Slashdot Mirror
White House Petition To Make Cell Phone Unlocking Legal Needs 11,000 Signatures
On January 26th, unlocking a cell phone that is under contract became illegal in the U.S. Just before that went into effect, a petition was started at whitehouse.gov to have the Librarian of Congress revisit that decision. "It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full. The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked." The 30 days time limit on the petition is almost up, and it's about 11,000 signatures shy of the amount necessary to ensure a response from the Obama administration (100,000 total, recently increased from 25,000). The creator of the petition received a Cease & Desist letter from Motorola in 2005 for selling software that would allow users to unlock their phones, and he thinks it's only a matter of time before such legal threats begin again. This is part of a larger battle to protect the way consumers can use their devices. While it's still legal for people to root their phones, the Librarian of Congress failed to expand that legal protection to tablets, even though the devices are incredibly similar. The Librarian's decision (PDF) needs further review, and if the White House petition doesn't get enough signatures by February 23, such a review may not happen.
Will generate a flood of clicks... but will people actually create logins and sign the petition?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
"...have the Librarian of Congress revisit that decision" != "Make Cell Phone Unlocking Legal"
That is all.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's my phone, I paid for it and I honestly don't give two shits if some asshole in congress thinks I can't do what I want with something I own. Go ahead, make it illegal, fill up the jails and prisons just a little bit more. My guess is that a small handful of people might get into trouble over this, but the vast majority of us will do what we want WITH OUR OWN PROPERTY.
Thanks for the support Slashdot. As CanHasDIY notes, it doesn't mean that the decision will be reversed, and I think at best this will be the start of a process to getting the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions revisited by Congress. But hopefully it'll help.
I dunno. He proposed the system. There's nothing wrong with using technology to create a little tiny ignorable amount of direct democracy in an otherwise quite dysfunctional republic. I don't think anyone is under the impression that petitions fix everything, but it may allow for correcting the occasional oversight.
i did
answer is easy, stop selling locked phone at $20 with a footnot with a 70 years contract. Or include a condition in the 2 year contract that there is a huge fee per remaining month if you decide to cancel your contract. But why keep it locked?
Do you know why their doing this?It's because of the problem of so many people getting cells/droids under a contarcted agreement then deciding they want to switch to a diferent carrier without having to pay a large fe to get out of the original contract so I can understand why the major company's want this law.The people themselves are the reason this is happening,it is not the fault of the providers whatsoever,it is the fault of the users
If you get out of your contract agreement, you're going to pay a fee which is dependent on how long you have to go on your contract, regardless of whether you can unlock your phone or not. The fee is for breaking the contract, not to unlock your phone.
You must be new here. Welcome. Please learn to spell.
White House Petition To Get Staff Flunky To Reiterate That Cell Phone Unlocking Remains Illegal Needs 11,000 Signatures
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
"It is the fault of the users." Are you just trolling? Because if you're not, you don't have the slightest understanding of this situation.
If you want to switch to a different carrier, you DO, in fact, have to pay a large fee to get out of the original contract. If you don't pay it, it's handled like any other legitimate debt.
If you paid full price for a phone, and don't have a contract, why would a corporation get to tell you what you can and can't do with the phone after you've paid for it?
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
More like 11,000 more signatures before the WH pretends to take a look at it and then says they aren't going to do anything about it.
You don't ask for your rights. You take them.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The original carrier can still demand payment of the the fee. It isn't the role of the library of congress to get into the job of insuring that carriers collect these fees.
Are there any examples of a "We the people" petition actually doing anything even if successful?
Do you know why [they're] doing this?[ ]It's because of the problem of so many people getting cells/droids under a [contracted] agreement[,] then deciding they want to switch to a [different] carrier without having to pay a large [fee] to get out of the original contract[,] so I can understand why the major [companies] want this law.
Whew, much better - that poorly typed shit is hard for me to read.
