Hi, this is Barika Edwards with the Artsy Fartsy Show, and why don't you be my buddy?
Become a WBAI buddy.
If you become a WBAI buddy, you'll be able to stroll down that line with a tote bag.
You are so cool.
Not only that, you'll get a membership perks card so you can show your WBAI bling at shops
and museums.
You'll become a voting member of WBAI, and you help eliminate the fun drives.
It's only $10 a month.
Why spend it on a Starbucks?
Go to WBAI.org and become a WBAI buddy today.
And you are listening to radio station WBAI New York.
The time is 7 o'clock.
And once again, for Off the Hook.
And a very good evening to everybody, the program is Off the Hook.
Immanuel Goldstein here with you on this Wednesday evening, joined tonight by Mike.
Hi there.
Rob T. Firefly.
Good evening.
Bernie S. Bernie S.
LPS.
Start again, Bernie.
It didn't come through.
Oh.
Greetings from Philadelphia.
You're on a particularly bad handset this week?
No.
Do I sound really bad?
I'm sorry.
Well, we missed the whole first part of that sentence, so I'm...
I think we...
I think we've stepped on each other.
Well, okay.
Let's not do that again.
No.
Welcome to another week of Off the Hook, one of the last weeks that this show will be broadcasting,
and any show will be broadcasting from these studios down here.
They seem to be trying to get us out of here by turning the temperature way up, but it's
not going to work.
We have all kinds of fun things ahead.
We've got a fundraiser starting next week, the annual winter fundraiser, and we are moving
to Harlem at some point.
So it's exciting times ahead.
Nobody knows what's going to happen, and that's the way it should be at BAI.
I'll have it no other way.
Now what's going on in the world of hackers and technology?
Well, quite a bit, actually.
The hacker activist group Anonymous, you may have heard of them, they say they've hijacked
the website of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
Actually, I didn't know they had a website.
What do they need a website for?
Do judges go to the website to see, okay, what am I allowed to sentence this person
to?
U.S. Sentencing Commission.
Is that really what they do?
They might.
Why not?
Judges have web browsers.
You know, this story doesn't have the URL.
Does anybody have the URL for that?
No?
No.
You can just go to, I think, ussc.gov, and it's basically, it's the government agency
that, or it's a commission, really, of a few people sitting around a table saying, well,
we're going to have a mandatory sentence of five years if you do this, or the guidelines
are three to five years if you do this, or 30 years to life if you do this.
And judges are loathe to move outside of those guidelines because there's, it makes them
look bad.
Well, it's good for us to access that, too, because in case we do this, we'd like to know
what it is that we're facing, and sometimes we do things without realizing it.
Anonymous seems to have realized what they did because they went, or whoever it was,
went over to the U.S. Sentencing Commission to avenge the death of Aaron Schwartz, who
we've been talking about for the last couple of weeks, and the FBI is, of course, now investigating
that.
So who knows?
There might be more victims ahead.
We'll see.
The website of the commission, which is an independent agency of the judicial branch,
was taken over early Saturday, replaced with a message warning that when Schwartz killed
himself two weeks ago, a line was crossed.
The hackers say they've infiltrated several government computer systems and copied secret
information that they now threaten to make public.
I understand that that didn't really happen.
They didn't actually release information that was sensitive.
Either they just haven't done it yet, or the information that they had access to wasn't
that sensitive to begin with, but it certainly threw the government for a loop.
Bernie, did you have any additional information on that?
I don't really know if they did that or not.
They certainly claim they did, but no information has been released yet.
I think the hint was they were going to release the information in encrypted format, and then
people could release the keys later, but I don't even think that happened.
Well, they also posted a video with that disembodied voice that they're known for, and they criticized
the government's prosecution of Schwartz, who had been facing trial on charges that
he used MIT's computer networks to steal more than 4 million articles from JSTOR.
I put steal in quotes, by the way, which is an online archive and journal distribution
service that now offers a lot of its material for free.
Interesting.
As I said, the FBI is investigating the attack, according to Richard McFeely of the Bureau's
Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services branch.
I'm not sure what their website is, but I might want to watch that over the next few
days.
He says, we were aware as soon as it happened and are handling it as a criminal investigation.
We are always concerned when someone illegally accesses another person's or a government
agency's network, but you can guess which one they're more concerned with.
Just a quick correction, Bernie.
They actually did release a bunch of encrypted files.
They haven't released the keys to them, but with that hack, the files were posted and
they're now circulating around out there, and your guess is as good as mine what they
might contain if decrypted.
It sounds a little bit like the Julian Assange insurance file, which is released, but nobody
has the key to it, supposedly, and it's insurance in case something bad happens.
The key is then released and all the information is out there.
It's a good strategy, actually.
It is a good strategy for that kind of thing.
What can be.
If you're going to do something like this, it's best, because if you just say we're going
to release it after a certain date, you could be shut down by that date.
If you release the file in encrypted format to a lot of people, then anybody could be
just released the key that has access to it, and then a large number of people will have
access to the information.
It seems like a good strategy if you're going to be doing such a thing.
Absolutely.
Now, as I mentioned, we've been talking about the Aaron Schwartz case quite a bit.
