Why Won't the Government Let You Unlock Your Phone? 100,000 People Want to Know

Updated: May 30, 2013 | 12:29 a.m.
February 21, 2013 | 12:52 p.m.

Now it's up to President Obama to calm some nerves. (Richard A. Bloom) ()

Suppose you're upset with your cell-phone carrier, and you'd like to switch. Under current law, you can take your phone number with you when you leave. But if you want to take your phone? Forget it.

Ever since an obscure rule protecting the process of "unlocking" expired from copyright law last month, it's been illegal to port your device to another carrier. In fact, any American who's ever unlocked his or her phone is now at risk for steep fines, court battles with carriers, and even jail time.

But a team of copyright activists has been lobbying the government to keep unlocking legal. And early Thursday morning, they won a small victory: Their petition to the White House finally accumulated 100,000 signatures, meaning it must now be met with an official government response.

"A hundred thousand people should be taken seriously," said Derek Khanna, one of those leading the charge. "There hasn't been a real concise explanation about why … individuals who unlock their own phones [should] be legally liable for up to five years in prison."

In particular, the petition requests that President Obama ask the Library of Congress to reconsider its stance on unlocking--and if that doesn't work, to press Congress for legislative action. An ideal bill would protect four activities, Khanna told me: adaptive technology for the blind, such as the kind that scans books and handwriting into text computers can display; backing up DVDs to your computer; jail-breaking your phone so that you can modify it beyond the manufacturer's preferred limits; and unlocking.

Hold on a second. How did the Library of Congress gain the power to control what you do with your devices? It comes down to a provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that lets the Librarian of Congress set exemptions for things that "circumvent" anti-piracy systems. Unlocking and gaining top-level privileges to modify your phone have so far been protected by these exemptions--and in fact, jail-breaking your phone will still be legal into 2015. But these exemptions have to be renewed every three years. This time, when the unlocking exemption came up, the Library of Congress demurred. (A call to LOC wasn't returned.)

This means wireless companies that don't like the idea of customers leaving their service with their phones can theoretically sue -- though an industry spokesperson stressed that what companies really object to is how customers often think they've been boxed in.

"Consumers have a lot of options when they pick a phone," said Amy Storey, The Wireless Association's assistant vice president for public affairs. Storey explained that because users can legitimately unlock their phones at the end of their contracts -- or simply buy an unlocked phone from their carrier at the beginning of their agreement -- the real problem lies with those who think they should be able to unlock their phones whenever they want.

Obama could still rebuff the petitioners, but he would be taking an unpopular position, according to Khanna.

"If the White House wants to defend that position, that's up to them," Khanna said. "I don't think they will defend that, but they could."

This article appears in the Feb. 22, 2013, edition of National Journal Daily.

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


More By This Writer
Brian Fung's Pic
Brian Fung | Technology writer
bfung@nationaljournal.com | Follow:      
Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Latest Edition
SUBSCRIPTION ONLY

Today's cover story: "House Faces Off on Farm Bill, Late-Term Abortions " -- "While the Senate continues its floor focus on amendments to its immigration-reform bill, the House this week is set for contentious action on its version of a five-year farm bill and on another measure that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy."

Read this and all of the stories in the latest digital edition of National Journal Daily.

National Journal Daily
Columns
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

Why We Lack Good Privacy Guidelines

June 13, 2013
Technology innovations have served to strip away privacy. They could also be the key to restoring it.
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Why Obama’s Approval Rating Isn’t Higher

June 13, 2013
Constant controversies could prevent the president from getting much credit for the improving economy.
Josh Kraushaar: Against the Grain

Three Signs Republicans Haven't Learned Any Lessons From 2012

June 13, 2013
After last year's drubbing, Republicans vowed to change their ways. But as 2013 wears on, they’re sticking to the script that got them in trouble.
More Columns »
Expert Opinions
Energy Experts

What's the Future of Electric Cars?

3:33 p.m.

Latest Response by Phyllis Cuttino: TBD

Energy Experts

What's the Future of Electric Cars?

June 14, 2013

Latest Response by Brigham McCown: Electric Cars and Their Dirty Secret

Transportation Experts

It's an East Coast Thing

June 14, 2013

Latest Response by Ed Wytkind: Take Away Ideology, Amtrak is a Highway

More Expert Opinions »