To read more about iHacked, click here


The very fact that this piece of news was published in the New York Times is testament to the rapid change in the society we live in. Our environment is becoming more and more saturated with technology and gadgetry, and these modern marvels are becoming more and more essential to our lives.

In the last twenty years technology has advanced at an amazing rate. Twenty years ago, the idea of a mobile phone was unheard of, but now nearly everyone in the developed world owns at least one, and more and more advanced models are popping up in the market, capable of being a planner, alarm clock, camera, music player and a phone.

However, the exponential and astronomical rise of the star of technology has brought along with it a whole slew of new problems, dilemmas, and moral and legal wrangles. How do you regulate gadgets that are now entering use so quickly and being replaced by even more advanced models so quickly that regulations trawling through the molasses of red tape and bureaucracy have no chance at keeping up?

Just a century ago, the pace of technology’s advance was markedly slower. New products and inventions, for example Thomas Edison’s electrical lighting, were slowly tried and tested. As they were being put into use on a large scale, the regulation of such appliances was brought along simultaneously. However, in our modern day and age, new technologies move just far too quickly for notoriously slow bureaucracies.

The case reported in this article comments on the “battle” independent users and “hackers” against companies that “unfairly restrict customer choice”. Most consumers accept the multi-year contracts that their cellphone providers bind them to, but obviously there is an underground community that seeks to protest against this oppression.

The crux of this issue lies in the legal rights of the individual, and the extent to which a service provider and good retailer can control the consumer’s choice. Apple have restricted consumers to only using AT&T as a service provider, those who protest against this through their hacking no doubt believe this to be an infringement of their liberties. This also raises the interesting issue of principles versus practicality. Users who actually download the hacked software may be doing so for the advantages of using a rival service provider, but the hackers themselves are generally doing do only on a matter of principle.

What needs to be brought to conclusion is the extent of individual liberties. However, there is no clear cut solution to this conundrum, simply because this problem is so new. This issue has arisen only because of the release of this new product, the iPhone, and legislation will need time to catch up. No doubt the legal case that resolves this issue will be highly interesting and set a landmark precedent for future hackers and corporations alike.