CAP Talk

Cadet Programs => Cadet Programs Management & Activities => Topic started by: Майор Хаткевич on May 17, 2011, 01:13:20 AM

Title: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on May 17, 2011, 01:13:20 AM
I was finally bored enough and rooted my Droid X phone.

For those who don't know, "Rooting" is basically gaining advanced access to the phone operating system, allowing extra features and more options for changes.

One of the most popular tools accessible after a "Root"? Wireless Tethering of your phone. Basically, you turn your phone into a Wi-Fi hotspot which lets you use the internet on your phone on other devices.

Now the "ethical" dilemma.

The major carriers (all of them?) require you to pay a $20 dollar fee / month to use the "wifi" feature that they put on the phone, while restricting the naturally built in availability. However, this is ONLY turning on the wifi feature, and you are using the 3G/4G internet connection that your phone has and you pay around $30 a month for.

Now, there are legal tools (A court actually just ruled that consumers CAN "root" their phones) that let you access this capability and avoid the extra $20 / month.

So the question. Is it ethical to use the "root" features to gain access to wifi broadcasting capabilities, or not? Should you have to pay an extra 67% for your internet JUST to use a feature already part of your phone?
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: thatonekid on May 17, 2011, 01:15:58 AM
No, they need to come up with a better way to lock up their phones.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on May 17, 2011, 01:21:24 AM
Quote from: thatonekid on May 17, 2011, 01:15:58 AM
No, they need to come up with a better way to lock up their phones.

It's my phone.

According to the Federal government I can root it. So am I being ethical?

Is the cell phone company being ethical trying to remove ALL tethering apps (allowing you to use your phone internet on another device), as well as trying to make rooting the phone harder?
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: thatonekid on May 17, 2011, 01:23:27 AM
Ethical enough...if they do give up phones and phone service will drastically increase in price.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Eclipse on May 17, 2011, 01:29:41 AM
As a rooter myself I believe this is ethical, and if anything the ethical issue is on the carriers for making a marketing choice in
locking basic features that other carriers do not.  Since you are paying for your usage, you aren't stealing anything.  If you were doing
something to actually enable carrier access without paying, I'd say you were stealing, but that is not what you are doing.

The carrier, however, would be well within their TOS if you abuse their network to throttle your bandwidth and / or disable your data service.
Also, Motorola would be within their rights to disavow any warranty claim.

Essentially you do it at your own risk, with all parties having some advantage / disadvantage.  As you mention above, this has already been held as legal, despite the attempts by the manufacturers and carriers to limit your device abilities.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Paul Creed III on May 17, 2011, 12:46:41 PM
The answer to your question is clear:

The carriers require a fee for tethering; however you tether, you owe them money.

While rooting is legal and allows you to tether, if you get caught by the company, be prepared for a huge bill.

This is no different than walking into a store and taking something without paying. The store requires a person to pay for the item but, if they can sneak out of the store, it's OK to take that item, right? Didn't think so.

It's theft of telecommunication service, which is illegal; check your local jurisdiction.

Is theft pursuant to the core value of integrity?
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: HGjunkie on May 17, 2011, 02:51:51 PM
Why should the carriers be able to restrict something that is built into the phone and charge extra for you to be able to use it? Is that ethical?

This also applies to jailbreaking. I have an ipod touch which I jailbroke to get around apple having ridiculously locked software. The device belongs to the consumer, not the company. If I want to be able to get around the restrictions in my electronic device, I have that right. I've paid for it, Its my property.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Paul Creed III on May 17, 2011, 03:09:02 PM
Just because a feature is available on the phone, doesn't mean that using it automatic for you.

If you buy a phone, but don't buy the texting plan, are you entitled to use texting for free? After-all, the texting is a part of the capabilities of the phone.

Yes, the phone is your property, but the cell towers, communication trunk lines, etc are not - they are the carriers' and your use of those services is a burden that the company has to recoup. Let's say that a given cell tower supports 100 tethered data users (100 of which are paying for the service) and someone who does not buy tethering becomes user 101, then another, etc. So, now there are 150 tethered users and the company has to upgrade the tower to support the increase in users since there is a finite about of bandwidth that can be provided and it's getting divided up between more and more users. Now, the company has to spend a significant amount of money to upgrade that tower so that all the customers (namely the paying customers whose service quality has dropped from the increased load) are happy, but the company is not getting the money for the non-paying tethering customers, so guess who gets to foot the bill for the upgrade - the paying customers.

