[troad]

This is not even remotely cool. This shows a complete disregard for personal and professional boundaries and cultural norms. I have no idea how anyone thought cyber-stalking business people with a mixture of fraud, disregard for the dead, and non-consensual AI cloning was a good idea. Imagine placing your brand in the hands of a marketing agency with this level of judgement.

I've worked in fairly sensitive roles, and if a package like this arrived at my workplace the police would become involved immediately. And if asked whether I'd want to press charges, I would say yes, absolutely. When you've received death threats at work, and seen female colleagues receiving rape threats, your tolerance for this kind of crap wears thin.

[Taniwha]

But they're are literally trying to get jobs at evil marketing companies, surely they need to out-evil them to break into that industry?

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

Red teaming evil marketing companies sounds like a good time actually

[smsm42]

I have mixed feelings here. On one hand, I am kinda glad marketing companies got targeted, because they deserve some taste of their own medicine. On the other hand, if being creepy is what it takes to get a job here, it's that literally selecting for creepy? That means only people with a particular mindset get to work there - which kinda makes the problem even worse?

[ethbr1]

> disregard for the dead

They didn't disregard them: they tried to target them with ads.

What higher form of acknowledgement is there in our modern world?

[userbinator]

Agreed. As I read this, "stupid influencer prank" is what comes to mind.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

And those, too, are a plague of sorts. I genuinely am at a point where I tense when I see anyone approaching with a camera up.

[hipadev23]

press charges over what.

[ffsm8]

Is impersonating someone and literally cyber stalking people legal in your jurisdiction?

[hipadev23]

is creating deepfakes legal? at the moment, yes. they’re using it in an obvious parody manner, so the “impersonation” claim is a stretch at best.

is “cyber stalking” legal? doing research using publicly available information is quite legal. stalking tends imply you’re harassing or intimidating someone, that doesn’t seem to apply here. conde nast told them to go away, and they did.

so, yes, i ask again: press charges over what? someone being uncomfortable or intellectually intimidated isn’t a crime.

[ethbr1]

Without HOA boards, people would have landscaping that doesn't match their neighbors. It'd be anarchy!

[DonsDiscountGas]

"impersonating" - creating a video using their likeness and only sending it to that person doesn't actually count as impersonating.

"Literally cyber stalking" - sending them an ad. If this is illegal then linkedin would also be party to the crime, I'm guessing their lawyers have checked this.

This all is creepy AF but I'm fairly certain it's all legal (in US)

[BriggyDwiggs42]

As long as they’re doing it to business people and marketing employees I’m fine with it. Most of them absolutely deserve some of their own medicine.

[olyjohn]

I dont think two wrongs make a right.

[BriggyDwiggs42]

We accept it when rich marketers spy on and manipulate the public. I think if we’re going to ignore that, then there’s no reason to care when they’re targeted. If all of the sudden we start caring about the spying, then fine let’s direct concern towards spying on marketers too, but right now it’s hypocritical.