Posted on 01/26/2013 5:38:55 AM PST by upchuck
As noted by Tech News Daily, a new federal policy in the United States is set to go into effect this Saturday that will make it illegal for certain mobile phone owners to unlock their devices for use on other carriers unless specifically authorized by their carriers. The policy applies to newly purchased devices beginning on Saturday, but not to legacy devices purchased prior to that date.
In October 2012, the Librarian of Congress, who determines exemptions to a strict anti-hacking law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), decided that unlocking mobile phones would no longer be allowed. But the librarian provided a 90-day window during which people could still buy a phone and unlock it. That window closes on January 26.
Unlocking devices allows users to take their phones to other carriers such as T-Mobile or to use SIM cards from international carriers while traveling abroad without needing to purchase expensive international roaming packages from their domestic carrier.
(Excerpt) Read more at macrumors.com ...
He should be re-trained to operate a pick & shovel!
| So a flunky federal fascist, all by himself, decides to write a law and make something illegal. Whatever happened to the idea that only Congress can write law? It’s time for states to start arresting federal fascist bureaucrats. |
Sorry, Sarge. It's called "Administrative Law" and it is UNFORTUNATELY entirely legal. Essentially Congress passed a law creating an administrative agency (the FCC in this case) and delegated law-making authority to the agency. This is what's responsible for the explosion of "laws" in the last 40 years. There's no putting this toothpaste back in the tube.
From Wikipedia...
Administrative law is the body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rulemaking, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law. As a body of law, administrative law deals with the decision-making of administrative units of government (for example, tribunals, boards or commissions) that are part of a national regulatory scheme in such areas as police law, international trade, manufacturing, the environment, taxation, broadcasting, immigration and transport. Administrative law expanded greatly during the twentieth century, as legislative bodies worldwide created more government agencies to regulate the increasingly complex social, economic and political spheres of human interaction.
Ironic, (how times have changed)
“It’s called “Administrative Law” and it is UNFORTUNATELY entirely legal. “
You know and I know it’s completely illegal and unconstitutional. There’s nothing in the constitution that allows congress to give its law-making power to unelected bureaucrats. The only reason it’s “legal” is because the fascist congress refuses to stop it and people put up with this crap.
This is equivalent to a president appointing a flunky prime minister and giving him all the powers of the presidency.
It will fall to the states and the people to end this illegal fascist law-breaking.
REally?!???
It’s my frickin property and I will do what I damned well please to it.
Including throwing the damn thing out of my car window because it wants to a bunch of things I don’t want it doing at the most inconvenient time.
You are right, of course. Congresss should never have illegally delegated those powers in the first place in violation of the Constitution.
But that horse left the barn long ago.
Still can not understand how “The two main responsibilities of the Librarian of Congress are the overseeing of all library priorities and the management of the administrative operations of the office”, can be misconstrued into writing law. Is there any history of the office determining law previously?
Like a lot of other things while we suffer though our africanized gubmit, sounds like a gigantic over-reach that will evaporate now that sunlight is cast upon it.
If you want phone 'freedom'...pay for it. Sheesh.
“But that horse left the barn long ago.”
That’s for sure. If we had a constitutional government, both the president and judiciary would have told the congress it can’t do that.
This unconstitutional delegation of law-making power is one of the reasons we’re in a mess. Allowing unelected bureaucrats to write law is one of the primary features of a dictatorship. Both Hitler and Stalin encouraged it. Unelected bureaucrats can’t be removed by the people via the ballot box. That leaves few other choices.
So now the authorities can get a warrant to search your house for suspicion that you have an unlocked phone?
Hmm. Are conservatives for or against this?
The government exists in part to provide a neutral enforcer of contracts, to protect private ownership rights, and to maintain order.
When I decide I would like to own a phone, I shop around, and when I pick the one I want, I enter into a binding contract with the person (company) who manufactured the phone. I don’t have to buy the phone, but as part of the contract to buy the phone, I make an agreement not to do certain things with that phone.
So, is it wrong for the government to help the company by making me live up to the contractual arrangement?
Or is the concept of freedom and liberty such a guiding factor that, once I have the phone in my hand, my right to do whatever I want outweighs my obligation to live up to the terms of the contract I signed?
Remember, if I hadn’t signed that contract, the previous owner of the phone would not give me possession of the phone — it was their choice when they had ownership, and my choice whether to accept the arrangement.
As a matter of personal preference, I think it sucks that I can’t buy a phone and then use it on different services. But I also don’t expect that I can just hook my Verizon router into the comcast cable line and expect it to work.
what’s the name of phone?
Tracfone from Wal-Mart!! The phones we got automatically double the minutes we purchase. We only use our phones when we are traveling so the only reason we have to $19.95 every three months is to keep the service active. We get 120 mins. for the 19.95 and it extends our service three months!!!
Yes. Because this is a matter of civil law. What is being objected to is that increasingly, government is changing this to a criminal matter, which it has no business doing.
i have a tracfone too
it works great for me
Various law enforcement and intelligence agencies can remotely “jailbreak” your phone, and often do for surveillance and other purposes.
So how are they going to prove that didn’t occur to an unsuspecting customer upon prosecution?
“The CIA jailbroke my phone, it just so happened I realized I could use other SIM cards after that.”
they can’t.
this is just a scare rule.
the fact is that unlocking phones is sop. in some countries LOCKING phones is illegal.
when traveling abbroad it is smart to simply swap sim chips.
that is unless you have an out of date sprint or verizon phone using cdma tech. That is too primitive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.