Here's the issue with your argument - cellular carriers already charge hefty fees for early contract termination, so your main talking point here is demonstrably false.
Also, this "law," which BTW isn't really a law as the Librarian of Congress is not a fucking Legislator , merely adds insult to injury by preventing everyone from unlocking their phones, up to and including folks who unwittingly bought a locked phone outright (it happens), and people like me that actually fulfilled our contractual obligation, and now possess a fully paid for, albeit nearly obsolete, device.
The people themselves are the reason this is happening,it is not the fault of the providers whatsoever,it is the fault of the users
Psychologists refer to this sort of behavior as victim blaming, and is oft employed exclusively by narcissistic assholes.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Talk to your congress critters.
"It is the fault of the users." Are you just trolling? Because if you're not, you don't have the slightest understanding of this situation.
If you want to switch to a different carrier, you DO, in fact, have to pay a large fee to get out of the original contract. If you don't pay it, it's handled like any other legitimate debt.
Yeah - they chase after you with letters, bills, collection agencies, etc., to hopefully collect 5% of what you owe... if they're lucky.
If you paid full price for a phone, and don't have a contract, why would a corporation get to tell you what you can and can't do with the phone after you've paid for it?
Please re-read the summary: "On January 26th, unlocking a cell phone that is under contract became illegal in the U.S. Just before that went into effect..."
It would help if they didn't show that I signed the petition, even though I am not logged in. Remember to login then, open the petition up.
Come and get me, coppers!
Barring possible contract violations with your cell phone provider, I can't see any reason you couldn't take your cell phone into Canada, unlock it there, and then return.
It's not illegal in the USA to possess an unlocked cell phone, and as I said, it's legal in Canada to unlock cell phones.
I mean, if you can, say, travel to some country where, for example, marijuana is legal, and take advantage of that fact while vacationing and then return without being held legally accountable for that act upon reentering the United States, I see absolutely no reason why this should be any kind of problem for people who live close enough to the Can/USA border to unlock their phones completely legally.
Not that I think the prohibition against cell phone unlocking is good. It's actually extremely bad because the justification for removing the cell phone unlocking exemption won't generally apply, because it actually creates some additional incentive for more cell phone providers to only provide locked phones.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Prosecute them for fraud, or stop offering such discounts on phones.
for them to build a death star
Because subscriber revenue stinks. Carriers want to have that juicy roaming revenue. And they know if you're on contract, and you unlock your phone, they're denied that revenue as you'd just buy a local SIM.
No, the best way would be to force carriers at the end of a contract (which includes upgrades if you keep your old phone) to give you the unlock code as part of the contract expiration. Same goes if you decide to buy it outright with no contract - the carrier must give you the code ot unlock it.
And yes, I know many stores who will NOT sell you a phone without a contract - if you march in and try to pay the "no contract" price, they'll refuse to sell it to you. Even if you have a valid reason like you want to upgrade but are outside of the upgrade window - they won't sell you the phone without you paying the ETF and signing onto a new contract.
And what about when the people doing this purchase a dozen subsidized phones, unlock them and resell them, and then simply refuse to pay the fee for breaching the contract? Or what if they use a fake credit card for the initial purchase? Or use a valid credit card, then simply stop paying it and leave the CC company and the carrier to try to chase after them with collection agencies to get, at most, pennies on the dollar?
Someone wanting an unlocked phone can simply buy an unlocked phone. All of the carriers happily sell them. This is just about people wanting a free discount.
Ever heard of a thing called a "credit score"?? It's quite simple. You don't pay, your credit score gets hit. Using a fake credit card just identifies an issue with the validation of the CC. That's up to the stores to identify invalid credit cards. You refuse to pay for breaking the contract? Then simple again. You're no longer eligible to purchase another phone with the carrier until the debt is settled. The issues you've listed could happen with ANY technology purchase whether it's a television (much more expensive) or a vehicle. There's always some consequence.