In fact, the show right before us had an excellent piece on his life out FM, had something last
night.
It's incredible how many angles there are to the story and just how many lives he affected
in one way or another.
But the real tragedy is that cases like Aaron's continue all throughout the world, in fact.
We didn't talk about this last week, but there was a case up in Canada, I'm not sure if there
have been any updates to this since last week, of a student at Dawson College, Montreal's
Dawson College.
And basically, he discovered a security flaw, this particular person, and he was expelled
for discovering it and alerting administrators that this had happened.
Now, I don't know if he's facing criminal charges on top of that.
This article doesn't really go into very many details as far as that goes, but from what
I understand, despite the fact that this particular student really did a tremendous public service
for the university, he was punished for it.
And that kind of thing happens all the time.
Yeah, I mean, we've talked about cases like this again and again because they happen again
and again, but what he could have done was taken this knowledge and used it for some
nefarious purpose, and he probably wouldn't have been caught, and maybe someone else is
already doing that nefarious thing.
But this guy chose to call the school administrators and maybe the company who made the software
and tell them about it, and his reward for this amount of honesty was expulsion.
Although he's gotten some job offers out of it, so maybe it'll turn out all right, but
this is not the way it should go.
And the reason he's gotten job offers is because the story has gone public and almost viral,
I would say.
There are stories like this almost every place you look, in high schools, in colleges, in
the workplace.
People find something, they talk about it, they even tell the people that are in charge
of it, and they are seen as the problem.
This is something that hackers have been battling for as long as hackers have been
around.
And it's something we really need to focus on a lot more aggressively and make sure that
people don't suffer because they're intelligent, because they look for security holes, because
they try to make things better.
And that's really what so many people are trying to do, and they're feeling the wrath
of ignorance as a result of that.
All right, well, moving on.
We have, actually, Bernie, you found this, this particular security device, a security
and detection system, and I want to read something that you posted to our list as far as the
description of it.
It's meant for people being scanned as they go into a secure area, a supposedly secure
area, and this is from their website, mobile-vision.com.
With more than 20,000 systems deployed around the globe, L3 Security and Detection Systems,
SDS, is the world's leading supplier of security screening systems used by the aviation and
transportation industries, government and law enforcement agencies, commercial facilities,
and other high-threat facilities.
We're all high-threat facilities now, aren't we?
They're used to screen people, vehicles, baggage, cargo, and packages for, and these are the
things to look out for, explosives, firearms, drugs, and other contraband, including intellectual
property.
Now, let's explore this a little bit.
How in God's name have we attained this particular development of humanity where we can scan
somebody walking through this detector and discover if they have intellectual property
they're not supposed to have on them?
Any theories, Bernie?
I think maybe it's designed to find and arrest intellectuals.
Yeah, but even intellectuals don't show up on a scan, do they?
Well, I don't know.
Maybe they've invented something that does a brain scan and determines if you're, you
know, when some oppressive regime usually takes over, the first thing they do is they
round up all the intellectuals and they shoot them.
But intellectual property, I guess intellectual is going to have intellectual property in
their brain, but intellectual property can take all forms.
It can be on paper, it can be in your head, it can be on a memory, you know, on a piece
of flash memory chip or a hard drive.
I mean, I don't know, how is, I don't see how a millimeter wave scanner can detect intellectual
property.
It's bizarre.
Maybe the thinking is that if you're like nervous and you're trying to evade, you'll
like put some CDs down your pants or something and that will be suspicious and they'll find
them.
Yeah, maybe that's it.
But I don't know.
Bernie, what do you think they were trying to say?
I'm really trying to figure this one out.
I think they were trying, well, they're trying to, this L3 promotional material is designed
to appeal to government agencies who have certain priorities.
And it's pretty clear from what happened to Aaron Swartz and other people that certain
government agencies and people in power are really, really, really more interested in
striking down anybody who might have intellectual property they don't want them to have than
they are about, you know, violent crimes, it seems.
So they added that just as the laundry list of things that this thing can detect, even
though I think it's nonsense that it could possibly detect intellectual property.
Unless, yes, if it's on a hard drive and you've got a hard drive in your pocket, they're going
to see the hard drive, but, you know, on a millimeter wave scanner.
But it is funny because obviously intellectual property is something the government agencies
are all upset about right now.
It's SIPA, PIPA and SOPA and DMCA and all this stuff.
And so I think they just added that onto the list of features, even though it might not
do it.
It's, I think, to get us into the mindset to expect this sort of a thing, that when
you go through these scanners, you better not have any copies of TV shows that you don't
have permission to have or different region DVDs or anything that could be considered
intellectual property that you're not supposed to have.
It's all open to scrutiny.
Hey, speaking of going through security gates and airports and things like that, a friend
of mine came back to this country for some reason and was basically given a pitch by
a cop.
Basically the people at customs now try to sell you things as you come into the country.
And this agent from U.S. Customs and Border Protection is trying to sell a program to
frequent travelers.
And it says on the front of this pamphlet that he was able to snag, it's about time.
And it's kind of like a two-meaning word there.
It's about time.
Yes.
You're in a hurry.
Global entry makes international arrivals fast and easy.
Now when I heard that phrase, of course I perked up because my international arrivals
are never fast or easy.
