I had a conversation early today with a friend that I greatly respect. He has been recruiting for a very long time and I value his opinion . . . and I consider him to very knowledgable on legal issues in recruiting. However, I tried to let him know that I was being borderline deceptive when I call into a company for names . . . but he disagrees. Here's a transcript and I need your help:

Me: Look, when I call into a company for names, I don't tell the whole truth. I know I'm 'deceptively manuevering' to get info.
Them: But did the person on the other end of the line ask you for more information about who you were?
Me: No, but if they did, I'd simply tell them I'm a consultant working on a project.
Them: Well, you're not lying and you are breaking any laws by misrepresenting or committing fraud.
Me: Yeah, I know I'm not technically lying . . . but you have to admit I'm not telling the whole truth. I'm omitting, and I admit knowing 'deep down' that I'm playing a cat-and-mouse game to get information.
Them: No you're not, because you're not breaking any laws.
Me: Forget the law for a minute. Like I said, I know I'm doing nothing illegal, but let me keep it real: I'm omitting and deceptively manuevering for information. Haven't you ever had a friend or family member omit and you then later found out the 'whole story'?
Them: You're not being unethical if you're not breaking the law.
Me: Huh? Ethics and laws are two completely different things. I have seen many situations where people engage in unethical behavior that isn't necessarily illegal.
Them: If it's not illegal, it's not unethical.

Some may say that I'm rusing; some may say I'm not technically rusing because I'm committing fraud or misrepresenting myself. Where is the gray area? If we're smart enough to know to not lie about who we are (it's better off just avoiding a direct answer), aren't we just playing the game in a more cunning way? Isn't that the "fun" in calling in?

I've seen many new people that have a polished moral compass when they first enter this business - when I say that, I mean they're pretty open in admitting their bending things to get information. However, I see many who have been doing this 20+ years move to the opposite side of the spectrum ("If it aint illegal, it aint unethical.") As for me, I know when I'm playing games with the gatekeeper. Now, of course I'm going to keep getting information, but I am open in admitting when I'm interjecting some Tom Foolery into the mix. Maybe I'm alone, but I find it funny when someone tells me it's not Tom Foolery if I'm not technically breaking any laws :)

Sure, maybe I'm not 'breaking the law', but what makes what I'm doing any 'better' or ethically superior to someone who calls in lies about who they are?

And for a final twist, am I alone in thinking that our industry has unfortunately branded all calling in for information as rusing? If every call in for information is 'rusing', then what about when I knock out a Shally or Moises boolean search string (or use the free Sharkstrike, which enters your strings for you) and get behind a firewall? What about when I find information I know I shouldn't have access to?

It just seems to me that telephone research has gotten a bad name while internet research doesn't have the same stigma.

P.S. Yeah, this is from the same guy who believes that pretty soon, technology will get to a point that we can find almost all the names we need on the web (on-demand access to the device of our choosing). As people get more and more names, they will continue to enter them into huge databases that we can license at a low monthly fee. But that day isn't here yet, so today, telephone research is still an important part of my job.