26 Jan 13 | Uncategorized
Some people collect stamps, others collect SIM cards. As stamps facilitate postal communication, so SIM cards allow people to reconnect with local friends at local rates the moment their planes hit the ground.
Starting today, nomadic Americans and those who balk at signing the market standard two-year contract will find choosing a new carrier or popping in a new SIM card more difficult and, in many cases, illegal.
The new federal policy makes unlocking most newly purchased phones illegal, even after initial contracts have expired. “Unlocking” phones — removing the security features that bind them to a single network — was formerly allowed as an exemption to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). The US Librarian of Congress removed this exemption in October, giving customers an additional 90 days to buy and unlock new phones before the policy went into effect.
Mobile phones in the US are typically bought at reduced rates, with high monthly fees spread over two-year contracts making up the price difference. Apple fans can get an iPhone 4 from the Apple store for free with a new two-year wireless service contract. The price for an unlocked contract-free iPhone is $450. This up-front price difference, prohibitive for most consumers, is designed to lock them into one service provider for two years. With new unlocking restrictions in place, this commitment could drag on indefinitely if consumers wish to continue using the same phone beyond the initial two-year contract.
With SIM-card swapping now illegal on new phones, shop and kiosks that once offered to unlock or jailbreak them at a small fee will likely face new legal scrutiny. In many cases, users will be forced to sacrifice their privacy, anonymity, and a range of other freedoms if they wish to stay within the bounds of the law. Locking consumers into such contracts by making it illegal to unlock new phones represents a direct curb on their free expression.
Government agencies in the US have repeatedly attempted to use mobile phone records to track user locations without warrant. The government also engages in warrantless wiretapping. Just last month the Senate overwhelmingly voted to extend the FISA Amendments Act by five years allowing the government to continue monitoring Americans’ communications abroad. Mobile service providers responded to 1.3 million government demands for subscriber information in the US in 2011. Today’s new federal policy will make switching carriers more difficult, and as a result make the government’s ability to track users that much easier.
Fear that the authorities are listening in produces a chilling effect on speech, one that could be further accentuated by service provider attempts to do away with net neutrality. Verizon, for example, has been vocal in its opposition to the US Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Rules, claiming these rules violate the company’s First Amendment rights.
If Verizon is successful in its challenge to the FCC and gains the right to block or slow access to websites of its choosing, many users will inevitably wish to change provider. If those users bought their phones after today’s new policy comes into effect, the legal opt-out will mean shelling out hundreds of dollars for a new unlocked smartphone or signing a new two-year contract with a different provider.
Also from today, if Americans buy certain mobile phones in the US and leave the country, they will face exorbitant roaming charges when using their locked phones abroad. If AT&T’s $2 per minute or $20 per megabyte rates aren’t a curb on free speech, I don’t know what is.
In an an email to TechNewsDaily, Christopher S. Reed from the US Copyright Office noted that “only a consumer, who is also the owner of the copy of software on the handset under the law, may unlock the handset”. TheNextWeb interprets this to mean that phones can be unlocked only if Apple, Google and Microsoft, the “owners” of the world’s most popular operating systems, agree to do so.
A petition, which has received 10,000 signatures since its creation yesterday, asks the White House to ask the Library of Congress to rescind its decision or champion a bill that would make unlocking mobile phones permanently legal. Criminalising communication by making it financially prohibitive and erecting barriers to privacy and anonymity violates our fundamental right to free expression. Given this decision’s implications for user’s basic First Amendment rights, this policy should be immediately rescinded.
15 Jan 13 | Uncategorized
It was a few minutes before kick off last Sunday when when the banners went up. To be fair they were more painted bed sheets than banners. One read “£62 and we’re still here.” Another said “£62!! Where will it stop?” The tone of the first was defiant, the second quietly despairing. Either way, as protests go, they were well mannered.
There had been much debate about the price of away tickets for Manchester City fans at Arsenal. Premiership clubs offer a bizarre pricing hierarchy whereby fans of the most successful clubs (invariably the richest clubs) are charged most for tickets. This might have a degree of fairness if, say, Manchester City’s owner Sheikh Mansour paid for the fans’ tickets, but he doesn’t. The reality is that a Manchester City fan is just as likely to be struggling financially as a Reading or QPR fan.
