For those that don't know, it is currently illegal in the U.S. to unlock your smartphone through a third party. This was put into law by the Library of Congress when reviewing the DMCA last year. The law went into effect January 26, 2013. There was quite an uproar on the Internet in the US. One person even created a petition on the White House's official site. The site was created when President Obama took Office in 2008 as a way for anyone to create a petition and get their voice heard by the White House cabinet. The lower limit of signatures needed in order to get a response is currently set at 100,000. The petition closed with 114,322 signatures.
In proper fashion, the White House responded. The voice for this petition's response is R. David Edelman, Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation, and Privacy. In the letter, he says that "The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones." He also went so far as to include tablets in the mix. He says that "if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network." It's more than, that, he says, as it also affects the second-hand marketability of smartphones, as well as phones received as gifts.
This gels nicely with how the tech world and consumers in general responded to the announcement by the Library of Congress to outlaw cellphone unlocking. It also seems to correspond with the FCC investigation we previously covered on the same subject. There's no clear solution or plan of action. Mr. Edelman states that the Obama Administration is in support of many approaches to addressing the issue. He states that there's narrow legislation under discussion that would make it clear that "neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers."
I think this is great, as it not only seems I will have the freedom to choose my carrier more freely, but this may deal a blow to the overreaching and vague wording of the DMCA as it currently stands. What do you think? Do you think this may have more far reaching goals, or do you think that it's nothing more than a bunch of whiney babies wanting their electronic freedom?
SOURCE: White House