The Public Has Spoken -- 100,000 Americans Sign WH Petition on 
Cellphone Unlocking
  Derek Khanna Feb 23, 2013
  On January 26, 2013, the Librarian of Congress issued a ruling 
that made it illegal to unlock new phones.
  Unlocking is a technique to alter the settings on your phone to 
use your phone on a different carrier.  Doing so could place you 
in legal liability for up to 5 years in jail and a $500,000 fine 
(specifically the Librarian of Congress allowed the existing 
exception to lapse).  This prohibition is a violation of our 
property rights, and it makes you wonder, if you can't alter the 
settings on your phone, do you even own your own phone?
  The ruling is a clear example of crony-capitalism, where a few 
companies asked for the law to be changed to their pecuniary 
benefit despite the invasion of our property rights, its impact 
upon consumers, and its impact upon the overall market.  This 
decision creates higher thresholds to entry for new market 
participants, which hinders competition and leads to less 
innovation.
  Overall this is a clear example of copyright law run amuck -- 
the underlying law was created to protect copyright but it's 
being applied in a manner that no legislator expected in 1998 
when they voted for the bill.  The underlying law, the Digital 
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), was passed three years before 
the iPod, six years before Google Books and nine years before the 
Kindle.  Now that it's clear that the DMCA is being interpreted 
in a way clearly contrary for which it was passed, it's incumbent 
upon Congress to act.
  When the Librarian of Congress (who had previously provided 
exceptions allowing this activity) made on this issue on October 
28, 2012 -- Congress refused to act.
  When that ruling went into effect months later on January 26, 
2013 -- Congress refused to act.  On January 27, 2013, I 
published an article in the Atlantic, The Most ridiculous law of 
2013 (So Far): It is Now a Crime to Unlock Your Smartphone that 
brought more attention to this issue and received over a million 
hits (even briefly knocking the website offline).  Despite 
concern from across the country, online and in the mainstream 
media -- Congress refused to act.  In my follow-up article I 
called their failure to address this issue "a dereliction of 
duty."
  Since that time I have helped spearhead a White House petition 
on this matter.
  That petition on cellphone unlocking, currently at over 110,000 
signatures, appears to be the first petition to achieve the 
100,000 threshold for a White House response (until recently the 
petition threshold was 25,000).  This accomplishment demonstrates 
that people are interested and willing to mobilize on this 
important issue.  This show of force of over 100,000 people makes 
it clear: the people will not stand for laws that impede their 
personal liberty and stifle innovation that are enacted as a 
result of crony-capitalism.
  Support has come from an unlikely group of allies.  Among the 
many actors, Vint Cerf (co-creator of internet), the National 
College Republicans, and the Tea Party Nation came out in favor 
of reversing the ban on unlocking.
  People have asked me to specifically address what this means 
and what can be done.  When the White House weighs in on this 
matter -- and considering they answered a petition to build a 
Death Star I think they would have to address an issue of this 
serious nature -- it will then be incumbent on Congress to act to 
address this problem.  In my Atlantic piece, The Law Against 
Unlocking Phones is anti-Consumer, anti-Business, and anti-Common 
Sense, I explained:
  "We must ask ourselves: "What specific limitations upon our 
personal freedom and liberty are we prepared to accept in the 
name of achieving the goal of protecting intellectual property?" 
Some limitations may be sound, and Congress should debate them on 
the record.  Obviously, we do not have the right to copy books, 
movies and music and sell them.  But other restrictions are 
invasive and have nothing to do with protecting intellectual 
property (like unlocking and jail-breaking your phone or adaptive 
technology for the blind to read).
  Restrictions upon the use of technology should receive strict 
legislative scrutiny because of its impact upon innovation and 
our personal freedom."
  This is a problem of Congress's own making -- now they should 
fix it.  On February 21, 2013, when over 100,000 people 
petitioned their government for redress on this issue, it is well 
past time for Congress to act.
  To those who want to get involved to support property rights, 
innovation and the free market -- ask your Member of Congress: 1) 
Why do the blind have to ask for an exception to use adaptability 
technology for e-books? Why is developing, trafficking, or 
selling that technology still illegal?
  As I stated in my previous piece, "Can you imagine a more 
ridiculous regulation than one that requires a lobby group for 
the blind to come to Capitol Hill every three years to explain 
that the blind still can't read books on their own and therefore 
need this exception?"
  2) In a world where we can't unlock our own phones -- who 
really owns our phones?
  3) And most egregiously, ask them, for our thousands of service 
members who deploy abroad and have to unlock their phones to use 
them in theater, why are they criminals for unlocking their own 
phones without permission?
  In my latest piece for the tech blog Boing Boing, Taking on 
Real Reform in a Post-SOPA World -- Let's Start With Cellphone 
Unlocking, I prepared a letter for Congress:
  That we should have to petition our own government to remove 
these items from a "technological blacklist" is very unfortunate.  
If you want to stand up for property rights and against crony 
capitalism, you can sign the White House petition until Saturday 
night at midnight here.


    VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
    http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
    Signoff: [log in to unmask]
    Subscribe: [log in to unmask]