I ̶D̶o̶ ̶N̶o̶t̶ Accept the Terms and Conditions

Unfortunately, I will have to admit that I have not read more than a line or two of  the “user agreement” of any app I have ever downloaded. I suppose this is good incentive to start now. I will explore Pandora Radio’s Terms and Conditions, an app I use almost exclusively for music variation during work outs. I attempted to explore “Robinhood”, a brokerage app’s terms, but was pleasantly surprised to it was more than a disclaimer of ways not to be sued than a list of data they collect on me. So back to Pandora, one way in which they collect information that’s not blatantly obvious is public census and demographic data, “Government or quasi- or pseudo-governmental agencies or organizations that provide or make available, to the public, census and demographics data.” A second data collection method that was surprising was Pandora’s use of alpha-numeric cookies, which they embed from their servers onto your device. A third is Pandora’s right to use the phone GPS to identify your location at any given point. This technology does not seem very effective though because I still get ads for locales in Greenville, NC when I attended ECU there 2 years ago. The app most likely uses this information to tailor ads specific to local businesses, and uses the cookie to monitor your use and habits of how you use the service. The demographic data I would like to assume helps identify new songs and potential artists you may like based on predictive analytics, but somehow I doubt they are using that solely for the listener’s benefit. The information could be useful to other parties for targeted marketing and advertising. Users that listen to certain songs or live in certain areas might be more susceptible to buy certain items.

I think the process of this information gathering is loosely ethical. In this day and age no one reads terms and conditions, but we also have a general understand that apps do gather information on us. I think using government census data from quasi-government agencies is borderline unethical. I think most users of the technology may not be enraged about this, but they would also not be pleased. I wouldn’t call this hacking. Hacking by definition is illegal. Unfortunately you do not have the option to opt out of the terms and conditions and still use the technology, but at the same time most will willfully accept them. So legally they are not doing anything wrong. Legal hacking might be an interesting synonym to use for their practices.

If I were interested in shedding light on a privatized subject that is morally wrong (in my opinion) to keep hidden from the public I still probably would not do it. I would not do it, not because I think it is ethically wrong (apart from the taking of someone’s private material) but because it is still illegal and I have to take my own life and happiness in consideration. I can only imagine that if I exiled myself on perjury accusations like Edward Snowden, I may live a life of anxiety and regret. However, I do respect even applaud individuals and organizations that expose dirty secrets and corruption. Again, morally and legality are two separate entities. Hacking data from pretty much any organization is going to be illegal, whether or not you are doing it for the right reasons. Breaking into someone’s home to save them from a fire in their sleep is still technically trespassing. The good intent doesn’t always align with the restrictions of a maladjusted legal code.

If I had to put myself in the shoes of a famous hacker such Kevin Mitnick, I would argue that if I had the skills to reveal corruption or dirty secrets hidden by big companies or the government it would be my civic duty to reveal them. Is it your legal right? Absolutely not. I think it is not ethical to put people on trial for evidence that was stolen, in the same way that it is not ethical to include information gathered from someone’s home if a warrant was not obtained. Legal and ethical are not always congruent with one another.