Even by premiership standards £62 for an away ticket is ludicrously high. Some fans boycotted the match, and 900 of the 3,000-strong allocation were reportedly returned to Arsenal. Others (me included) decided to go, enjoy the match (City’s first league victory at Arsenal in 37 years as it happens) and sing their heart out about the injustice of it all.
City supporter Richard Taylor, an estate agent from Stalybridge, had painted the banner the previous night in Manchester. He says he was impressed with the result. “It’s a lot neater than I thought it would be. Ticket prices are a big problem, especially for away supporters. I thought the banner might get the issue a bit of publicity.”
The banner that was banned from the Emirates at Richard Taylor’s home before the match –
photograph Richard Taylor
So 10 minutes before kick-off, he unfurled his handiwork.
“We’d only had it up a few seconds when a steward came over. He said we’ve been instructed by our bosses to take it away. Actually, he said ‘I agree with what you are saying’, but I’ve been told I’ve got to take it away’. I told him he had no right to take it off me, that it was peaceful protest, and there’s nothing offensive about the banner. He said ‘Don’t make my work harder for me because then I’ll have to get the police involved’.”
Reinforcements soon arrived in the form of the Metropolitan police. A couple of officers hurdled empty chairs Sweeney-style to reach the refuseniks. “They came over quite aggressive actually, jumping over the seats to get to us. Two came over to me and two stood at the end of the aisle. They demanded Taylor hand over the banner or be arrested. “Well I wasn’t going to walk out and miss the match. I’d paid £62 for it, so I gave the banner to them. We tried to argue about it, but it wasn’t worth getting kicked out when we’d paid £62.”
Did they say what they would arrest him for? “No.”
By now the whole away end were singing “£62 and we’re not here” [an adaptation of an old Manchester City chant].
This is by no means the first time peaceful protest and freedom of expression have been issues at football matches. In 2010, Manchester United fans said that they had been over-policed after unfurling banners protesting against the club-owners, the Glazer family. In 2008 anti-censorship campaigners (including Index on Censorship) complained after there was talk of banning Glasgow Rangers supporters from taunting Celtic fans with a song about the Irish famine (“’From Ireland they came, brought us nothing but trouble and shame’.) In 1998, Swindon Town chairman Rikki Hunt threeatened to ban fans for life after they had staged a sit-down protest following a 4-1 defeat and chanted for the sacking of their manager.
I asked Arsenal if they felt a football match at the Emirates was an inappropriate venue for protest and whether they did not believe in freedom of expression. The spokesman laughed and pointed out Arsenal’s admirable record on inclusion (they were the first club to be awarded anti-racism campaign Kick It Out‘s Advanced level of the Quality standard). “Of course we encourage freedom of expression, but in this case the banner was just too big. It impeded the views of supporters and was a health and safety issue.” What would Taylor have been arrested for? “Breach of the peace.”
So I mentioned another incident that happened just after Taylor’s banner was removed — police approached a man in the crowd wearing a felt-tip scribbled T-shirt. This time there were around a dozen officers.The police asked him to remove his T-shirt, and eventually he did.
I asked Arsenal if this was also a visibility/health and safety issue. The club said it had no record of this encounter, but asked what the fan had written on his T-shirt. “You can stick your £62 up your arse,” I said.
“Ah well, that’s just offensive isn’t it?” said the spokesman. “It’s nothing to do with the views expressed, just the language.”
At the end of the match, Richard Taylor retrieved his banner — the police had left it with the stewards for him to reclaim. Although he was “disgusted” by the club’s reaction to the banner, he believes it has only served to publicise his cause.
He mentioned model football clubs such as Borussia Dortmund, where he travelled to early in the season in the Champions League. “Our tickets were £24, and we had free travel on the day” For Taylor his campaign has now become two-pronged — not only is he fighting football clubs that charge excessive prices, he is also campaigning against those whom he believes are prohibiting the democratic right to peaceful protest.
Simon Hattenstone is a feature writer for the Guardian and a Manchester City supporter. He tweets at @shattenstone