There's millions of people not able to pay for their credit cards. Do you REALLY think that the CC company isn't able to recoup their costs? You think that the interest they change is for the CONSUMER's benefit? Ha! You're really a fool if you think that's true.
albeit nearly obsolete
IMO, a phone is not obsolete so long as it is capable of making calls.
"unlocking a cell phone that is under contract became illegal in the U.S."
"It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full. "
These are in direct conflict with each other. If you've paid for a device in full, you're not under contract.
Really, all the cell phone companies need to do to swing things in their favor is to state that if you buy a subsidized phone, it remains the property of the telco until you've satisfied your contractual commitment. They can certainly prevent you from unlocking a phone that doesn't belong to you.
Do you know why their doing this?It's because of the problem of so many people getting cells/droids under a contarcted agreement then deciding they want to switch to a diferent carrier without having to pay a large fe to get out of the original contract so I can understand why the major company's want this law.The people themselves are the reason this is happening,it is not the fault of the providers whatsoever,it is the fault of the users
If you get out of your contract agreement, you're going to pay a fee which is dependent on how long you have to go on your contract, regardless of whether you can unlock your phone or not. The fee is for breaking the contract, not to unlock your phone.
Someone wanting an unlocked phone can simply buy an unlocked phone. All of the carriers happily sell them. This is just about people wanting a free discount.
No, this is about people getting what they paying for. I have no problem with my carrier, or the contract; I have a problem with the crap they push out to my phone.
My phone, my property.
Here in Brazil, it is illegal to sell locked phones.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Right, because it was the "bureaucrats" who made this decision, not the politicians.
And, of course, a demand from 0.0003% of the population will cause them to spring into action to meet your demands...
Life needs more saving throws.
I mean, if you buy a "subsidized" phone and agree on a contract for two years or so, with monthly payments you have to pay if you use their network or not, what do they gain by not allowing you to unlock it and use it with another carrier (and pay for this also)? You're still paying them anyway.
Prosecute them for fraud, or stop offering such discounts on phones.
You want criminal investigations, charges, and penalties for breaching a contract? O.o
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-susan-crawford-fcc-chairman/73mtqt0q ,
Susan Crawford, law school professor and author of Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly in the New Guilded Age, says “Truly high-speed wired Internet access is as basic to innovation, economic growth, social communication, and the country’s competitiveness as electricity was a century ago, but a limited number of Americans have access to it, many can’t afford it, and the country has handed control of it over to Comcast and a few other companies.”
In a recent TV interview, she pointed out high speed access in Hong Kong costs a fraction of what it does in New York city, because the US providers don't enter each other's markets. She wants to change that.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/susan-crawford-on-why-u-s-internet-access-is-slow-costly-and-unfair/
Serious question. With the advent of this official government petition forum, online petitions have been all the rage lately. Topics have ranged from legitimate causes (the one discussed in the article) to silly or facetious ones (building a Death Star). I know it's far too early to tell for the recent petitions, as it takes a while for things to happen in the government scene, but what electronic petitions have actually gotten stuff going?
Oh, so stupid contracts that disadvantage a huge business over the customer need criminal protections for said huge business? Sheesh
[And that's even assuming such a "disadvantage exists - which it doesn't.]
But lets just assume it does.
So, if I'm "too large to fail" I'll get the government to enact criminal penalties to help me enforce a stupid contract I made, outside of the civil court system? This is no different than getting "Vinny," with his bat, to break the knees of anyone who renegs on a deal nad cuts into your profits. Spare me.
Hey, mobile-telco boffo's - take it up in civil court like everyone else. Your contractual stupidity shouldn't be enforced by draconian criminal punishments from a government who should have no interest in any contract you make.
Free market my ass.
-Greg
Inspired by the news reports that discontinuing Leaded (Pb) gasoline caused a drop in crime rates, I wrote a petition calling for a study on why crime fell since 1990. I used to think it was the booming economy, but crime has not spiked up since 2008 too my surprise.