The point is - the law clearly says that it is illegal to steal communication service for which one is not entitled. For those that don't like the law, I would advise that a letter to the local representatives is in order.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: davidsinn on May 17, 2011, 03:26:18 PM
Quote from: Paul Creed III on May 17, 2011, 03:09:02 PM
Just because a feature is available on the phone, doesn't mean that using it automatic for you.

If you buy a phone, but don't buy the texting plan, are you entitled to use texting for free? After-all, the texting is a part of the capabilities of the phone.

Yes, the phone is your property, but the cell towers, communication trunk lines, etc are not - they are the carriers' and your use of those services is a burden that the company has to recoup. Let's say that a given cell tower supports 100 tethered data users (100 of which are paying for the service) and someone who does not buy tethering becomes user 101, then another, etc. So, now there are 150 tethered users and the company has to upgrade the tower to support the increase in users since there is a finite about of bandwidth that can be provided and it's getting divided up between more and more users. Now, the company has to spend a significant amount of money to upgrade that tower so that all the customers (namely the paying customers whose service quality has dropped from the increased load) are happy, but the company is not getting the money for the non-paying tethering customers, so guess who gets to foot the bill for the upgrade - the paying customers.

The point is - the law clearly says that it is illegal to steal communication service for which one is not entitled. For those that don't like the law, I would advise that a letter to the local representatives is in order.

There is zero difference between a phone pulling down data for use on the phone and a phone pulling down data to forward to another device. They both have the same drain on the infrastructure. The only way to find out what the difference is, is header inspection or deep packet inspection. Both of which are an invasion of your privacy.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Paul Creed III on May 17, 2011, 03:37:09 PM
That is entirely true that data is data, whether the phone's own data or for tethering.

However, the additional drain on infrastructure caused by tethering use over just phone use is a valid point - if a user is tethering, there is higher probability that there will be more data pulled down via apps such as VOIP, music, video, etc on the connected computer. When just using the phone's data, the use of these services is lessened due to the form factor of the device.

During a typical month, my iPhone's mobile data usage is less than a GB, even with heavy email, surfing use, etc. My unit's Verizon air card pulls down sometimes a hundred GB or more in a month, tethered to the laptop and all of it is for CAP use and not fun-and-games. Clearly, my unit's air card is a much larger drain on the network than my iPhone.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: a2capt on May 17, 2011, 03:40:40 PM
Especially when it's an information rich device like an iPhone, iPad, Droid, that is a unix appliance under the pretty pictures and capable of delivering for all intents, identical experience as a desktop.  ... and the plan is being paid for.

It's also not without precedent. These same carriers still do offer in some cases, and used to offer more broadly, this ability. So you have the identical data plan you had previously, you upgrade your device, you are now artificially locked out from something you have used maybe for like the last 9-10 years..
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: davidsinn on May 17, 2011, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Paul Creed III on May 17, 2011, 03:37:09 PM
My unit's Verizon air card pulls down sometimes a hundred GB or more in a month, tethered to the laptop and all of it is for CAP use and not fun-and-games.

I highly doubt that. VZW offers two plans for data only. 5gb for $50 and 10gb for $80 with $10 per gb over that. You're trying to tell me you spend $1000 per month on data? That's ignoring the fact that the amount of data you quoted is triple what my whole house uses for three computers doing youtube, facebook(farmville for my mother) gaming and heavy webrowsing.

If you're trying to make a point don't exaggerate into the realm of absurdity.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Paul Creed III on May 17, 2011, 04:13:53 PM
Ohio Wing has a negotiated contract with Verizon for unlimited data plans; Wing pays $20 for each unit who also pays $20, so $40 per month total per air card.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: davidsinn on May 17, 2011, 04:16:31 PM
Quote from: Paul Creed III on May 17, 2011, 04:13:53 PM
Ohio Wing has a negotiated contract with Verizon for unlimited data plans; Wing pays $20 for each unit who also pays $20, so $40 per month total per air card.

