Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)

Started by Майор Хаткевич, May 17, 2011, 01:13:20 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

davidsinn

Quote from: jimmydeanno on May 17, 2011, 05:11:39 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on May 17, 2011, 03:57:21 PM
I highly doubt that. VZW offers two plans for data only. 5gb for $50 and 10gb for $80 with $10 per gb over that.

Yeah, for new customers.

I have unlimited data for my VZW phone, which costs me $30/mo.

My mother has a mobile hotspot from VZW with unlimited data for $30/mo.

For a phone it really is unlimited. Look real close at her hotspot contract and it will have a cap. Unlimited is not unlimited these days.

For the OP. I'm paying for the pipe. I'll use the pipe as I see fit. It's the same idea of paying for city water and they try and tell you you can use it for drinking but you can't use it for doing your laundry or flushing the toilet.
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn

HGjunkie

Concur with everything Sinn has said so far. Ill look over this thread again when I'm not on my phone.
••• retired
2d Lt USAF

Майор Хаткевич

Right, that's the deal. I do on my netbook the same things I do on my phone. Forums, Music, gaming (browser), etc.

That is the same exact drag as the phone itself. The difference is the screen size. Not all of us can afford a XOOM, nor would I want to give up my keyboard just yet.

So, given that I pay for the services, but do not want their "convenient" hotspot app, is it really stealing anything?

Suppose I use the HDMI cable on my Droid X, and connect it to my 42" TV. I'm technically streaming the Phone content onto it, is that wrong?

What about paying the same for 3G service as my mom is paying for 4G, literally getting 20Mbs in her home area while I barely pull out 1-2Mbs? For whatever reason, 4G didn't come with more expensive data, yet my 3G is also the same price. Does that even figure in the discussion?

jimmydeanno

I'm pretty sure that these are the same arguments that were being made when Napster was giving away music for free.

Just because someone has the potential to do something, doesn't mean that it's right or legal.

If your carrier doesn't offer an unlimited plan, there's a reason for that.  You don't have a right to phone service, or streaming HD video.  It's their way to make money.  You signed a contract, you picked your plan.  They're expecting you to honor that, going against it is a violation of your integrity.

Rooting your phone to enable you to make your phone a wireless hotspot for your home, without paying for that service is stealing.  It's the same argument as "the cable company sends the signal to my house."  Bandwidth costs money because the more bandwidth people use the more equipment the carrier has to purchase.  Stealing bandwidth decreases the experience for people who do pay for their services.

If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

Майор Хаткевич

It's nowhere NEAR the Napster argument, as I'm actually paying for the bandwidth.

I'm not using my 3G to power a household, I'm using it mainly on the train/class when I want to do something productive on my netbook.

My provider isn't charging me for bandwidth, they are charging me to use an app made by them for $20 to use a feature built into the phone and operating system.

HGjunkie

And we all know that the major carriers are Capping bandwidth starting pretty much right now or over this summer (I'm looking at you, AT&T and Verizon).

Quote from: jimmydeanno on May 17, 2011, 10:18:39 PM
I'm pretty sure that these are the same arguments that were being made when Napster was giving away music for free.
Except this isn't stealing music. This is about streaming available bandwidth to a device other than your phone without having to pay the ridiculous fee associated with it.

QuoteIf your carrier doesn't offer an unlimited plan, there's a reason for that. 
Yeah, because they can't provide infrastructure to support the bandwidth.

QuoteRooting your phone to enable you to make your phone a wireless hotspot for your home, without paying for that service is stealing.
So even though you have already paid for the wireless service, you have to pay extra to share it over the air?

QuoteIt's the same argument as "the cable company sends the signal to my house."  Bandwidth costs money because the more bandwidth people use the more equipment the carrier has to purchase.  Stealing bandwidth decreases the experience for people who do pay for their services.
It's not stealing bandwidth, it's using it in a different way than you normally would.


••• retired
2d Lt USAF

Bluelakes 13

Amazing. 

Folks that have been voiciferous in the past about stealing software or music, conveniently try to argue that tethering is not really stealing even though the provider charges extra for tethering...