I found out later I need to get 150 signatures for it to be publicly viewable, and now's a good opportunity.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/conduct-thorough-and-depth-study-why-violent-crime-fell-third-united-states-1990/KvSJbfDb
The limit is 800 characters, so I had to cut a bunch of stuff out. If Lead(Pb) increases the propensity to crime, what about depleted Uranium? (I bet the Iraqis are curious) What if aborting poor single women does kill off future criminals? Maybe an oppressive police force does stop crime. Maybe low cost legal drugs mean less robberies. Maybe better drugs for the mentally ill, make law abiding citizens? Maybe long prison sentences keep crooks off the street? What about plastic additives?
The war on drugs, abortion, removal of leaded gasoline, better pharmaceuticals, and other things have changed America over the last few decades, shouldn't we try to learn from them?
And what about when the people doing this purchase a dozen subsidized phones, unlock them and resell them, and then simply refuse to pay the fee for breaching the contract?
What the hell? What about people who enter any contract, and then breach it? Contract law is a thing, go to the courts. If the problem is so widespread that this isn't cost effective, then that business model is broken, and I guess it's just not going to be worth it to you to offer subsidized phones.
Try offering another incentive instead, like a lower monthly plan if under contract.
We the people don't owe you a law to make your business model work.
And what about when the people doing this purchase a dozen subsidized phones, unlock them and resell them, and then simply refuse to pay the fee for breaching the contract? Or what if they use a fake credit card for the initial purchase? Or use a valid credit card, then simply stop paying it and leave the CC company and the carrier to try to chase after them with collection agencies to get, at most, pennies on the dollar?
Are you fcking serious? They will get royally screwed just like when serfs anywhere try to get a little bit of money back from the rich.
There are plenty of things to worry about in the world but one of the few things we don't have to worry about is the ability of large corporations to put the screws to the little guy. Look at the robo-signing fiasco. Thousands of people (or more) have lost their homes and all the investment they put into them without ever having missed a payment.
The very last thing we need is yet another way for large corporations to screw the average person.
Someone wanting an unlocked phone can simply buy an unlocked phone. All of the carriers happily sell them. This is just about people wanting a free discount.
Yes, as long as everyone has perfect foresight of what will happen in the future and how their contract will get changed without their consent then what you say may be true. OTOH, in the real world this makes about as much sense as your concern about giving corporations yet another means of screwing individuals.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
That's already covered by existing fraud laws.
...and your petition can be *officially* ignored by the White House!
IN the OP's example, yes. One person doing it with one or two phones, no.
Good-bye
I dunno. He proposed the system. There's nothing wrong with using technology to create a little tiny ignorable amount of direct democracy in an otherwise quite dysfunctional republic. I don't think anyone is under the impression that petitions fix everything, but it may allow for correcting the occasional oversight.
1) There is no direct democracy here. They only need to respond. Not change.
2) There is no oversight here. They know what they do and who they answer to.
There exists no real responsible to the people government here any more.
They give out a few more freebies and make a few more people believe that our freedoms are Given to us by the government and then they can take the last of the guns and do as they please.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Yes, this is a battle worth winning.
No the madness of "consumer rights" has gone far enough. THIS SOCIALIST NONSENSE MUST BE STOPPED. Manufacturers and vendors can't prosper if their property is simply given away by governments and corporations are prohibited from entangling their customers in contractual thralldom. Spoilt little children that's all, you pay for a phone and you think you have a right to use it just as you want?? What is this ... France!?
Within striking distance folks. Sign. The. Petition.
Organization? You must be joking..
No seriously. We are talking about phones on contract who have not had their subsidy paid of. ITS NOT YOUR PHONE, yet. Why should you have the right to screw with someone else's property? No different than leasing a car, or a house, or tux.. its not your stuff.
Once its paid off, its yours to do with as you please. Now of course its still the carrier's choice to let you continue to connect to their network if you violate their rules.. But its your device at that point and you can eat the damned thing if you wanted to.
