Ethical considerations of prepaid cellular services and criminal use

¶ … ethics in cell phone sales. Specifically it will discuss whether it is ethical for cellular phone providers to offer (prepaid) pay-as-you-go service knowing criminals actively use them. Pay-as-you-go cell phones are a common way for people with bad credit, limited funds, and other issues to still have cellular service. However, it is known that criminals often use these phones because they do not have to have a cell phone contract and they can pay cash for the phones. Still, cell phone companies continue to offer these phones, creating an ethical dilemma. Selling these phones provides a service to people who need them, but there should be stricter regulations on them, since they are known as an accessory to criminal activity.

The egoism view of this issue infers that what a person does with their cell phone is their own business, and companies have every right to sell their phones on a pay-as-you-go basis, since they are in business to make a profit, rather than monitor their customers' phone usage. In addition, selling these phones provides a vital service to many people who otherwise could not get a cell phone. They are perfect for people on a budget who cannot afford conventional cell phone plans with their additional charges every month. These phones are credited with a set amount of minutes when they are purchased, and users know how much it will cost to add minutes when they are gone, so they can set a budget and stay within it. They are also good for teenagers, who can purchase a phone for cash, which is impossible with traditional cell phones, because the user needs a credit card to set up the account. Teens usually do not have credit cards, but they can purchase a pay-as-you-go phone with their own money, a perfect solution to teen cell phone usage. They are also good for people who have bad credit, and cannot establish a traditional cell phone contract because of it. These people might not have access to a cell phone without the pay-as-you-go phones, so these phones provide a meaningful service to people who otherwise would not be able to have a cell phone. The pay-as-you-go companies are not obligated to provide service, but they do provide a service that is essential to many people who need a cell phone for work, family communication, etc., and would otherwise be unable to obtain a phone through the traditional monthly contract.

The company is providing a service, and since the individual is responsible for their own actions, the company is simply providing a service; it is up to the individuals to act responsibility within that service. Thus, it is not the phone company's concern that some individuals may choose to act irresponsibly or illegally with the company's phone. There are always going to be some individuals who stray from the law, use items illegally, and victimize others. The phone company has no ethical responsibility in these person's actions, because the criminals would simply go to another cell phone provider, make up an alias, use a stolen credit card, or other way to get around the contract information necessary to obtain a traditional cell phone. Just because the person remains essentially anonymous with a pay-as-you-go cell phone, that is not a reason to stop selling them to everyone. Majorities of people who purchase these types of cell phones do not utilize them for criminal or terrorist activities, and so, it would not be right to ban them, since that would penalize a majority of the people who use them wisely. In addition, people who use these phones for illegal means would certainly find some other way to obtain phones and remain anonymous, since they are crafty and already outwitting the law, they would continue to attempt to do that and keep their phones in some other, perhaps even more sinister way.

In addition, another tenant of egoism is that individuals are responsible for their own moral character. A majority of people who purchase pay-as-you-go phones is of high moral character, and will not misuse the phones. Those who do have to answer to themselves, and perhaps even society, but that is not the provider's fault. Again, those who use the phones immorally would find another way to access the service anyway, and the provider is providing a necessary and valuable service to the majority of their customers. They are acting in an ethical way in providing these services, so the ethics of the situation remain on the individuals who misuse the phones, rather than the provider themselves.

Another aspect of egoism is the provider should judge each customer's character and conduct objectively, rather than judging that some may misuse their products or use them for illegal activities. A just company provides service to everyone equally, and justice demands that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so the provider should not suffer if some of its phones end up in the wrong hands. These are objective values that apply to rational human beings and companies, they apply to the collective views of companies and their users, and they apply to the customer's right to privacy.

On the other hand, the altruistic view of the ethical nature of this question indicates there are serious ethical issues with providing phone services anonymously to individuals who use the phones for illegal activities or terrorism. Clearly, the problem here is that studies have shown that criminals and terrorists use these phones covertly, and to victimize others, and they should be regulated, rather than handed out anonymously and indiscriminately to anyone with the cash to purchase one. A newspaper article notes, "Terrorists need communications. They often collect and use many anonymous pay-as-you-go phones, as well as swapping Sim cards and handsets'" (Frain 6). Thus, people are urged to be cautious, especially if someone buys several phones or Sim cards, and providers should be cautious, as well, they have an ethical and moral responsibility to keep people safe, rather than become victims of illegal activities with a provider's cell phone.

The core of the issue here is privacy vs. government intervention, and in the United States, privacy wins out, with victims of criminal activities paying the price. Many countries require registration of pay-as-you-go phones, so users are no longer anonymous, and the phones lose some of their appeal with this process. If registration was required in the United States, it could at least reduce the criminal activities associated with these phones, because they would become far less attractive to anyone who wanted to use the phone illegally. Of course, they could always fake their identity, but there would still be ways to track them, which would make them far less likely to use the phone illegally.

Ultimately, it is the government's responsibility to keep their citizens safe, so the pay-as-you-go cell phone debate should rest with the government, who could require cell phone registration by all cell phone companies, even pay-as-you-go providers. Those who have nothing to worry about would have no problems with registration; it is like signing up for a traditional cell phone contract. Those who baulk have a reason to baulk, and their activities should be scrutinized.

The cell phone companies have a moral obligation to protect others, it is part of the unselfish regard for others that guides the altruistic model, and they have a responsibility to keep people safe, free from harm, and secure. If they know that some of their phones are being used for illegal purposes, they should change their policies to protect others, it is the ethical and moral thing to do. Alternatively, they should stop selling these types of phones, since they are so controversial and can be so easily misused. The company must take responsibility for their products and how they are used, and they must take responsibility that their products can be misused, and they should act on this responsibility and monitor the phones more effectively.