Eclipse

After Jim's comment I'd have to say he actually has a point, to an extent.  While the bandwidth is still being paid for, VZ made a marketing decision
to rip-off their less technical customers monetize tethering, which means that if you made the huge mistake of locking yourself into a
carrier that artificially restricts your device
decision to use VZ's network, then you're pretty much stuck from an ethical perspective...

This is why people should make better decisions regarding the carrier and the features they need before they spend money.

There is nothing illegal or unethical about rooting or flashing a device, but if you do it to circumvent the terms of your carrier contract, then I'd have to agree (begrudgingly), that you are wrong both ethically and legally.

However one could make the same argument about the carrier monetizing standard services, with the difference being no one said you
had to sign your name.  If more people would read the TOS on their phones, less of this kind of BS would be possible.

The AT&T / T-Mobile merge, assuming it is approved, could be a real problem across the board, because it would combine the best carrier from a
terms and customer service perspective, with the worst carrier (from any angle), and likely allow for all the carriers to start raising prices and
monetizing more standard services.

"That Others May Zoom"

Major Lord

Using the illegality of an act, or even the lack of provable harm, are not intrinsically valid reasons to declare an action "ethical" or "unethical" . If the new wifi appearance point is used to provide access to third parties who are non-subscribers, the issue becomes clear; Its both illegal and immoral, since the theft of service is an issue that is Mala in Se.
Other peripheral legal issues could arise; Does the modification to the phone constitute a violation of FCC regulations? Ask the FCC; I think its Ethically neutral and purely Malum  prohibitum.

The fact that you almost certainly signed a user agreement prohibiting, either expressly or by implication, the use of the phone according to a contract, is in my opinion the single largest argument that the act is not ethical. On the other hand, not all contracts are valid ( selling someone into slavery or hiring a hitman are two extreme examples) And we routinely sign user agreements for software and other products that we may not read or even understand.

If you understood the contract for the use of the phones and entered into the contract in bad faith, or later decided to knowingly violate the term of the contract, and accept but ignore its validity, your action is unethical. Since you raise the point, one might presume that you knew your actions were in violation of your user agreement.

Major Lord
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

SABRE17

three words, TERMS OF SErVICE, if you sign the contract that says tethering is not allowed with out paying extra, then you are in breech of contract. does the TOS actually say that? i don't know, i don't play with smart phones.

Eclipse

In terms of this discussion, we have to separate "legal" from "ethical".  There are plenty of things in this world which are the former but not the latter,
and "ethical" doesn't usually need to dance around loopholes and terms the way "legal" can.

"That Others May Zoom"

coudano

Quote from: Eclipse on May 18, 2011, 07:25:39 PM
In terms of this discussion, we have to separate "legal" from "ethical".  There are plenty of things in this world which are the former but not the latter,
and "ethical" doesn't usually need to dance around loopholes and terms the way "legal" can.

But is that a two way street.

In other words, sure there are some things that are legal but not ethical.

But are there things that are ethical but not legal?
More specifically, in this case...
Is it ethical to manually tether (subverting the TOS), despite its (probable) illegality?

More importantly,
when you willingly enter a legal agreement,
are you not also, by definition, ethically obligated to the terms of that contract?

In other words, if you said you would do something,
are you ethically bound to actually do it?

Майор Хаткевич

Part of prompted me to root and post this topic came from the actions of Verizon and AT&T: http://www.intomobile.com/2011/05/03/att-and-verizon-blocking-access-tethering-apps-android/

I'm trying to actually find the TOS regarding the issue, but no luck as of yet.

But lets spin it around. This article is from 2008. It talks about the cost of a text message:
http://gthing.net/the-true-price-of-sms-messages

The costs on a text by text base are astronomical. The unlimited plans at $20 are also a rip-off but I use more texts a month than minutes, so I suppose it's ok. (Btw, for reference, since opening Captalk on the train right now, I've already "downloaded" 4Mb of data, which in text terms is almost $6000 worth without a plan).  My plan resets in 2 days, and I've used 80/450 minutes, and on this light month, 104/unlimited messages. I've used a mere 800Mb of 3G data this month. I've never gone over 2Gb, which most plans are now limited to (mine is still unlimited) - even with tethering my device to my computer.

