Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

vptdigital.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 175 posts

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#121

Post by sgerenser »

tyre wrote: post #89
zaphirplane wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know of anyone declining to work on a project For ethical in their view ( non military non killing) ? I’ve led a sheltered life and never met one, people have told me they wouldn’t apply for a role with a company for ethical reasons maybe they even believed they would get the job

I worked at LivingSocial back in 2012. I was 21 and didn’t know anything about marketing. The pitch was that daily deals helped small businesses get new customers who would then become recurring, which was good. I liked helping small businesses. Over time I realized that the company knew this wasn’t really true. Daily deal customers weren’t likely to return. They went where the deals were. The influx of cash from dai…

Even if you had got the LivingSocial equity, it probably would have ended up worthless anyway, right?

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#123

Post by freeAgent »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #116
freeAgent wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually does fall under the definition malware. Specifically, Honey hijacks affiliate marketing tags and replaces them with their own. This falls under the definition of the “spyware” category of malware.

Spyware is software that sends information about the user (browsing history, etc) to a 3rd party. Many affiliate browser extensions do indeed do this, as an extra revenue stream. In fact, I'd recommend never installing a coupon browser extension. But replacing one number with another does not meet the above definition of spyware.

See Spyware: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware

"Programs designed to monitor users' web browsing, display unsolicited advertisements, *or redirect affiliate marketing revenues* are called spyware."

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#124

Post by ocschwar »

Waterluvian wrote: post #26
bryan_w wrote: post #22

I used to work for an ad tech company (which I know already makes me the devil to some around here), and even I think that they crossed a line with this. A lot of industry terms are coded in corporate speak to make them sound better (think "revealed preferences" or "enabling personalization"), but I would genuinely like to know what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature.…

> what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature. Possibly a version of, “I lack the freedom to operate with a moral code at work because I’m probably replaceable, the job market makes me anxious, my family’s well-being and healthcare are tied to having a job, and I don’t believe the government has my back.”

This is why we need Professional Engineer licenses for software.

There are times when a product design needs to be reviewed and approved by someone who cares more about his license than about his job. It doesn't happen as often with software as it does with civil engineering, but often enough that it needs to become a thing.

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#125

Post by pixl97 »

ocschwar wrote: post #124
Waterluvian wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature. Possibly a version of, “I lack the freedom to operate with a moral code at work because I’m probably replaceable, the job market makes me anxious, my family’s well-being and healthcare are tied to having a job, and I don’t believe the government has my back.”

This is why we need Professional Engineer licenses for software. There are times when a product design needs to be reviewed and approved by someone who cares more about his license than about his job. It doesn't happen as often with software as it does with civil engineering, but often enough that it needs to become a thing.

This works great inside a country where said software must be written in the country for compliance reasons...

How does is work for a fungible product that can be written anywhere and shipped at the speed of light?

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#126

Post by pixl97 »

TheNewsIsHere wrote: post #109
Aurornis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience, it’s more likely that the engineers who got far enough in the company to be working on this code believed that their willingness to work on nefarious tasks that others might refuse or whistle-blow made them a trusted asset within the company. In industries like this there’s also a mindset of “Who cares, it’s all going to corporations anyway, why not send some of that money to the corporation that…

I have noticed that in addition to this perspective there are scores of developers who espouse the idea that “we just create, what people do with our work isn’t our business.” I understand the utilitarian qualities of the argument, but I submit that there’s a reason that capital-E-Engineering credentials typically require some kind of education in ethics-in-design.

capital E engineers have numerous other laws that protect their position.

Civil/mechanical/electrical have countless codes that must be followed with the force of law.

When we say we want engineering standards for software developers we are also asking for standards and codes to be applied to software and all that entails.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, just to consider the ramifications of this at all levels.

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#127

Post by [deleted] »

Waterluvian wrote: post #26
bryan_w wrote: post #22

I used to work for an ad tech company (which I know already makes me the devil to some around here), and even I think that they crossed a line with this. A lot of industry terms are coded in corporate speak to make them sound better (think "revealed preferences" or "enabling personalization"), but I would genuinely like to know what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature.…

> what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature. Possibly a version of, “I lack the freedom to operate with a moral code at work because I’m probably replaceable, the job market makes me anxious, my family’s well-being and healthcare are tied to having a job, and I don’t believe the government has my back.”

[deleted]

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#128

Post by baby_souffle »

TheNewsIsHere wrote: post #109
Aurornis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience, it’s more likely that the engineers who got far enough in the company to be working on this code believed that their willingness to work on nefarious tasks that others might refuse or whistle-blow made them a trusted asset within the company. In industries like this there’s also a mindset of “Who cares, it’s all going to corporations anyway, why not send some of that money to the corporation that…

I have noticed that in addition to this perspective there are scores of developers who espouse the idea that “we just create, what people do with our work isn’t our business.” I understand the utilitarian qualities of the argument, but I submit that there’s a reason that capital-E-Engineering credentials typically require some kind of education in ethics-in-design.

> but I submit that there’s a reason that capital-E-Engineering credentials typically require some kind of education in ethics-in-design.

Or said differently: there’s a reason why software engineering jobs pay so well; no mandatory ethics training required!

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#129

Post by constantcrying »

To be honest, the Megalag video really made it clear what a great product Honey is. It is very explicit about the fact that you, as the consumer, can get extraordinary deals by using the extension.

This also makes me think that the whole campaign is astroturfed. The only "victims" of Honey are influencers and storefronts, who of course will do their part in trying to get their customers to stop using the product, but for the consumer there really are only benefits with using the extension.

The only arguments against Honey is that they are supposedly breaking some internal rules of the advertising industry (and who cares about those? Certainly not me) and that they are offering deals better than the store wants to offer to you, which makes an extremely compelling case for using that extension.

I always considered extensions like Honey to be quite scammy and believed that they offered little benefit, but apparently I was wrong.

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#130

Post by zero_shift »

pixl97 wrote: post #125
ocschwar wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why we need Professional Engineer licenses for software. There are times when a product design needs to be reviewed and approved by someone who cares more about his license than about his job. It doesn't happen as often with software as it does with civil engineering, but often enough that it needs to become a thing.

This works great inside a country where said software must be written in the country for compliance reasons... How does is work for a fungible product that can be written anywhere and shipped at the speed of light?

It doesn't, but at some point a mature industry + society decides to make that tradeoff.

We can't have it both ways: be essential digital infrastructure, AND move at "the speed of light".

Post reply on HN