And I'm reading inside here, what are you waiting for?
A global entry membership allows international travelers to get on their way quickly and
easily by using automated kiosks when entering the United States.
It's an alternative to me being questioned and searched every damn time I come into the
country.
Although it didn't happen last time in all fairness.
Mike?
I don't think you're eligible.
Well, let me get to it.
We can decide why I'm not eligible before we jump the gun and just assume I'm not eligible.
Because I think I got a good shot here.
How does it work?
The global entry program has a strict membership standard.
Okay.
Yes.
I grant you.
Whenever you hear the word strict membership standard, always assume I'm on the other side
of that.
And you have to understand it's the government setting the strict membership standard.
If it was nice people setting the membership standard, you might be okay.
Okay.
All right.
No.
Good point.
Maybe I'll get a reason.
Once approved.
And again, once approved.
Yeah, I know that's going to be a barrier for me.
Global entry members can use our automated kiosks at most major U.S. airports rather
than having to go through the traditional arrival process.
Now this is the part that you're referring to, Mike.
Who qualifies for global entry?
Doesn't say that I don't qualify, but it might as well.
U.S. citizens.
All right.
Lawful permanent residents of the U.S.
So far that's okay.
And citizens of certain other countries are eligible for global entry membership, provided
that they have never been convicted of a criminal offense in any country.
I have not.
Somehow I've avoided being convicted of a criminal offense of any sort.
I mean, a traffic offense isn't a criminal offense, is it?
I don't think so.
Yeah.
Parking tickets, no?
I mean, I don't know.
All right.
I was late paying my MasterCard once.
It wasn't an air traffic offense, was it?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Okay.
I've never been found in violation of customs, immigration, or agricultural laws.
I haven't.
I mean, I've been questioned so many times, but they've never been able to find anything
on me.
And I know that angers them a lot, but-
And to be clear, it's not because of lack of searching skills.
It's because you're not actually importing whatever they are looking for.
I've asked them what they're looking for.
Maybe I can help you, but they never tell me.
Okay.
Number three, do not provide false or incomplete information on the application.
Well, I'd have to be a real idiot to provide false information on something I'm trying
to get approved for.
So no, that's not going to happen.
And the final, the final qualification, the applicant is not the subject of an investigation
by any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency.
So if they deny me, they're pretty much saying, number four, applies, that there is an investigation.
Now, how do I apply?
I go to www.globalentry.gov and fill out an application.
Once my application has been reviewed, you will be asked, I'll be asked to schedule an
interview.
Yes, you get an interview.
I mean, how awesome is this?
I get to go to one of the global entry enrollment centers.
And at that interview, a CBP, Customs and Border Patrol, officer will determine my eligibility.
The guy right there is going to determine it.
Take my photo and collect biometric information, specifically my fingerprints.
So yeah, that's kind of a trade-off as far as privacy here.
I got to give them some DNA or whatever, you know, fingerprints, a photo, whatever it is
they ask for.
I also have to provide a valid passport and one other form of identification, such as
a driver's license or ID card.
And that's pretty much it.
Now, of course, it also costs money.
It costs a hundred bucks, non-refundable if I get denied.
But my question to you guys, should I try this at least?
What do you think, Bernie?
Well, if you're adventurous, and I know you are, it might be entertaining.
And then you could report on the air here how the whole experience was.
Oh, I could call in from wherever they have me being held for daring to do this.
And it's a good way to find out.
Maybe it's an effective way to find out if you might be under government investigation
that you might not have found out about otherwise.
Well, they've pretty much said in this pamphlet here that the only reason you wouldn't be
accepted other than the other three things I listed would be if there was an investigation
into you.
So they can't be vague.
They can't be vague and say, oh, it's just a random search that you happen to get almost
every time you come into the country.
They have to pretty much explain, no, we can't give it to you because you're suspicious and
there's a record on you.
I like, Emmanuel, your optimism.
The government owes you an explanation, and therefore you will get one.
Well, they say that's what they're going to do.
OK, how would you think this would play out otherwise if I wasn't accepted?
They would just say, no, but they wouldn't tell me why.
That's generally how the government operates, yes.
But they say here that there's only four reasons why you wouldn't.
Look, try it.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe you'll get accepted.
Maybe they'll actually give you a very detailed synopsis of the investigation into you.
I don't know.
You know, until you said that, it never even crossed my mind that I might be accepted.
Wow.
Wouldn't that be a trip?
That would be something.
I could just breeze into the country and use a kiosk instead.
But apart from those four automatic disqualifiers, they also say that this person who interviews
you will determine whether or not you're allowed in.
Yeah, I've got to make a good impression.
Maybe I'll bring him some chocolate or something.
Yeah, I guess bring a resume, wear clean socks, that sort of thing, and maybe you can impress
the person enough that they decide you're allowed in your country.
Cash, maybe?
Maybe.
OK.
Oh, that's a question of how much.
OK, I'll look into that as well.
But I'd also like to hear from our listeners.
Write to us, oth at 2600.com.
Should I do this?
I don't really see of any, I should be concerned with the privacy issues because they already
have my thumbprint from the times that they tried to get me in trouble, not at the border
but other places.
