding the Six criteria into existing guidelines. They also highlight the need for transparency, traceability, and ongoing ethical dialogue across IRBs/RECs to address the unsettled nature of hacked-data research.

Abstract

Ethical conduct in digital research is full of grey areas. Disciplinary, institutional and individual norms and conventions developed to support research are challenged, often leaving scholars with a sense of unease or lack of clarity. The growing availability of hacked data is one area. Discussions and debates around the use of these datasets in research are extremely limited. Reviews of the history, culture, or morality of the act of hacking are topics that have attracted some scholarly attention. However, how to undertake research with this data is less examined and provides an opportunity for the generation of reflexive ethical practice. This article presents a case-study outlining the ethical debates that arose when considering the use of hacked data to examine online far-right violent extremism. It argues that under certain circumstances, researchers can do ethical research with hacked data. However, to do so we must proactively and continually engage deeply with ethical quandaries and dilemmas.