[cyrusshepard]

FWIW, Dan (the author) has an outstanding reputation for professionalism and integrity in the marketing world. If he says he did something for ethical reasons, to those who know him, he's earned the benefit to be believed. (If you don't know him, you'd be forgiven for being suspicious)

And credit should be given to him for educating everyone on this exploit.

[tomgp]

It'd be very easy to make a proof of concept of this exploit which didn't breach copyright or record peoples personal information and then to publicise the problem immediately, instead he chose to operate on real sites, collect real personal data and then forget about it for 5 years. It's this general lax attitude that gives everyone working in the SEO sector -- and by extensions the tech sector as a whole a bad reputation. The whole experiment doesn't feel like it was conducted in good faith or with any consideration for the ethics beyond 'hey this is cool'. Grow up!

[dejanseo]

Thank you Cyrus. I thought it would be obvious that this isn't a practical tactic a reputable brand could risk doing.

[jimbauwens]

While it is clear that you did not have any bad intentions, you should never have published it on the web. Based on your earlier comment "It worked a little too well" it becomes clear that multiple users were tricked by your site and that you possibly even intercepted submitted forms ("I gasped when I realised I can actually capture all form submissions and send them to my own email.").

You misled people and breached their privacy. This is as simple as it gets, even if it was for an experiment (though leaving the site online in some other form still raises a lot of question marks..).

My advice for you is to perform future experiments locally, not on the web and make sure people participating in your experiment are aware.

[iscoelho]

The point of the experiment was the social engineering aspect. The fact that it would work technologically was obvious. The fact that it would work practically was what he set out to prove.