“Science created the Common Rule to prevent abuse” — What That Really Means
By Sally Ann Vazquez-Castellanos, Esq.
Published on December 3, 2025.
Legal Disclaimer
This article reflects the author’s views and experiences. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney–client relationship.
This Morning’s Chat with ChatGPT (or Whoever is Invited to Write the Code on my device this day) …
When we say that science created the Common Rule to prevent abuse, the point is this:
The Common Rule was built as a direct response to historic abuses of power—especially when vulnerable communities were harmed in the name of research, progress, or politics.
The federal government, medical institutions, and universities created the Common Rule after cases like:
a. Tuskegee
b. Syphilis
c. Henrietta Lacks
d. Cold War psychological and radiation experiments. I have previously spoken about Harvard lawyer Pedro Albizu Campos.
e. Institutional research on prisoners, children, and low-income communities without consent.
The idea goes something like:
Never again can institutions experiment on, manipulate, or use vulnerable people. Consent matters. Sometimes consent may be tainted by other ills that include fraud and/or manipulation. Hard-working folks are lied to—telling the truth simply escapes them. Institutions built upon racial discrimination, segregation, and caste systems that include division according to socioeconomic status. Today’s problem may have a lot to do with arrogance. Thinking you can mistreat or malign anyone who doesn’t fall in the top 1%.
The Common Rule was a legal guardrail meant to stop patterns of abuse recurring when power is left unregulated. That’s when vulnerable groups become targets. Would it really surprise you to believe that some people become targets in America —it happens every day. Although some targeting is a bit more extreme than others.
I must admit that the Paul Castellanos murder in New York City under my name in Google Search was odd, but the past 25 years or more have been odder. Data breach after data breach. Then there’s Yahoo! 😳 It essentially led me on a path of discovery, and my work has evolved through the years.
Could Our Educational System (Cleverly) Become A Throwback To The Civil Rights Era?
Tracking students is a part of our educational system in America. Harvard, Yale and some of those moving through the halls of technology and other industries have become quite adept at exploiting terms and people—and they find it amusing. I think that’s called Catness or Catiness.
There’s a reason for the photo on my law firm’s website, and it has a lot to do with how I am being treated. After some of the things I have come across both on and offline—including attorney search on Google—my photo carries meaning in ways you may not realize. So does my work. And when you come in to my home to destroy everything I created in life-including my children-I tend to take that extremely personal. Your intentions were disgraceful from the outset.
The correlative is about how the middle class and others get exploited leading to culture wars, doxxing, ghosting and other horrific crimes that gradually ends up eroding the internet and society. Let’s throw in the misuse of communications, technology, infrastructure, very smart devices, and media to:
a. Intimidate homeowners
b. Traumatize children
c. Influence behavior
d. Destabilize communities
e. Manipulate elections
f. Suppress minority populations
g. Recreate the equivalent of “psychological”testing” without consent.
At some point, the consents you signed enabled something far darker. It’s no longer about science, but something more akin to the story of Frankenstein. Some of us also enter into legitimate contracts that come with lots of built in plausible deniability to turn your life into a joke.
How are cancer rates for children in your town?
Are you going to permit the use of wearable devices on children without any appropriate safeguards?
The reality is there will always be a Victor Frankenstein willing to take things further. That’s the monster who will always have an excuse to justify his or her sickness. It is unregulated human manipulation using technological tools. In some instances, it is about politics. That is precisely what the Common Rule was designed to stop in research environments. When you use the term “whitting” or someone uses it for you—it does present differently to minorities. Very reminiscent of the term “wilding” used to put innocent boys in prison after violating their constitutional rights in the Central Park Jogger case. Back to the issue of experimentation on humans, even Mickey explored the subject in a recent film.
What if it were possible to take eugenics beyond a laboratory?
What if it’s already been made possible?
Understand that the communications and technology sectors have no analogous rule. Once they had Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and immunity from suits—they just get to innovate. Hence the really long hours with all the cool offices. To be fair —there have been huge regulatory fines but there’s also an undercurrent of something we are all not quite comfortable with — that includes the rush to all things AI.
Don’t get me started on cloning. Or—let’s have the conversation. Apparently—I’m free. Imagine the possibilities. I like Ray Bans too.
Well—sort of…
So What is the Duplicity of Language: “Common Rule” vs. “Common Carrier?”
It’s about subtleties in language. The kind of game where men and women take great pride in ruining other peoples lives. How about that Kraken fund? Those crazy kids in Silicon Valley, or is it Wall Street? That’s just part of the joke.
