[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.