When laud humphreys was a sociology graduate student at washington university in st. louis, he wrote his dissertation on the "tearoom trade," anonymous homosexual encounters in the men's rooms of public parks. to gather data, he acted as a lookout for his subjects, but he also surreptitiously noted license-plate numbers as the men left, so he could get their names and addresses. the next year, he picked about fifty men from the "tearooms" and interviewed them in their homes, claiming to be performing a health survey. his descriptions of the interviews made it possible for many of the men (and their families) to recognize themselves when the dissertation was published. why do many sociologists consider this research method to be unethical?

I believe the answer is: It failed to protect the biographical anonymity of his subjects

What humpreys did for his research could be considered a violation of privacy. Ethical standard comittee usually require the reseasrchers to ensure that the personal information of every single subject shall be guarded properly. Because of this, the subjects now had a legal ground to bring a lawsuit to Humphreys.

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.