And, you know, I'm willing to make that sacrifice to see if this works and to call them, call
their bluff.
I also know we have a lot of frequent travelers who listen.
So if you've gone through this and possibly gotten in and you'd like to share with us
what that was like, call us, give us a call.
All right.
We have some other late-breaking news that is just pretty much happening now.
You've probably heard about this in the mass media concerning smartphones and how they
are changing or how smartphones aren't really changing per se, unless you want to count
the BlackBerry 10, which was introduced today.
We'll see where that goes.
But this is a change in the law in this particular country, the United States, where you will
no longer be allowed to legally unlock your phone without permission from the carrier.
So now this all goes back to our old friend, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Remember that?
Yeah.
We got prosecuted under that.
We were the first entity to be prosecuted back in 2000, a civil case, not a criminal
case.
There have been criminal cases since.
Now the DMCA makes it illegal to access copyrighted content and break digital rights management
technologies.
Now the software that locks a smartphone to one carrier is covered by that act.
And unlocking a phone is the process of freeing a device so that it can be used with a different
wireless carrier.
Now what's interesting is many of us who are early adopters of GSM, particularly overseas,
one of the main reasons for using these phones was that you could use it on different carriers.
You could take the little SIM out or just switch to a different phone company.
And it was a very simple thing.
And now with smartphones, it's kind of assumed that, no, you're locked into this company
and you've got to stick with them because the phone is subsidized.
Otherwise you'd have to pay $700 for a phone, which nobody wants to do.
Now this is something that as of January 26th, which just passed, phones purchased before
then are still able to be unlocked.
Phones purchased after then are not.
That's my understanding.
We have with us, joining us on the phone, Mitch Stultz from the EFF, a staff attorney
with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Mitch, welcome to the show.
Hi, Bernie.
Well, this is Emmanuel.
Oh, Emmanuel.
Hi there.
Hi.
Bernie, why don't you say hi too?
Hi, Mitch.
And can you speak a little closer to your phone?
We can't hear you very well.
Oh, sure.
All right.
Now, Mitch, maybe you could sort of clear this up for us because there's been a lot
of confusion about what now is forbidden or when it will become forbidden, worst case
scenarios, some best case scenarios, things like that.
Absolutely.
Unlocking phones are in a gray area under the DMCA.
The DMCA, obviously, originally was passed in 1998 to outlaw the breaking of digital
locks on copyrighted materials, mainly movies, music, popular software.
Since then, among other problems, it's been misused by various kinds of electronics makers
not to protect their creative work, but to enforce restrictions on what devices can interoperate
to essentially kill aftermarkets in used equipment, to preserve a business model that
has nothing to do with creativity, although it may have some incidental connection to
software because these are digital devices and they all contain software.
So the DMCA was used against the makers of universal remotes for garage doors by a garage
door manufacturer who didn't want competition.
It was used against a company that made equipment for recycling printer cartridges by a printer
manufacturer who didn't want others selling cartridges for their printers.
The result in both cases was that the equipment was heading to landfills instead of being
reused productively, and the court struck those down.
And something similar might happen for unlocking of phones, and it's in a gray area.
Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide this.
Of course, anyone who goes to court is taking a huge risk.
The civil penalties for breaking the DMCA are $2,500 per act of circumvention, and there
are criminal penalties, which could be half a million dollars and five years in prison.
So a court may, and we think could and should, say that there is no violation here.
But to find that out will be a huge risk, and that is more likely now because there
is not this shield created by the Copyright Office for unlocking phones.
That shield is now gone.
I would imagine that if they did decide to go after somebody, it wouldn't necessarily
be an end user, but more likely one of those stores or companies that offers to unlock
your phone for a fee.
That's more likely.
As I understand it, the exemption never did cover that.
So before or after January 26th of this year, they had the ability to go after those folks.
Now has this occurred on this particular date because of pressure from phone companies?
Is this something that came from inside the government someplace?
The exemptions to the DMCA, the DMCA contains this process, which is supposed to be a safety
valve to keep the law from interfering with legal commerce and research and other important
things.
The idea was that the Copyright Office, which is part of the Library of Congress, would
every three years make a slate of exemptions that would protect legal users.
Now the Copyright Office, they've interpreted that mandate really narrowly, and they have
granted some important exceptions over the years, including one for jailbreaking of mobile
phones.
There is a legal shield for that, that is for altering a phone to install unauthorized
software on it as distinct from unlocking it from its network.
So there have been good exemptions, that's one of them, but they interpret them very
narrowly and they won't grant them where they don't see a need.
So there wasn't really anything that changed.
The slate on those exemptions is wiped clean every three years.
The latest batch took effect in October of last year, and for no apparent reason other
than yes, the major cell phone carriers were pushing back on the Copyright Office, but
this time around the Copyright Office said, we will allow, we will create this legal shield
for unlocking phones, but only for 90 days.
And those 90 days expired last weekend.
Couldn't it be said that unlocking a phone is just another way of jailbreaking, and it's
a piece of technology that you have bought, you should be able to do whatever you want
with it?
Absolutely.
The DMCA, the overall law about breaking a digital lock that controls access to copyrighted
work is fundamentally opposed to the idea that you can do what you want with things
that you've bought.
