These are subjective values that represent the altruistic view of ethical behavior, and they apply to corporations as well as individuals within the corporations. Thus, the employees of the organization that sell phones to individuals who fit the profile of a terrorist or criminal are acting unethically, and it is the corporation's responsibility to ensure that does not occur. They should require some kind of identification or registration from all customers, and they should maintain the records so they can be searched and identified if necessary. Moral pragmatism demands that the provider use common sense as one of its ethical solutions to problems, and it makes common sense for the provider to require some kind of identification to protect and serve others in the community.

In conclusion, this is a true ethical dilemma in every sense of the words. Ultimately, it seems senseless to allow cell phone companies to sell these phones without any identity requirements. We no longer live in a pragmatic and moral society. There...

Most customers would not argue with some form of identification to purchase these phones, and the minority who do hesitate may be doing so because they have something to hide. Many countries do require registration for these types of phones, so the models are in place to begin to require that in this country. In addition, the egoist view that the company is not responsible is not totally the case. While anything can be used as a murder weapon, some are more deadly than others are, and the company recognizes that its phones can be misused, so they have a moral responsibility to act on that knowledge and attempt to curtail it. They owe it to the safety of the people in the communities where they do business, and they should take this responsibility seriously.
References

Frain, Jonathan. "Call in if You Suspect Terror Threat." The Birmingham Post. 27 Feb. 2008: 6.