Unlocking smartphones is illegal?

[BigBallinStalin]

ummm.... I guess. If we are to assume that PS3 games' software is licensed property.

-TG

It seems we're still more or less in agreement--and we can roll with that assumption.

So what's the deal with smartphones?

If the contract--which comes with the phone--states that one must not unlock the phone, and if this exchange is voluntary, then why all the uproar?

Now, we both know that unlocking the phone breaks the monopoly of app-suppliers (Apple's App Store), but it also allows the users to download illegal or quasi-illegal duplicates/cracks of apps which are sold in the monopolized market.

"If they could prove that the [unlocking] was used to steal property or service from the online service (App Store)," then isn't it correct for unlockers to be punished or restrained from unlocking their smartphones?

[PLAYER57832]

Pretty much shows why all this worry about government access to information is moot... companies have neatly ensured that they can put a lock on anything they wish, at all... in the name of nothing more than making an almighty buck.

And most of these companies have more power than the government, because they OWN the technology that governments deign to use.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

ummm.... I guess. If we are to assume that PS3 games' software is licensed property.

-TG

It seems we're still more or less in agreement--and we can roll with that assumption.

So what's the deal with smartphones?

If the contract--which comes with the phone--states that one must not unlock the phone, and if this exchange is voluntary, then why all the uproar?

Now, we both know that unlocking the phone breaks the monopoly of app-suppliers (Apple's App Store), but it also allows the users to download illegal or quasi-illegal duplicates/cracks of apps which are sold in the monopolized market.

"If they could prove that the [unlocking] was used to steal property or service from the online service (App Store)," then isn't it correct for unlockers to be punished or restrained from unlocking their smartphones?

I was under the impression that phones being locked is what prevents them from going to another service provider, i.e. cellular service providers force the consumer to use their service with their phone, which they may or may not manufacture.

If unlocks or hacks are being used to steal property or service, then sure, remunerative or punitive action is understandable. If these locks are enforced because U.S. Smellular doesn't want me to take my phone to T-Mobile, then idk. Plus, we're operating on the assumption that these unlocks are all criminally minded. I admittedly don't know much about programming or computer tech in general, but it seems like there are more uses for unlocking phones than just stealing services.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

Sure, there are other uses, but if it's possible for people to unlock their phones to engage in "cyber crime" and "deep, dark cyber markets," then I have a hard time arguing against such laws. My basic stance toward the phone companies is "too bad; my phone, shut up, or make me sign a contract which explicitly states what I can/can't do--and good luck enforcing it." It's kind of a crappy position though.

[xeno]

ummm.... I guess. If we are to assume that PS3 games' software is licensed property.

-TG

It seems we're still more or less in agreement--and we can roll with that assumption.

So what's the deal with smartphones?

If the contract--which comes with the phone--states that one must not unlock the phone, and if this exchange is voluntary, then why all the uproar?

Now, we both know that unlocking the phone breaks the monopoly of app-suppliers (Apple's App Store), but it also allows the users to download illegal or quasi-illegal duplicates/cracks of apps which are sold in the monopolized market.

"If they could prove that the [unlocking] was used to steal property or service from the online service (App Store)," then isn't it correct for unlockers to be punished or restrained from unlocking their smartphones?

I was under the impression that phones being locked is what prevents them from going to another service provider, i.e. cellular service providers force the consumer to use their service with their phone, which they may or may not manufacture.

If unlocks or hacks are being used to steal property or service, then sure, remunerative or punitive action is understandable. If these locks are enforced because U.S. Smellular doesn't want me to take my phone to T-Mobile, then idk. Plus, we're operating on the assumption that these unlocks are all criminally minded. I admittedly don't know much about programming or computer tech in general, but it seems like there are more uses for unlocking phones than just stealing services.

-TG

I don't know how much you use your smartphone but your average one only allows you so much control. For instance they come with pre downloaded apps that you can't erase and "cracking" the phones to get them off is just one legitimate use among many others. I cant think you want the government telling you what to do with your personal phone. This is one more step into our privacy from the government

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I don't have a smartphone. imo they're a waste of money.

But yeah that was one of the points I was arguing.

-TG

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Sure, there are other uses, but if it's possible for people to unlock their phones to engage in "cyber crime" and "deep, dark cyber markets," then I have a hard time arguing against such laws. My basic stance toward the phone companies is "too bad; my phone, shut up, or make me sign a contract which explicitly states what I can/can't do--and good luck enforcing it." It's kind of a crappy position though.

<shrug> It seems like it would be less intrusive if they just pursued remunerations based on criminality. For instance, a store shouldn't lock its doors based on the idea that there might be theft. They pursue the thief and press charges after he's actually committed a crime.

-TG

[Timminz]

Sure, there are other uses, but if it's possible for people to unlock their phones to engage in "cyber crime" and "deep, dark cyber markets," then I have a hard time arguing against such laws. My basic stance toward the phone companies is "too bad; my phone, shut up, or make me sign a contract which explicitly states what I can/can't do--and good luck enforcing it." It's kind of a crappy position though.

<shrug> It seems like it would be less intrusive if they just pursued remunerations based on criminality. For instance, a store shouldn't lock its doors based on the idea that there might be theft. They pursue the thief and press charges after he's actually committed a crime.

-TG

This should go in BBS' "accidental strawman" therrad.

I say this because you've made a poor equivalency. Stores remaining unlocked is not the equivalent of banning unlocked phones. It's more like banning crowbars, because one of their uses is breaking into stores.

I mean, why not ban car tuning while we're at it? People could be using those upgrades to break the posted speed limits.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sure, there are other uses, but if it's possible for people to unlock their phones to engage in "cyber crime" and "deep, dark cyber markets," then I have a hard time arguing against such laws. My basic stance toward the phone companies is "too bad; my phone, shut up, or make me sign a contract which explicitly states what I can/can't do--and good luck enforcing it." It's kind of a crappy position though.

<shrug> It seems like it would be less intrusive if they just pursued remunerations based on criminality. For instance, a store shouldn't lock its doors based on the idea that there might be theft. They pursue the thief and press charges after he's actually committed a crime.

-TG

This should go in BBS' "accidental strawman" therrad.

I say this because you've made a poor equivalency. Stores remaining unlocked is not the equivalent of banning unlocked phones. It's more like banning crowbars, because one of their uses is breaking into stores.

I mean, why not ban car tuning while we're at it? People could be using those upgrades to break the posted speed limits.

That's a good analogy. It's basically the problem here.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Sure, there are other uses, but if it's possible for people to unlock their phones to engage in "cyber crime" and "deep, dark cyber markets," then I have a hard time arguing against such laws. My basic stance toward the phone companies is "too bad; my phone, shut up, or make me sign a contract which explicitly states what I can/can't do--and good luck enforcing it." It's kind of a crappy position though.

<shrug> It seems like it would be less intrusive if they just pursued remunerations based on criminality. For instance, a store shouldn't lock its doors based on the idea that there might be theft. They pursue the thief and press charges after he's actually committed a crime.

-TG

This should go in BBS' "accidental strawman" therrad.