When Michele Bachmann was running for presidency, she was proposing one law. Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act. As per allegation, big government is not allowing people to purchase the light bulb of their choice. Oh sad… But what about the “five years in jail or a half-a-million-dollar fine” the big government is putting on citizen’s head who brought a product. Dont they have any freedom to use that product on their own way? Michele I know your answear.
…
former Republican staffer Derek Khanna received a call from the White House saying it was coming out against a ban on unlocking cellphones that went into effect in January. Under the ban, consumers can face up to five years in prison if they unlock their cellphones for use on another carrier without authorization. Khanna helped spearhead a petition against the ban that received more than 114,000 signatures on the White House website. In an online post titled “Its Time to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking,” White House Senior Adviser for Internet, Innovation and Privacy R. David Edelman writes: “The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties if you have paid for your mobile device, and arent bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. Its common sense.”
The Federal Communications Commission also issued a statement against the ban yesterday. FCC Chairperson Julius Genachowski wrote, quote, “The FCC is examining this issue, looking into whether the agency, wireless providers, or others should take action to preserve consumers ability to unlock their mobile phones.”
wow so fast…
cellphone unlocking is where you plug your phone into a computer and you change some settings on the phone that allow for you to use a SIM card from another provider. So if you have an AT&T phone, you can use a SIM card fromperhaps from T-Mobile.
The librarian of Congress issued a ruling that made this technique now illegal. There was an existing exception, and they allowed for that exception to lapse. So now you can be prosecuted by up to five years in jail or a half-a-million-dollar fine.
I got a call, and it was from a 202 number, and I picked it up. It said, “Hey, this is Edelman with the White House. Do you have a second to talk?” And I said, “Of course,” and put down what I was doing. And he said, “You may want to get to a computer, because in about 120 seconds the White House is going to put up our response, and were coming out in favor of cellphone unlocking. And we look forward to meeting you at the White House and talking about this issue in person.”
I see this as a pretty serious reversal in a very short period of time. You know, the ruling went into effect January 26th. The petition was created January 24th, two days before the ruling was going to go into effect. And now, just a little bit over a month, we have this response. And the librarian of Congress was appointed by the president, despite the title, and courts have held that its a rule-making executive adjudicatory function. So this was the position of the administration.
I think that it needs to be a little bit broader than just the unlocking issue. Weve encountered a number of issues that should receive real scrutiny here. Theres accessibility technology for persons who are deaf or persons who are blind that isnt available. Developing the technology, trafficking the technology, thats a federal crime, in order to enable for persons who are blind or deaf to be able to get closed-captioning for media.
Its the same ban as the unlocking situation, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If you add technology to add closed-captioning onto a digital file, that is a contravention of these digital locks. So thats athats a felony. So, these rules arent working for persons who are deaf.
There are a number of legal challenges one can make on a number of these situations. So, you know, the accessibility provisions need to be in there to help those technologies. But unlocking should not just be lawful for personal use, but developing the technology and selling the technology also has to be lawful. And for jailbreaking, its legal to jailbreak your iPhone, but its illegal to jailbreak an iPad. And its illegal to develop the technology or sell the technology or to traffic in the technology to jailbreak. So all those things really need to be on the table for a real legislative solution here.
– source democracynow.org
Derek Khanna, visiting fellow with Yale Law Schools Information Society Project. He worked on both of Mitt Romneys presidential campaigns and for Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts. He spearheaded a petition thats received more than 114,000 signatures online to make unlocking cellphones legal that prompted the White House to come out against the ban. Hes also known for authoring a controversial memo in favor of copyright reform for the Republican Study Committee that cost him his job.