Don't like being 'trapped', well, pay for the phone outright and don't ' lease' it.
Sounds like a bunch of cry babies to me.. Cake + eat at the same time.
Yes, it is a law. The law that makes it illegal is the DMCA, the power the librarian of congress has is to grant certain exemptions, which was done 6 years ago for cell phone unlocking but now the librarian of congress has decided that this particular exemption is no longer necessary. The librarian of congress does not have the power to make arbitrary laws, just a say in how this particular one can be enforced.
Really, for the "Land of the Free", it's just corporations taking priority and precedence over the rights and freedoms of the people. The level of government lobbying (you know, no no not bribes, its funding!) by corporations and the rights of the free people of the USA taking a back seat... this is just another example of the free not really being free. Please sir, may I have the right to do anything I want with the phone I bought and paid for?!.. Come on people, sign that petition!
If this is anything like previous petitions, I expect the response to be farmed out to an cell phone carrier exec who will ignore the petition's content and instead talk about how much they are spending on building out their network. Bonus points if they end on a riff about how the DMCA protects consumer rights and why ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA would be great for the American public (if we could only get them passed... contact your congressperson!).
The White House doesn't make the Law. Congress does. A Whitehouse petition is useless.
I can vote in private for just about everything, but to sign this I need to sign in? No thank you.
Just a dude. Stuck in IT.
This situation is your doing...
The executive doesn't make the laws, people. Read the constitution sometime.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Funny how many of the petitions to the White House are for things utterly outside of the power of the Executive branch
I wonder if the people signing these petitions actually think the POTUS can do anything about it. boggles the mind... they think he's a king instead of just enforcing (supposedly) the laws of the land.
Since when is the LOC or any staff thereof any kind of legislative body? Who granted them any authority to regulate, well, anything outside of the Library itself? I could understand the FCC issuing a ruling like this, as cellphones are very much within their purview, but the LOC?
What did I miss?
Cell phone, i.e. iPhone and Android Phone, are the 'Katyusha Rocket and Red Eye Shoulder Launcher' of the Mujahideen-Al Qaeda in USA.
The Executive Office and Department of Justice classify ALL USA citizens, exception given to 'trusted' Federal Employees, as 'Mujahideen-Al Qaeda in USA'. This classification makes all USA 'non Federal Trusted citizens "Enemy Ot The State" and "White House" subject to Executive Order Killing at any time.
Lovely.
Thank you O'bama.
I read the FAQ, and the only thing the whitehouse says they'll do if the petition reaches the threshold is "respond" to it, which so far seems to be little more than long-winded non-answers. I get the feeling that this is intended to keep us preoccupied with the hope they'll do something so we don't notice that they don't actually do anything.
I live in the UK, it has never come across to me that unlocking mobile phone is illegal. In fact the service providers here tend to provide instructions on how to unlock your phone. e.g. http://giffgaff.com/unlock
Lots of people are signing the petion afet the slashdot story. 1500 more signatures needed only.
As a practical matter, it's *impossible* to buy a brand new Sprint phone from an authorized dealer with no strings attached -- at *any* price, subsidized or not. They literally aren't allowed to let you walk out the door with a new phone that isn't activated and associated with a current Sprint account. The official excuse is that the phone's firmware is exclusively licensed from qualxomm & others for use on Sprint, so they can't sell it to use on MetroPCS or US Cellular -- not even at full price.
That's not to say nobody has ever tried and succeeded... but when it happens, it's because an employee screwed up.
> If you paid full price for a phone, and don't have a contract, why would a corporation get to tell you what
> you can and can't do with the phone after you've paid for it?
Sprint's usual excuse is that the firmware on the phone was licensed for use only on Sprint, so using the phone on Verizon, MetroPCS, US Cellular, or BSNL (in India) is tantamount to software piracy. Of course, the only reason the firmware license specifies that the license is only for use on Sprint is because Sprint *itself* insisted upon it, and Qualcomm doesn't give two shits where you use the phone, as long ad you don't pester them for support...
