Computer scientists will do stuff like expose people in repressive regimes to internet censors (http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2015/pdf/papers/p653....) or hack your Facebook account and slurp all your data (http://www2013.wwwconference.org/companion/p751.pdf)

Though ENCORE was done with IRB approval, the community is mostly unsure how that was possible...

Thanks for the examples. I'd agree that they show that computer science research is capable of harming people.

Edit: although I don't think they change my intuition that it's strange that high-risk invasive procedures that people expected to cause grave injury are dealt with by the same oversight mechanism as interviews (even though I'm very convinced of the ethical importance of strong confidentiality protections for interviews).

Second edit: I'm also aware that IRBs aren't only inspired by Tuskegee and Nazi experiments, but also by stuff like the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments which didn't involve invasive interventions.

In IRB's that I've participated in, low-risk interviews can go through expedited review, and though it's still happening under the IRB, it's far from the same process as something involving say, injections, imaging, gathering information about potential criminal involvement, or deception.

Though, every IRB is different. Which is another problem!