It is fundamentally a law that reaches in to many things that people own and prevents
them from modifying those things.
Go ahead, Mike.
So, Mitch, I just am confused about one thing, which is that we on this radio program and
you at the AFF spend a lot of time talking about copyright, but unlocking phones to make
phone calls on other networks seems to me to have absolutely nothing to do with copyright,
so I'm a little bit confused how the DMCA applies and why it's up to the Copyright Office
and the Library of Congress to make exemptions here.
What does the Copyright Office know about telephones?
That's a very good point.
It seems absurd, and it is an absurd result.
The only tie to copyright is that a phone contains software, and the baseband radio
engine of a mobile phone handset contains software, and in a couple of cases, as I mentioned
the case about printers and the case about garage door openers, the court has said that's
not enough.
Whether you're not using the DMCA to protect your creative work or your software engineering,
but you're misusing it for other purposes, it doesn't apply.
And that might be the case here.
That's why I say that unlocking is in a legal gray area.
So somebody has to basically test out the system and go to trial, get themselves sued.
Absence of some fix from Congress or a shield created by the Copyright Office, yes.
Mitch, can you tell us, I know you mentioned the garage door openers as one example, but
that got struck down, but can you think of if this does stand, what other pieces of technology
we could find ourselves being restricted, even though we own the pieces of technology?
What else could happen that's similar?
The words of the law are circumventing a technical measure that effectively controls access to
a copyrighted work, which is really as broad as it sounds.
It's been used, again, in a lot of cases to enforce software locks that simply keep two
pieces of software or two devices from talking to each other.
And that is the context of a lot of the cases where there have been lawsuits or threats.
Do you see something similar happening, perhaps, with computers, tablets, things like that?
Would companies be able to say, you're not allowed to run this particular operating system
even though you bought the computer?
Absolutely, especially if there is a cryptographic, especially hardware-based protection.
Designed to prevent installing of a different operating system.
The existence of some sort of cryptographic protection like that is what triggers the
DMCA.
It's interesting because I recall back when people were afraid to have extension telephones
in their homes.
That was illegal because of the way the phone network used to be run by a monopoly.
And now we're afraid to mess with our phones that we've bought, that we carry around with
us because we might be criminally liable in some other way.
And it's incredible to me to see how we seem to be regressing in so many ways.
And I just wonder how long it's going to be before common sense reigns, or if it ever
will.
Rob?
Yeah.
It strikes me how situations that would be totally ridiculous in more mundane circumstances,
the minute you add computers or technology into it, it becomes crazy town.
It's like if some manufacturer of drinking glasses told you that you could only drink
their brand of juice out of their glasses, you'd tell them they were nuts.
Well, we do have the digital millennium coffee mugs, you know about those, and you can only
drink coffee out of those things, not tea.
Yes, exactly.
But if you signed up for some website service, but you had to buy a particular brand of computer
to access it, that would suddenly be...
And I think that would be patently silly, but now that we're doing the same situation
with phones and carriers, that's fine, and that's okay.
And why do you think there's that disconnect once you throw something like phone carriers
into it?
I think in a lot of cases, and it really is a symptom of a broader problem, it's because
copyright law, intellectual property law, used to be a domain of corporations.
It wasn't something before computers, before digital technology, ubiquitous software, it
wasn't something that really touched the lives of individuals, it regulated interactions
between companies, book publishers, and major industrial companies that used software.
And they'd get together in a room and they'd write the laws that worked for them, and they'd
give them to Congress, and Congress would rubber stamp them.
Of course, now, these are laws that affect everyone.
The technology is just in so many more places, doing so many more things, and it's so much
more ubiquitous, but we inherited this model of laws applying to everyone, but written
in backrooms by a couple of industries.
Well, interesting point.
These laws apply here in this country, the United States of America, but they do not
apply in other countries, such as Canada, or Azerbaijan, or places like that.
What would stop somebody from simply buying a phone in a different country and then unlocking
it there, or having it unlocked before it shipped to them, and using whatever carrier
they wish?
Well, the laws of that country, or the laws of import and export, if it comes to that.
Generally, anything illegal to do here is illegal to import into the United States as
well.
Also, the United States, the federal government, and a lot of the same interests that pushed
for the DMCA in the first place, are pushing for very similar laws in other countries,
broadly called anti-circumvention laws.
That's been a component of almost every major trade agreement that the United States has
negotiated in the past few years, is basically, you want increased trade with the US, you
have to pass a law like the DMCA.
Interesting.
Wow.
Now, is it possible that a phone company that might be a bit more enlightened could say,
folks, it's okay, you can unlock the phones that you buy from us, and could they make
a statement like that, and would that be enough?
Absolutely, and many do.
Can you name any?
As far as I know, T-Mobile is the largest company that is promoting this idea.
They don't carry the iPhone, but they are perfectly happy to have people bring unlocked
iPhones onto their network.
I know a lot of smaller regional carriers.
Similarly, they embrace the idea of unlocking and of mobility.
If you buy a phone from T-Mobile, they'll be okay with you unlocking it and then using
it on a different network?
I don't know.
You'd have to look at their fine print.
