5 ms·

Following the law may not be a moral imperative, but let's not pretend like the author did anything moral here. He knowingly and with intent stole services from

Following the law may not be a moral imperative, but let's not pretend like the author did anything moral here. He knowingly and with intent stole services from the airline. It not only was illegal, it's blatantly immoral.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago
It’s also immoral to force bad pricing down customer throats. And yet that is the definition of the inflight wifi business. EDIT: I’m fairly sure at current prices a single flight could pay for a month’s service for a single plane, probably several times over. The profit margins (& I imagine some the cut to the airline) must be enormous, & there is no pretense of fair terms at sale time because a single corporation can entirely monopolize your attention.
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > It’s also immoral to force bad pricing down customer throats. And yet that is the definition of the inflight wifi business. In what bizarro world are people being forced to buy inflight wifi?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  The profit margin for luxury addons is always insane. That doesn't make them unethical. In fact, there's a very good argument to be made that luxury pricing is positively ethical, as it allows the base experience to be offered for a lower price to more price-sensitive customers.
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    > In fact, there's a very good argument to be made that luxury pricing is positively ethical, as it allows the base experience to be offered for a lower price to more price-sensitive customers. How come that isn't happening here? Anyway, it's a commodity. The positioning of it as a luxury service amounts to theft.
mindslight 7y ago
The thing about morals is that we can disagree. Just because this scenario fits your definition of "stole" does not mean it fits mine. My perspective is that a fundamental aspect of the Internet and the digital world is that the software-codified rules are basically authoritative. While constructive behavior still does matter - eg knowingly turning off a hospital ventilator is still murder - the only gain here was temporarily obtaining some transit. The real remedy is for the provider to fix their systems.
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > My perspective is that a fundamental aspect of the Internet and the digital world is that the software-codified rules are basically authoritative. Do you think that hacking per se is ever immoral?
  - mindslight 7y ago
    I suspect you're still associating hacking with other actions that can be facilitated by hacking. But the very next thing I wrote was "knowingly turning off a hospital ventilator is still murder", so it only makes sense to answer as if you strongly intend the "per se". In isolation, why would finding a hole in someone else's ruleset be immoral? If hacking per se were immoral, then there could be no such thing as a "white hat".
    - nordsieck 7y ago
      > I suspect you're still associating hacking with other actions that can be facilitated by hacking. I specifically wrote "per se", so no - I'm not. > If hacking per se were immoral, then there could be no such thing as a "white hat". White hat hacking it typically specifically authorized (e.g. red teams). That is not the case with the example from the article. In the locksport community there is a pretty strong norm to only pick locks you own or have specific authorization to pick. Computer security not the same thing, but it's also not that different.
      - 7y ago

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

It’s also immoral to force bad pricing down customer throats. And yet that is the definition of the inflight wifi business. EDIT: I’m fairly sure at current prices a single flight could pay for a month’s service for a single plane, probably several times over. The profit margins (& I imagine some the cut to the airline) must be enormous, & there is no pretense of fair terms at sale time because a single corporation can entirely monopolize your attention.

nordsieck 7y ago
> It’s also immoral to force bad pricing down customer throats. And yet that is the definition of the inflight wifi business. In what bizarro world are people being forced to buy inflight wifi?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
The profit margin for luxury addons is always insane. That doesn't make them unethical. In fact, there's a very good argument to be made that luxury pricing is positively ethical, as it allows the base experience to be offered for a lower price to more price-sensitive customers.
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  > In fact, there's a very good argument to be made that luxury pricing is positively ethical, as it allows the base experience to be offered for a lower price to more price-sensitive customers. How come that isn't happening here? Anyway, it's a commodity. The positioning of it as a luxury service amounts to theft.

mindslight 7y ago

The thing about morals is that we can disagree. Just because this scenario fits your definition of "stole" does not mean it fits mine. My perspective is that a fundamental aspect of the Internet and the digital world is that the software-codified rules are basically authoritative. While constructive behavior still does matter - eg knowingly turning off a hospital ventilator is still murder - the only gain here was temporarily obtaining some transit. The real remedy is for the provider to fix their systems.

nordsieck 7y ago
> My perspective is that a fundamental aspect of the Internet and the digital world is that the software-codified rules are basically authoritative. Do you think that hacking per se is ever immoral?
- mindslight 7y ago
  I suspect you're still associating hacking with other actions that can be facilitated by hacking. But the very next thing I wrote was "knowingly turning off a hospital ventilator is still murder", so it only makes sense to answer as if you strongly intend the "per se". In isolation, why would finding a hole in someone else's ruleset be immoral? If hacking per se were immoral, then there could be no such thing as a "white hat".
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    > I suspect you're still associating hacking with other actions that can be facilitated by hacking. I specifically wrote "per se", so no - I'm not. > If hacking per se were immoral, then there could be no such thing as a "white hat". White hat hacking it typically specifically authorized (e.g. red teams). That is not the case with the example from the article. In the locksport community there is a pretty strong norm to only pick locks you own or have specific authorization to pick. Computer security not the same thing, but it's also not that different.
    - 7y ago