So, carriers already HOSE you with text costs while internet service is a lot more data intensive, yet costs only 50% more.

Is it ethical to then expect people to shell out yet another $20 for something my phone is designed to do natively?

Spaceman3750

Quote from: Major Lord on May 18, 2011, 05:49:50 PM
If the new wifi appearance point is used to provide access to third parties who are non-subscribers, the issue becomes clear; Its both illegal and immoral, since the theft of service is an issue that is Mala in Se.

I don't agree. If I'm paying for the hotspot service I am free to allow whoever I want onto that hotspot. I'm still responsible for any data cap and usage restriction but who I allow on my hotspot is up to me - whether or not they're a subscriber, because I'm paying their access charges. If I can't do that, then what's the point in paying for the hotspot?

Spaceman3750

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on May 18, 2011, 08:02:07 PM
Is it ethical to then expect people to shell out yet another $20 for something my phone is designed to do natively?

It has nothing to do with what the phone is capable of and everything to do with the level of network access you pay for.

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 18, 2011, 08:04:34 PM
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on May 18, 2011, 08:02:07 PM
Is it ethical to then expect people to shell out yet another $20 for something my phone is designed to do natively?

It has nothing to do with what the phone is capable of and everything to do with the level of network access you pay for.

I pay for 3G internet service. My phone has the ability to broadcast it.

Eclipse

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 18, 2011, 08:04:34 PM
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on May 18, 2011, 08:02:07 PM
Is it ethical to then expect people to shell out yet another $20 for something my phone is designed to do natively?

It has nothing to do with what the phone is capable of and everything to do with the level of network access you pay for.

Actually, that's not completely true, since in most cases the device is carrier-subsidized with custom firmware.  It's a customer-malevolent
attitude, but one which VZ feels it can weather, especially considering that only a small percentage of customers even understand the question.

In this case, you can't "access the network" without breaking the TOS.

Enabled properly, how many people use the device at once is irrelevant and not an ethical or legal issue.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on May 18, 2011, 08:20:09 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 18, 2011, 08:04:34 PM
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on May 18, 2011, 08:02:07 PM
Is it ethical to then expect people to shell out yet another $20 for something my phone is designed to do natively?

It has nothing to do with what the phone is capable of and everything to do with the level of network access you pay for.

I pay for 3G internet service. My phone has the ability to broadcast it.

Not out-of-the-box with the VZ provided firmware.  This is one of the reasons why people purchase non-branded devices, or choose
one carrier over another.

"That Others May Zoom"

a2capt

Precisely the reason I used to buy Treo's from Palm directly, using the Reference Firmware because the device just worked as intended. The carriers always put the spin on it that "these features have not been tested..." 

Until the consumers unite and collectively chant "Can You Hear  Us Now!!???!", that pin will never drop.

Major Lord

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 18, 2011, 08:03:58 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on May 18, 2011, 05:49:50 PM
If the new wifi appearance point is used to provide access to third parties who are non-subscribers, the issue becomes clear; Its both illegal and immoral, since the theft of service is an issue that is Mala in Se.

I don't agree. If I'm paying for the hotspot service I am free to allow whoever I want onto that hotspot. I'm still responsible for any data cap and usage restriction but who I allow on my hotspot is up to me - whether or not they're a subscriber, because I'm paying their access charges. If I can't do that, then what's the point in paying for the hotspot?

My comments were directed to a phone that may have been illegally and/or extra-contractually "rooted", the concept under discussion, not to WIFI hotspots in general. The question of whether the use of the "hacked" services is a crime, and willing participants criminal co-conspirators is beyond the scope of what this discussion is about. Lets keep in mind, those people who thought downloading movies or music was permissible merely because a webpage or some software made it possible. The RIA sued a lot of mommies and daddies for millions of dollars so their kids ( probably JROTC cadets) could download the newest lady Gaga song.

Major Lord
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."