Jailbreaking and unlocking might be restricted in treaty pushed by Obama - Polidicks

International ban could make it difficult to change US law for the better. [I]by Jon Brodkin - Nov 18 2013, 7:45pm EST[/I] [img]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/jailbreak-lock.jpg[/img] [I]BMiz[/I] [quote]The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty pushed by the Obama administration could complicate efforts to loosen restrictions on jailbreaking and unlocking smartphones, tablets, or other consumer electronics. A working draft of the treaty published by WikiLeaks prohibits the manufacturing or distribution of devices or services "for the purpose of circumvention of any effective technological measure." It goes on to prohibit devices and services that "have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent any effective technological measure, or are primarily designed, produced, or performed for the purpose of the circumvention of any effective technological measure." Derek Khanna, a Yale Law Fellow who submitted a White House petition that led to the Obama administration publicly supporting the end of a ban on unlocking, wrote in Slate that "while the White House was publicly proclaiming its support of cellphone unlocking, it was secretly negotiating a treaty that would ban it."[/quote] [url]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/jailbreaking-and-unlocking-might-be-restricted-in-treaty-pushed-by-obama/[/url]

"I did not have monetary relations with that lobbyist."

Oh piss off, Obama administration; I'll do what I please with my personal electronics, thank you very much.

It already [I]is[/I] restricted though, Library of Congress determined that some time ago.

This is relatively minor in scale compared to a lot of things, but I consider myself a person who loves this country very much, but the past two administrations (which, aside from a little Clinton) is all I've known makes me wonder what the USA was like before this.

The TPP is a dystopian corporate nightmare and needs to be shut down at all costs.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;42913889]in other news Mickey Mouse is 85 years old and his Copyright is still valid[/QUOTE] because they use their intellectual property constantly and maintain the copyright how does this have anything to do with this

[quote]It goes on to prohibit devices and services that "have only a limited [b]commercially[/b] significant purpose or use other than to circumvent any effective technological measure[/quote] This appears to be more about restricting people who offer services on ebay/craigslist to jailbreak/root/jtag shit for cash [editline]19th November 2013[/editline] Although this does have a negative effect on modchips/flash carts for consoles

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;42913889]It's pitful that the Obama administration just like the one before him keeps pushing, and even encouraging such outdated policies, in other news Mickey Mouse is 85 years old and his Copyright is still valid[/QUOTE] Maybe because copyright extends to the length of the creator's life plus [I]85 years ya dingus.[/I]

Why should there be any restrictions on jailbreaking? I mean honestly! It's like saying 'You can buy this car, but only if you drive don't drive it on country lanes'. Maybe government should occupy it's self with running a country instead of telling us how to live our lives.

[QUOTE=dingusnin;42914838]Why should there be any restrictions on jailbreaking? I mean honestly! It's like saying 'You can buy this car, but only if you drive don't drive it on country lanes'. Maybe government should occupy it's self with running a country instead of telling us how to live our lives.[/QUOTE] Because "not being used for intended purpose" and "not [I]technically[/I] yours" and "could be used for piracy" and "think of the children"

[QUOTE=ArcticRevrus;42914529]This appears to be more about restricting people who offer services on ebay/craigslist to jailbreak/root/jtag shit for cash [editline]19th November 2013[/editline] Although this does have a negative effect on modchips/flash carts for consoles[/QUOTE] as much as i'd like to see something positive in this, no, that interpretation would be incrorrect. the use of the word or means that services [that only have a limited commercially significant purpose] or [have no other purpose than to circumvent any effective technological measure] are both reasons for prohibition i'm curious, how much support does this have in the EU / Council of Europe? because hasn't the EU passed a law / commercial directive that you CAN'T lock phones to a specific provider? i remember reading a story like that a year or two ago if they did indeed pass such legislation i can't imagine there'd be any reason why they'd support this treaty or ratify it

[QUOTE=Medevila;42914915]Bad analogy there are tons of laws about how you can use/modify cars[/QUOTE] Yes, but the ability to modify them is there, while in this case you cannot legally modify the phone [I]or[/I] the OS in any way at all.

