When I was in grad school for a branch of social sciences, we had a whole class on how to conduct research experiments on unwitting subjects. It's something that social scientists do all the time.
(Tangentially, it's something that computer people do even more often, and probably with fewer ethics controls. A/B testing, for one prominent example.)
But it's typically only allowed when it's clear that the risk of harm to the participants is pretty much negligible. Which is clearly not the case here. As others have said, it's probably the case that the reason this got past the IRB is not because the research was clandestine, but because the team lied about how it might affect people. And probably also, I'm guessing, the IRB had their guard down because they weren't expecting that particular department to be conducting social science field experiments.
(Tangentially, it's something that computer people do even more often, and probably with fewer ethics controls. A/B testing, for one prominent example.)
But it's typically only allowed when it's clear that the risk of harm to the participants is pretty much negligible. Which is clearly not the case here. As others have said, it's probably the case that the reason this got past the IRB is not because the research was clandestine, but because the team lied about how it might affect people. And probably also, I'm guessing, the IRB had their guard down because they weren't expecting that particular department to be conducting social science field experiments.