[jedberg]

This is why I hate the term "growth hacking". It encourages this kind of behavior.

I'd be curious to know if anyone on HN thinks that this is morally and ethically ok?

What happened to the good old days when "growth hacking" was building a good product that people want to share with each other and then making it easy for them to share?

[lawstudent2]

> I'd be curious to know if anyone on HN thinks that this is morally and ethically ok?

1. Yes. Absolutely. What could be morally unacceptable about this?

2. I very strongly believe in business ethics. And consumer protection, and worker protection. I don't think that this, in general, rises to the level of even being an issue with regard to consumer protection or worker protection. I don't know what about this would be unethical.

3. If you are going to say "user tracking" then I am just at a loss. This is categorically no different than any of the many dozens of user tracking services already in use. Except that, unlike many of those services who are very, very explicitly shady and fly-by-night, LinkedIn is, overall, an ethical player. When I visit NYTimes.com, my ghostery registers:

* Chartbeat * Doubleclick * Dynamic Yield * Facebook Connect * Facebook Custom Audience * Google Analytics * Moat * Netratings Site Census * New Relic * Optimizely * ScoreCard Research * WebTrends

As long as this guy has an appropriately written privacy policy, I see absolutely nothing legally wrong with this, either. Morally - I just don't even know where to begin on how facile a complaint I consider that to be.

[ceejayoz]

> * Chartbeat * Doubleclick * Dynamic Yield * Facebook Connect * Facebook Custom Audience * Google Analytics * Moat * Netratings Site Census * New Relic * Optimizely * ScoreCard Research * WebTrends

In these cases, the NYT isn't getting private information about me from the third party. Facebook won't give the NYT a list of Facebook users who viewed an article on their website. Google Analytics won't tell me visitors' Gmail addresses.

[hyperpape]

It is a third party exploiting LinkedIn's tracking to monitor and expose identifiable information about who is visiting their website that LinkedIn probably didn't intend to be public.

Obviously, there are lots of trackers out there. But the fact that those trackers exist, and we're sorta, kinda, maybe ok with it, or at least resigned to it--that doesn't imply that we're ok with any third party using leaks of that information to track us.

Probably the reasonable thing to do is say "if we're ok with X tracking us, we're ok with everyone tracking us, because the information will leak." But that's not the same as saying it's ok for everyone to try and make it leak.

It wouldn't at all surprise me if it's against LinkedIn's TOS, and the author admits as much.

What about this is not unethical?

[JackFr]

The fact that the author believes it is against LinkedIn's terms of service, terms of service to which he has explicitly, voluntarily agreed makes it unethical on its face. (Even if the terms of service don't prohibit this behavior, the fact that he believes they probably do is important.)

It's certainly not a grave matter in and of itself, but he doubles down by publishing a post to encourage people to join him in making a promise in bad faith.

[themagician]

Yes, but let's not forget the 263rd Rule of Acquisition: Never allow doubt to tarnish your lust for data.

[toomuchtodo]

I am impressed that's the actual 263rd rule in the Ferengi Rule's of Acquisition. Kudos.

[zo1]

It's not, the actual 263rd rule is: "Never allow doubt to tarnish your lust for latinum. "

So they replaced latinum with data. Essentially implying that data is money/wealth.

[icoder]

The hack presents a way for the owner of a site I visit, but did not give any other consent to whatsoever, connect that page visit to my LinkedIn profile (which is, basically, me). And then uses that to contact me.

This goes a lot further than an ad broker that knows I am the person that visited sites X,Y and Z and therefore probably have an interest in something (without, still, knowing really who I am).

I know Facebook (and the likes) could technically know where I've been, but I have no clue on whether they really do that, is there proof for that? And is that really accepted? And even then, it's a step further because Facebook at least knows who I am because I 'willfully' told them and chose to 'trust' them.

[TeMPOraL]

"Growth hacking" is nothing but marketers rebranding themselves because word "hacking" is hot and cool (i.e. meaningless).

> What happened to the good old days when "growth hacking" was building a good product that people want to share with each other and then making it easy for them to share?

Business came in. The Internet became serious money, and with it came the "entrepreneurs". What you see is what happens everywhere where competition is intense enough - ethics are one of the first thing to fly out of the window. They harm the bottom line.

[rhino369]

It's at least as ethical as what Google does, the same thing only more effort on their part.

[jedberg]

Except totally not because GA doesn't give you the name and work history of your visitors.

[troisx]

He may be referring to Google's internal tracking, which is likely far more personal than GA.

[alanorourke]

Like all marketing it can be used for good or ill. It is something that we approached internally very carefully.

[samstave]

Should call this practice "auto-doxxing"