This kind of behavior has become politically dangerous, and it is altering American life. The elimination of corporate DEI policies is part of that and changing the face of America was clearly the intention.
It may have been true that I may not have minded eating at a restaurant that points to singling out someone for use by politicians or political parties. I will refrain from publishing the name of that restaurant — but understand that I am being put through something extremely disturbing that in some respects began with an innocent statement about Edward Snowden on my professional profile. I also just so happened to be studying privacy and global data protection law at the time. Coincidentally, Mr. Snowden is a former NSA contractor and a privacy advocate living in Russia.
I have an absolute right to inform the public that this kind of thing happens in America. When we see all of these cute names on the internet for businesses that grew out of the dot.com era—I grow more and more concerned about what some believe they have the right to do indiscriminately. Like maligning my good name or my children. This includes what some of these individuals believe they can do for more than fifteen years. As a Shareholder and Attorney of a law firm in Los Angeles County that represents a diverse community that includes law enforcement, I have seen what unfairness and deception looks like both on and offline.
The Common Rule in science is about protecting people from abuse. Common-carrier rules in telecoms are about preventing discrimination in your phone service. It should be the same for your internet service, but we all know how complicated life online has become. It may sound like a stretch —but I do have an important perspective because people are trying to silence me. They actually did much worse.
Understand that the language of “common” looks similar, and that there are those that would:
a. Blur lines and hide coercive tactics inside algorithms or use vocabulary like of “network operations,” “testing,” or “optimization” to turn a regulatory distinction into a loophole or vulnerability.
b. If there is any duplicity in language that is exploited, they can become weapons in local politics or among extremists.
This is why protecting the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act is different. Both sides of the aisle of government do very bad things. What we as citizens must remember is that ridding ourselves of extremism, the vestiges of slavery, and terrorism should be shared values. As well as being able to benefit economically, which includes being able to obtain an education that isn’t cherry picked for you and healthcare that rids itself from similar discriminatory practices and protects the vulnerable. Sadly, what we are used to is people who are more comfortable with finding creative ways to hide racism, discrimination and bias in American life.
Opening Your Eyes To See Historical Patterns Of Discrimination Exists
Every time the U.S. has faced demographic change or political instability, vulnerable groups are subjected to:
a. Institutional retaliation
b. Experimental or quasi-experimental “behavior shaping” surveillance.
c. Psychological operations.
I now believe that the political climate surrounding Anita Hill and Justice Clarence Thomas and the phrase “high-tech lynching” was not accidental.
They illustrate an important fact that when a marginalized voice challenges entrenched authority, their lives and identities are placed at risk. That’s when smart TVs, cable boxes, phones, ISPs, neighborhood infrastructure, local political machines, private contractors and extremist networks become the most creative—none of which are meaningfully regulated under anything like the Common Rule.
Local Gerrymandering and Digital Manipulation: Why the Gap Is Dangerous
Because the Common Rule applies only to federally funded research, not communications, a local political actor, contractor, private investigator, a regional ISP, or a municipal official may get more creative and could misuse technologies to:
a. Scare families.
b. Manipulate voter perceptions.
c. Disrupt homes.
d. Create psychological distress.
e. Interfere with civic participation.
Target immigrant communities or “test” strategies on marginalized neighborhoods with institutional review boards (they too may be compromised), no ethics board, and no consent process or constitutionally valid or ethical oversight.
Something that started as an “old boys’ club” or “It Girl” joke can become a high-stakes tool for political extremism at the local level. Such as picking (or is it poking?) fun of Girls or Women With Facial Hair. How Bizzare That That would Actually Be A Thing. How Sad for you… Maybe that is why Mrs. Obama, the former First Lady stated publicly that we are simply not ready for a woman President. That’s because you are all too busy making light of hair when you really are more concerned with her skin color.
Power does not need federal coordination to be abusive. It only needs silence, plausible deniability, and a lack of regulatory guardrails.
The point is that:
When there is no explicit rule requiring protection of human subjects, the vulnerable could become the subjects. This is why many Hispanics and Latinos are so outraged by being asked for their papers on American streets and the breakdown of the Latin and Hispanic American family through something as vile as technology abuse.
About the Author
California Attorney and Shareholder at Los Angeles-based family law firm Castellanos & Associates, APLC. Focuses on legal issues at the intersection of children’s privacy, global data protection, and the impact of media and technology on families.