Or just do it and see if they come after you.
Go ahead, Bernie.
Mitch, I wanted to ask you, though, although people can bring an iPhone to T-Mobile and
use it on their network, T-Mobile, I don't believe, will ... All right, let's put it
this way.
Suppose you bought an iPhone from AT&T Wireless, and you fulfilled all the obligations to your
contract or whatever.
You'd think you'd be free and clear, and you don't owe AT&T anything, and you could take
the phone that you bought and paid for and fulfilled your full contract obligations to,
and you take it to T-Mobile.
I don't think they're going to unlock it for you.
If you want to unlock it yourself and put yourself at risk and take it to T-Mobile,
I guess they'd have no problem unlocking it for you.
Is that the case?
I looked at AT&T's public policy page about that very thing yesterday, and I don't speak
for them.
I am in the same position as every other consumer as just looking at the text on their website.
What that text said was that if you are a current or recent former AT&T customer, and
your contract is up, that they will unlock your phone.
Now, I've also heard from people who said that to do that, and when they did fit those
requirements, they were paid in full, they were out of contract, that AT&T still kind
of made them jump through a lot of hoops, but ultimately they would unlock the phone.
In other words, I haven't seen evidence that they are deliberately holding customers hostage
beyond the expiration of their contract, but they could.
The law gives them that power.
I guess we'll see now if they actually do that, and we'll see if other companies do
that as well.
But for the sake of our listeners who might be amazed by all of this, what is actually
involved in unlocking a phone?
Is it just a series of keystrokes?
Do you have to hook it up to some contraption or something like that?
I'm afraid you've gotten beyond my limited technical knowledge at this point.
Mike, go ahead.
I mean, it depends on the model of phone.
Some particularly older phones, it is just a series of keystrokes.
Newer phones, some of them have made it harder, and you'll need to hook it up to a computer
or what have you.
And again, I'd like to point out that this goes contrary to the whole concept of GSM
in the first place, where it was designed so you could unlock...phones were unlocked
by default, and you could just use whatever carrier happened to be convenient at the moment.
Go ahead, Bernie.
I actually watched a video last night.
There's a company called gsmserver.com, and I have no affiliation with them.
In fact, their website just recently, over the past few days, put up a banner saying
our products are not for sale in the USA.
Oh, nice.
But anyhow, if you go to gsmserver.com, you can see a video of someone actually unlocking
a GSM phone.
It's actually a few minutes long, and it involves some...in this case, with the particular phone
I saw, I forget the brand, involved opening the phone and making electrical contact to
some terminals inside the phone and connecting that to a computer, running...going through
a hardware device that they sell and software that they sell for a couple hundred dollars.
And then you can unlock your phone, and ostensibly, you'd want to...if you're going to spend a
couple hundred dollars, you're not going to do it just for yourself.
You're going to do it for your friends, or maybe you're going to have a shop that unlocks
phones.
I've lost track of all the little phone stores I've walked past, you know, little independent
mom-and-pop phone stores that have a sign in there, we'll unlock your phone for $50
or whatever.
That's the kind of hardware and software they're using.
But it is now, in many cases, illegal to do that under DMCA, and for at least since 1994,
it's been illegal under Title 18, Section 1029, which is a law I was prosecuted under
back in 1995.
So it's...you know, the government doesn't want people having...the government and the
companies that basically pay for government policy to be enacted don't want people to
be able to just use their phones however they want to use them.
And that's a shame, because once you pay for a phone, you should be able to do whatever
you want with it, as long as you're not defrauding another person.
Well, the rationale that the companies use is that the phones are being sold at a very
cheap price, and if you want an unlocked phone, you'd have to pay hundreds of dollars more.
Mitch, is that still going to be an option for people to buy unlocked phones that don't
have to be unlocked?
Absolutely.
And that's absolutely the rationale that they've used.
The flaw in that rationale is that the DMCA has nothing to do with a mobile service contract.
They are two separate things.
Presumably, if you buy a subsidized phone, the reason that they're willing to sell the
phone to you for $150 instead of $600 is because you've signed a two-year contract, and you
pay substantial early termination fees if you want out of that contract early.
None of that changes with or without the DMCA, and that's what should defend their subsidy
business model.
The DMCA gives them power, should they choose to use it, beyond the expiration of your contract,
and that is just a giveaway to that company.
Mitch, do you have any ideas as to why in Europe, it might be the whole EU for all I
know, but typically the rule over there is it's illegal for a mobile telephone company
to lock the handsets they sell so that you can't use them on another competing GSM network.
It's hard to find locked phones in the EU.
The old phones are just by the phone, and you use it with whoever.
How did it evolve?
You may not be up on European law, but any idea why it seems to be a completely opposite
situation in the United States than it is in Europe?
I don't know the history of European telecom law.
What I do know is the fundamental principle of the EU is that goods and services and commerce
could be able to cross borders freely, and I suspect that it's trickled down from that.
We're on the phone with Mitch Staltz of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, staff attorney
with that organization, and Mitch, could you tell us what EFF is doing about this, or if
you've heard of any possible test cases, or if you've had any success in fighting this
kind of thing?
On this particular issue, no.
