Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] Let's make rooting phones a crime

Mark Belinsky mark.belinsky at gmail.com
Mon Mar 4 19:55:16 PST 2013


Obama has committed to personally unlocking the phone of any campaign donor
who asks! He's even pledged on http://www.codecademy.com to become *the
first "leet" POTUS*.

So that might be a slight exaggeration. But the White House *has* put out
their official statement in response to the *114,000 signatures *that
forced them to do so (that's an extra 14,000 thank yous to people on this
list and elsewhere). And the statement is actually pretty awesome. Check it
out:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/its-time-legalize-cell-phone-unlocking

That's right: *The White House wants to legalize phone unlocking*.

It's not over yet, but FTW for now. And if you want to learn how to unlock
it for once it becomes legal, check out these video l33t tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/results?filters=month&search_query=unlock+your+phone&lclk=month

Best,
Mark


--*
@mbelinsky <https://twitter.com/mbelinsky> |
markbelinsky.com<https://markbelinsky.com>| phone:
+1-347-466-9327 | skype: markontheline
*


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Seth David Schoen <schoen at eff.org> wrote:

> hwamyeon writes:
>
> > While I agree that the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA should
> > be revoked, I don't think we should be tasking the Librarian of Congress
> > to do this for us. The Librarian of Congress's power of exemption is
> > supposed to be specifically in the interest of supporting the mission of
> > the library. Fundamental changes to the DMCA is a political issue that
> > we should be tasking Congress with.
>
> I agree that it would be preferable to have a comprehensive fix, like
> repealing the entirety of §1201.
>
> The current law calls for the Librarian of Congress to decide "whether
> persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be
> in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition
> under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under
> this title of a particular class of copyrighted works". 17 USC
> §1201(a)(1)(C).
> So that determination isn't limited to "the interest of supporting the
> mission of the library".
>
> --
> Seth Schoen  <schoen at eff.org>
> Senior Staff Technologist                       https://www.eff.org/
> Electronic Frontier Foundation                  https://www.eff.org/join
> 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA  94110   +1 415 436 9333 x107
> --
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20130304/bfdb6e16/attachment.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list