I was under the impression that unlocking your cell phone was never
illegal, it was just the unauthorized unlocking of cell phones that was
illegal. I could still go to my provider, AT&T for example, and get my
phone unlocked.

On 23/02/13 12:02, peter altschul wrote:
> 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]

-- 
Christopher (CJ)
chaltain at Gmail


    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]