This really strongly highlights the absurdity of the DMCA, that you do have the Librarian
of Congress, picture a librarian, and you will be close on, he is a long and honorably
serving government official, but the notion that the Librarian of Congress is now regulating
the used cell phone market is as silly as it sounds.
This is one guy doing this?
Well, it's a large office.
It's the Library of Congress, of which part is the Copyright Office, which has a staff
of attorneys.
In the exemptions process, it works like a regulatory hearing, a little bit like a court.
They hear testimony and evidence, and then they come up with exceptions every three years.
Again, the DMCA was never meant to regulate compatibility between devices, or between
devices and networks.
It was meant, whether you think this was a valid goal or not, it was meant to stop copyright
infringement, not competition among wireless networks.
Is there a place people can go to get more information, or to just become a part of this
fight against this unfair use of this particular law?
There are a number of places.
We certainly blog about it fairly often, and issue action alerts at EFF.org.
Some of the smaller wireless carriers, particularly those that are members of the Competitive
Carriers Association, have been active in this fight.
They were pushing for the Copyright Office to grant a more robust exemption, a more robust
shield against lawsuits.
This time around, Consumers Union was also involved.
I'd never heard of that organization, the Competitive Carriers Association, you said?
Yeah.
To be honest, I hadn't either.
Emmanuel?
Go ahead.
It's a group of carriers.
I think the FCC requires mobile carriers to sell their mobile network capacity at a wholesale
rate to smaller companies.
There's a company called Page Plus Wireless, for instance, which is a Verizon reseller.
All these companies are generally called MVNOs, Mobile Virtual Network Operators.
They're allowed to buy network capacity from a main carrier at wholesale rates, and then
they sell them to you and me for typically half the price.
You could get unlimited voice data text for $50 a month from Page Plus Wireless, and it'll
work on Verizon's network, just like you were on Verizon.
Trouble is, you've got to bring an unlocked phone to Page Plus Wireless, and then they
will activate it for you.
I don't think Verizon wants people using Page Plus Wireless, even though they're required
to sell network capacity to them.
They can at least use this law to prevent people from dumping Verizon to go to this
low-priced competitor.
We only have a few minutes left, and I'd like to open this up to our listeners.
Our phone number is 917-580-6020.
We're on with Mitch from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and I'd like to take this opportunity
also to encourage people to donate to EFF.org, because these are the guys that are in the
front lines of this fight and so many others, and basically the landscape is a lot better
than it could have been without their help.
I know things are bad now, but just think of how much worse it could be with the kind
of mentality we're discussing tonight dominating.
You guys at EFF really deserve a lot of credit for that, and hopefully you'll be around for
a very long time, because we're going to need you.
Thanks, Emmanuel.
We depend on the support of a number of varieties, be it through donations or through writing
to Congress, letter-writing campaigns, just being knowledgeable and being engaged in the
issues.
And no doubt there will be a test case of this particular development at some point
in the future.
Again, our phone number, 917-580-6020, I should also point out, since we're going to be going
into fundraising mode for the month of February, this will be your last chance to call in and
be on the air.
In fact, this will be the last time you can call in and be on the air from this studio,
in all likelihood, unless something happens, because as I mentioned, we are moving, and
I guess a bit of history is about to be written.
So let's take our first listener phone call.
And good evening.
You're on Off The Hook.
Hi.
I'd just like to correct something that the guest said, and something that was said on
the previous show that you praised.
Please go ahead.
It is, before corporations got together making copyright laws, et cetera, et cetera, and
using copyright, originally copyright was used by ordinary people, and of course corporations
today are using it more than ordinary people, but a lot of individuals such as myself use
copyright and I plan to use patent as an individual.
So it's not just corporations that use copyrights and patents.
On the previous show, they said that computers by their nature are copying devices, and that
they are only copying devices because the original scientists who developed computers
thought they were just going to be sharing academic kind of material between themselves,
so they made it very easy to share, but it is not the nature of computers to allow people
to share.
You can design computers either not to make it easy to share, or as it happened, to make
it easy for things to share.
So perhaps we could say the nature of computers as they were originally designed, would you
be okay with that?
By happenstance, because they were designed that way, because the original people involved
in it thought they were just going to be sharing academic material between themselves.
They had no idea.
In fact, I heard one of them say it was a great mistake by industry to take their original
design of computers and use it for industry, because now we have China copying all our
intellectual property, all the problems we have with security, it's only because the
people who originally developed computers thought they were just going to be sharing
it among themselves and decided to do it that way.
So I actually have to disagree with you.
The design at the lowest level of the computer, the microprocessor, is a device for moving
data from one place to another, and when you move data from one place to another, it doesn't
go away from the original place, it's still there, and you can call that making a copy,
if you like, and that's just how computers work.
In order to prevent them from copying data, you have to write additional layers of software,
and this is what we've been discussing, they call them the digital locks, that are trying
to prevent computers from doing what they're very good at, which is copying data from one
place to another.
So I think it is correct to say that at a very fundamental level, a computer is an information
copying and processing machine.
Whether or not we should then go on and use this functionality in all kinds of different
ways is a subject for, of course, public policy debate, but to say that they are fundamentally
good at copying is a very true statement.