OK that takes care of the overages. I still can't figure out how you use 100gb in a month.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: a2capt on May 17, 2011, 04:23:24 PM
Heh, I use the heck out of 3G data via Sprint ... but when I saw '100gb' the first thing that flashed through my mind was.. "I'd still be waiting..." if I started it last month.

I know, it's not that slow but thats quite a bit, too. But I can believe it.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Paul Creed III on May 17, 2011, 04:28:01 PM
Since the two squadron laptops are used by many staff members, I cannot speak for every bit of data that crosses the wire. Now, 100GB is not every single month, month in and month out. But, I have seen it.

But, with two active laptops at most of our meetings, our unit data being synced to the cloud, online training and testing, OS and app updates, plus training videos and whatever else, it's not trivial.

We have decent Verizon service in our area.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Al Sayre on May 17, 2011, 04:40:45 PM
Quote from: Paul Creed III on May 17, 2011, 03:09:02 PM
Just because a feature is available on the phone, doesn't mean that using it automatic for you.

If you buy a phone, but don't buy the texting plan, are you entitled to use texting for free? After-all, the texting is a part of the capabilities of the phone.

Yes, the phone is your property, but the cell towers, communication trunk lines, etc are not - they are the carriers' and your use of those services is a burden that the company has to recoup. Let's say that a given cell tower supports 100 tethered data users (100 of which are paying for the service) and someone who does not buy tethering becomes user 101, then another, etc. So, now there are 150 tethered users and the company has to upgrade the tower to support the increase in users since there is a finite about of bandwidth that can be provided and it's getting divided up between more and more users. Now, the company has to spend a significant amount of money to upgrade that tower so that all the customers (namely the paying customers whose service quality has dropped from the increased load) are happy, but the company is not getting the money for the non-paying tethering customers, so guess who gets to foot the bill for the upgrade - the paying customers.

The point is - the law clearly says that it is illegal to steal communication service for which one is not entitled. For those that don't like the law, I would advise that a letter to the local representatives is in order.

That being the case, then the service owners need to put the restictions on the equipment that is their property, not the private property of others.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Bluelakes 13 on May 17, 2011, 04:42:15 PM
The phone is irrelevant in this context. 

The provider charges extra for tethering. 

If you use tethering, you pay extra. 
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: coudano on May 17, 2011, 04:52:01 PM
Yah i'd be interested in seeing the TOS and/or contract that you signed when you agreed to use the service.
I'll bet it says things along the lines of you not accessing the network except through approved methods.

If you signed that agreement, and it does say something like that,
then you are bound to it, both ethically and legally.

Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: 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.

Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: davidsinn on May 17, 2011, 06:01:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: HGjunkie on May 17, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
Concur with everything Sinn has said so far. Ill look over this thread again when I'm not on my phone.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on May 17, 2011, 08:05:33 PM
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?
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: 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.

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.

Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on May 17, 2011, 10:52:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: HGjunkie on May 17, 2011, 11:18:43 PM
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.


Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Bluelakes 13 on May 18, 2011, 04:43:26 PM
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...
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Eclipse on May 18, 2011, 05:09:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Major Lord on May 18, 2011, 05:49:50 PM
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
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: SABRE17 on May 18, 2011, 07:18:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: coudano on May 18, 2011, 07:54:02 PM
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?
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on May 18, 2011, 08:02:07 PM
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?
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Майор Хаткевич 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.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Eclipse on May 18, 2011, 08:26:34 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.

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.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Eclipse on May 18, 2011, 08:27:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: a2capt on May 18, 2011, 08:34:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Major Lord on May 18, 2011, 10:07:19 PM
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
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: a2capt on May 18, 2011, 11:01:03 PM
LOL- the freeway makes speeding available, too. ;-) Doesn't mean it's legal... and most people know that. So those who think that downloading because it was there .... well... they have limited mental capacity ;-)
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: BillB on May 19, 2011, 02:39:28 AM
Can someone tell me why this is in Cadet Management and Activities? Maybe a Mod knows something I don't
Title: Re: Technology Ethics (Potential topic for CD Class)
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on May 19, 2011, 02:50:34 AM
I felt it could be used as a good CD topic for some folks. A lot of teenagers have cellphones/smartphones/networked devices these days.