No, the best way would be to force carriers at the end of a contract (which includes upgrades if you keep your old phone) to give you the unlock code as part of the contract expiration. Same goes if you decide to buy it outright with no contract - the carrier must give you the code ot unlock it.
If you have a contract, why does the phone need to be locked in the first place? Banning locking seems to be vastly easier than requiring unlock codes which most people won't know what to do with.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Sorry, not getting the logic here, why do they lock on contract phones over there?
In Australia, in general, if you're on contract, they don't bother locking the device. They don't need to, you're on a contract. Who cares if you use another provider, they are still getting there money every month.
Pre-paid devices are nearly always locked though, as they don't have any hold over you.
Ever stop to think
under this same logic, shouldnt boring out the cylinders in my cars engine be illegal too? or doing anything to a car for that matter to increase functionality or performance. theyre all idiots, if a company really wants to try to tell their customers how they can and cant use their products after they purchase them, then F#@$ that company. dont buy their shit. plain and simple. and the people that buy their products and that are planning on altering it into the state of illegal, just go buy a better phone. screw apple and their pretentious attitude toward their customers whom they obviously think are below them.
http://xkcd.com/612/
All set, good job Slashdot
"De facto -- In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." The Library of Congress is de facto, the Librarian of Congress "power" is de facto, so this whole phone law is de facto.
Looks like Slashdot still holds some of its power. 100,000 was reached sometime this morning 2/21/2013.
Bam.
Also, this "law," which BTW isn't really a law as the Librarian of Congress is not a fucking Legislator , merely adds insult to injury by preventing everyone from unlocking their phones, up to and including folks who unwittingly bought a locked phone outright (it happens), and people like me that actually fulfilled our contractual obligation, and now possess a fully paid for, albeit nearly obsolete, device.
This is in fact a law. The Librarian of Congress is allowed (and in fact required) to determine if exceptions to the DMCA should be made, and revisit the decisions every so often. This is part of the DMCA, and thus a law. Last time, it was determined that unlocking phones should be an exception; this time, it was determined that unlocking phones should not be exempt from the DMCA.
Were all too busy with the change.org petition against Oracle.
Well, enjoy your political nihilism.
Because after 2 years (typical contract length, 1-year contracts exist but not commonly signed) you're more likely to sign a new contract for a new device, and forget to unlock it. Also if you travel outside their service area, they get to bill you for obscenely priced 'roaming' fees. Calls, texts and data jump to ridiculous rates.
TL;DR: They do it because they can get away with it, and its profitable.
Yup.
Politically the country is lost. The best I can do is to provide financial and physical security for my family the best I can.
I have a few friends that feel the same way. The Fed is now printing $85 Billion a month in additional currency. Every poor person is taking a pay cut as their dollars become worth less and less. They are injecting this money into the stock market. This is not something that can go on forever. There will be inflation.
Things are going to get expensive and money is getting cheap. There are almost zero politicians that care at all.
The republicans want more control over the cluster fuck for Republicans and the Democrats want more control for the Democrats. Ron Paul thinks crazy is "the new black" and way to many people just want a security blanket filled with free shit.
It may be sad that I have given up on the political system, but you do realize that you can not even vote for someone who cares to change it. Right?
It is illegal in some countries like Belgium - where I always buy my new phones. Of course the US carriers then try other tricks like "oh, your phone wasn't purchased from us, we can only give you 2G reception. It's a manufacturing problem - talk to the manufacturer" (sic)
as it is in Singapore and Belgium...
After read this information i have understood that unlocking the mobiles is illegal in USA, if the mobile is purchased after 26th of January 2013. If you want to unlock that mobile you have to contact your service provider in order to unlock it. If the mobile which are purchased before that day you can unlock it from http://www.simpleunlocking.com/ ,at low cost using the code.