论文库

原文摘要

Ethical decision-making is central to safe cybersecurity research. Recent studies, one of which is our own, analyzing the source files of arXiv papers bring this challenge to light - arXiv publicly distributes the source files, to the surprise of many authors. Unique aspects reveal ethical challenges and dilemmas that extend beyond established ethical frameworks, institutional processes, and community best practices. In this work, we examine this case and provide insights for similar research on other public live resources, such as Zenodo or the Wayback Machine. While such empirical studies are particularly realistic, they must account for personally identifiable information, leaked secrets, and other sensitive details that could expose, shame, or otherwise negatively affect individuals, possibly leading to both reputational and practical harm. sDrawing on our collective experience and discussions among researchers, affected authors, and readers, we make three contributions: First, we define the ethical setting and highlight that even intentionally-public data with deliberate real-name attribution can raise ethical concerns when repurposed for empirical analysis. Second, we discuss the ethical issues surrounding the use of arXiv data and derive four higher-level dilemmas that researchers may face when working with similar data. Third, we derive practical guidance for ethically navigating such settings and, in doing so, distill four lessons for research on arXiv and similar public, live datasets: public availability should serve as the starting point of ethical reasoning; research should minimize the amplification it induces on exposed information; disclosure should be calibrated to the harm, confidence, and actionability of a finding; and effective immutability must be accounted for. Together, these contribute to community resources for ethically-sound cybersecurity experiments.