Your electronics, your choice? it sounds kind like they're saying "You can buy this PC, but you can't change it's OS." or an analogy of that sort...

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;42915082]Your electronics, your choice? it sounds kind like they're saying "You can buy this PC, but you can't change it's OS." or an analogy of that sort...[/QUOTE] To be perfectly honest thats exactly what they're saying, except obviously with phones. Give it time, the technology will age, and the bullshit will slowly fade away. In the meantime, protest the fuck outta this.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;42914163]The TPP is a dystopian corporate nightmare and needs to be shut down at all costs.[/QUOTE] Indeed. The shit with phones is amongst the least important things to exist within this asinine series of proposals.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42915224]Give it time, the technology will age, and the bullshit will slowly fade away.[/QUOTE] The exact opposite is happening and will happen. Back when technology was still new, there were no laws against piracy, you could do with your electronics what you wanted and no one put their name on the Internet. Now we have lodsa anti-piracy regulations, technology to restrict what we can do with out electronics and what we can't (looking at you, SecureBoot) and pretty much everyone has a Facebook [url=http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/nach-dem-attentat-von-denver-kein-facebook-profil-kein-job-angebot/6911648-2.html]and you might be a psychopath if you don't.[/url]

[QUOTE=Medevila;42914915]Bad analogy there are tons of laws about how you can use/modify cars[/QUOTE] So it's more like "You can buy this car, but you have to keep it completely stock."

[QUOTE=NinjaTomate;42915548]Now we have lodsa anti-piracy regulations, technology to restrict what we can do with out electronics and what we can't[/QUOTE] But everyone still does it...

This term is a nightmare

Who cares what the administration says? We're all going to do it anyway. It's not like they're going to serve several million jailbroken iPhone owners with bench warrants.

[QUOTE=NinjaTomate;42915548]The exact opposite is happening and will happen. Back when technology was still new, there were no laws against piracy, you could do with your electronics what you wanted and no one put their name on the Internet. Now we have lodsa anti-piracy regulations, technology to restrict what we can do with out electronics and what we can't (looking at you, SecureBoot) and pretty much everyone has a Facebook [url=http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/nach-dem-attentat-von-denver-kein-facebook-profil-kein-job-angebot/6911648-2.html]and you might be a psychopath if you don't.[/url][/QUOTE] Ahaha That Article is such Bullshit.

[QUOTE=DiavelZzZ;42916140]Ahaha That Article is such Bullshit.[/QUOTE] Obviously, but getting denied a job because your future employer can't stalk your free-time activities is the direction we're heading, apparently.

[QUOTE=NinjaTomate;42916178]Obviously, but getting denied a job because your future employer can't stalk your free-time activities is the direction we're heading, apparently.[/QUOTE] Make an empty Facebook account.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;42917495]Make an empty Facebook account.[/QUOTE] "Too anti-social, sorry"

That obvious lobbying. After all, who would benefit from electronic devices being restricted in usage? Hint: those who makes them, and those who sells services made for them.

It's like I brought a nice pizza home from a restaurant but i get finned for adding on some tobasco sauce on top.

Every once in a while, you get to see who's really running things.

Our government's backing the same treaty, even though they just recently said they were harmful to Australians.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42914638]Maybe because copyright extends to the length of the creator's life plus [I]85 years ya dingus.[/I][/QUOTE] Not to mention the copyright is pretty much owned by the company so they have the right to extend it. [editline]20th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Van-man;42918991]That obvious lobbying. After all, who would benefit from electronic devices being restricted in usage? Hint: those who makes them, and those who sells services made for them.[/QUOTE] Watch them claim it's to make devices more user-friendly and to prevent cybercrime or some bullshit buzzword excuse.