You are correct, you are absolutely correct, but I'm talking about the ancillary development,
where they were used by, don't take my word for it, talk to the original developers, they
thought they were just going to be sharing academic material between themselves.
They could have designed the computers so that they would not be such easy copying machines.
Okay, we're going to move on, but thanks for your call.
Did you have anything, Mitch?
I'd just say I would find it very hard to conceive of a World Wide Web that made no
copies.
Wouldn't that be something?
What a nightmare.
All right, let's take another phone call.
Good evening, you're on off the hook.
Speak up, please.
Oh, no, don't do that.
Stay with us.
Good evening.
You're on off the hook.
Okay, don't do that either.
Let's see if we can get a third sound here.
Good evening.
You're on off the hook.
Hi, yes, I don't know if this was mentioned because I turned the radio off when I make
phone calls, so there's no signal imbalance, but I just wanted to comment that what makes
me scared the most about all these laws that are allowing companies to lock cell phones
is not necessarily that the cell phones are being locked, but that other tech companies
are also starting to look at their platforms, such as their PCs, their computers, as being
services being offered similar to service provided by a cell phone plan.
So my worry is that in five to 10 years, companies, which Microsoft is already doing
in their case of Windows 8, are trying to force this sort of closed lock-in system with
no ability to modify any of the software inside of it, this closed wall system, to all different
devices besides cell phones, such as laptop computers, tablets, PCs, your refrigerator,
et cetera.
So I really wanted to comment on that.
Oh, your refrigerator.
Wow.
That's a scenario to really be afraid of.
You guys have any comments on this?
Absolutely.
I mean, Microsoft and Apple are both showing dangerous signs of moving in that direction
of really limiting a computer owner's control over the equipment that they own.
Yeah, and we're definitely seeing pushes like this in other industries, like computer games.
There are games that you have to be online and connected to some company's server to
play, which is, even if you're not using any sort of online play, even if you're just sitting
down and playing with something by yourself, you have to connect to the internet and prove
that you're allowed to use this software before you can use it.
There are other high-end software packages that do the same thing.
And it's all basically, and so if you're using something like that, what happens when that
company goes out of business or that server goes down?
You can't use something that you've paid for because there's now no one to prove your credentials
there.
Interesting.
Let's see if we can squeeze in one more phone call.
Good evening.
You're on Off The Hook.
Speak up.
Hello?
Go ahead.
Hello.
Yes, go ahead.
I'm sorry.
I was calling Off The Hook.
I think I have the wrong number.
You have the right number, but please talk.
You're on the air now.
Oh, I'm on the air.
I'm sorry.
I'm calling about something I heard during the show, which was the response to the question
about getting a phone unlocked and then bringing it into the country.
And the response was that in general, if you do something outside the country that's illegal
inside the country, it's illegal to then bring it in.
So this leaves me way off the subject, but what does that mean about clothes made in
sweatshops by nearly slave labor that are then imported into the country and sold here?
Well, that's an interesting question.
Does anybody want to tackle that?
I was actually just speaking about copyright law, but, you know, I mean, that may be an
area where a policy like that makes more sense.
Yeah.
Once you inject human rights into it, all of a sudden these rules go out the window
because they don't care about that nearly as much.
Okay.
Well, thank you for addressing that.
I just wanted to bring it up.
No.
Thank you for bringing it up.
Thank you for a good show.
Thanks.
All the time.
All right.
Our email address is oth at 2600.com.
As always, we love to hear from our listeners with news stories and criticisms and compliments
and things like that.
Mitch, please tell us more about what Electronic Frontier Foundation is doing these days, how
people can help, websites, things like that.
Oh, absolutely.
Everything we do is generally covered on our blog, on our Twitter and Google Plus and Facebook
pages.
We are at EFF.org.
We are Twitter at EFF.
We thrive on your donations.
The easiest way to donate is through the website.
Okay.
Mitch Stolz, thank you so much for being with us tonight and for everything you guys do
over there.
I'm sure we'll be talking to you in the future about this and many other topics.
This Friday, get out of the house for a bit.
There's 2600 meetings happening everywhere, 2600.com slash meetings.
Find one near you.
All right.
And with that, we are out of here for another week.
Next week, we begin our winter fundraiser.
It's not as bad as it sounds.
It'll be fun.
We'll make it a lot of fun, actually.
I'll show you what you won't want to miss.
OTH at 2600.com is our email address.
Stay tuned for the Personal Computer Show coming up next here on WBAI.
Have a good night.
Sorry, the number you have called is not available.
The number you have dialed has not been recognized.
Please check and try again.
The number you have dialed has not been recognized.
Please check and try again.
Hello, the number you have dialed has not been recognized.
Hello?
Hello.
Hello?
Sorry, the number you have called isn't available.
Hello?
The number you have called isn't available.
Hello?
No problem.
Please check the number you have dialed has not been recorded.
Please check and try again.
The number...
Hello?
Hello?
Hello?
Hello?
The number you have dialed has not been recognized.
Please check and try
again.
The number you have dialed has not been recognized.
Please check and try again.
The number you have dialed has not been recognized.
Please check and try again.
The number you have dialed has not been recognized.
Please check...
Try again.
Hello? Hello?