In Williamson’s case, we’re talking theatergoers here. But the principle remains the same: When you’re at a play, turn off your phone you self-absorbed butthole. I promise you that nothing you’re doing is that important. Promise.

As he tells it, the night began with a couple of annoying women who were “talking, using their phones, and making a general nuisance of themselves.” The audience was watching a performance of Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812, and two women with “too much makeup and too-high heels, and insufficient attention span for following a two-hour musical” were preventing everyone from enjoying the show. Or at least preventing Williamson, as he was seated right next to them.

Williamson claims his date spoke to theater management during intermission, whose assurances that the situation would be taken care of wound up being hollow.

I’ll let him take it from there:

The lady seated to my immediate right (very close quarters on bench seating) was fairly insistent about using her phone. I asked her to turn it off. She answered: “So don’t look.” I asked her whether I had missed something during the very pointed announcements to please turn off your phones, perhaps a special exemption granted for her. She suggested that I should mind my own business.

So I minded my own business by utilizing my famously feline agility to deftly snatch the phone out of her hand and toss it across the room, where it would do no more damage. She slapped me and stormed away to seek managerial succor. Eventually, I was visited by a black-suited agent of order, who asked whether he might have a word.

Williamson tells Gothamist that some rude Googling on the device is what eventually prompted him to remove it from her possession. He was eventually kicked out and says that “there is talk of criminal charges.”

Whatever happens, we salute you. No, I’m not going to suggest that every annoying movie or theater attendee who refuses to follow simple rules and courtesies should be separated from their iPhones – but if I happened to be one of the crowdmembers enjoying Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812 that fateful night, well, let’s just say the play (which he says was quite good) wouldn’t have been the only thing to receive a standing O.

Of course, as of now, this is a one-sided story.

The case comes on an appeal from the Superior Court of Fresno County. Last year, Steven Spriggs was cited for violating section 23123, which bans the use of wireless technologies while driving.

Specifically:

Section 23123, subdivision (a) provides: A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.

Spriggs argued that the statute was only enacted to limit talking on a cellphone, and didn’t originally apply to any other use of the device. Also, since the state had to amend the rules later to add language banning texting while driving, it supports his claim that the original intent of the law only applied to conversing while driving.

But the court rejected that claim.

“Our review of the statute‟s plain language leads us to conclude that the primary evil sought to be avoided is the distraction the driver faces when using his or her hands to operate the phone. That distraction would be present whether the wireless telephone was being used as a telephone, a GPS navigator, a clock or a device for sending and receiving text messages and emails,” said judge Kent Hamlin.

Furthermore:

Neither the plain language of the statute nor the legislative history support the conclusion that section 23123, subdivision(a), was designed to prohibit hands-on use of a wireless telephone for conversation only. Notably, the legislative history acknowledges that the statute as worded does not eliminate a “potentially more significant” distraction of carrying on a conversation while driving. The statute instead focuses on the distraction a driver faces when using his or her hands to operate the phone, specifically including “the physical distraction a motorist encounters when either picking up the phone, punching the number keypad, holding the phone up to his or her ear to converse, or pushing a button to end a call.” That distraction would be present whether the phone is used for carrying on a conversation or for some other purpose.

Basically, the law in vague enough to cover any sort of hands-on use of the wireless device. This includes mapping in any form.

Of course, if someone wanted to program their route into Google Maps and then never touch it again while driving, that would be ok. If they wanted to make alterations to the route, they would presumably have to pull over first.

In the end, the court ruled that the law may have been enacted arbitrarily and could very well need retooling – but that’s a job for the legislature, not the court.

“It may be argued that the Legislature acted arbitrarily when it outlawed all ‘hands-on’ use of a wireless telephone while driving, even though the legal use of one‟s hands to operate myriad other devices poses just as great a risk to the safety of other motorists. It may also be argued that prohibiting driving while using ‘electronic wireless communications devices’ for texting and emailing, while acknowledging and failing to prohibit perhaps even more distracting uses of the same devices, is equally illogical and arbitrary. Both arguments should be addressed to the Legislature in support of additional legislation barring any use of those other devices in other than a hands-free manner, or in support of a repeal or amendment of section 23123 to allow the ‘hands-on’ use of wireless telephones for other purposes while driving,” says Hamlin.

As of today, 39 states ban texting while driving for all drivers, and another 6 ban the practice for novice drivers. But a recent survey from AT&T found that nearly 50% of people do it anyway – even though 98% acknowledged that it is indeed wrong to do so. A rule like this banning mapping will likely be ignored by even more people than that.

[California v. Steven R. Spriggs via Digital Trends]
[Photo via ~W~, Flickr]

And they totally support it.

In a statement that can only be seen as a huge win for activists in this arena, the White House just announced that “it’s time to legalize cellphone unlocking.”

“The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties,” said Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation, & Privacy David Edelman. “In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren’t bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It’s common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers’ needs.”

In January, unlocking new cellphones became illegal via a decision from the Library of Congress. In short, they reversed their decision to exempt cellphone unlocking from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It’s still legal to unlock phones purchased before January 26th, but doing so on any device purchased after that cutoff mean you could run afoul of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Edelman goes on to explain that the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) previously made their opinion on the matter known – full support for the concept of cellphone unlocking. But that the NTIA’s recommendation was ultimately rejected by the Library of Congress.

The Library of Congress also released a statement.

“The rulemaking is a technical, legal proceeding and involves a lengthy public process,” they said.

And although they recognize that “rulemaking serves a very important function, but it was not intended to be a substitute for deliberations of broader public policy,” it doesn’t look like the Library is planning on fast-tracking the will of the people here (and now the White House).

“Clearly the White House and Library of Congress agree that the DMCA exception process is a rigid and imperfect fit for this telecommunications issue, and we want to ensure this particular challenge for mobile competition is solved,” said Edelman, also noting that the White House respects the process performed by the Librarian of establishing and eliminating exceptions – in this case having to do with the DMCA.

Here’s what the White House says about moving forward:

The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.

We also believe the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with its responsibility for promoting mobile competition and innovation, has an important role to play here. FCC Chairman Genachowski today voiced his concern about mobile phone unlocking, and to complement his efforts, NTIA will be formally engaging with the FCC as it addresses this urgent issue.

Last week, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said that the FCC would be looking into the issue.

Back in January, the Library of Congress decided that the unlocking of cellphones would no longer reside on the exemptions lists for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act – a move that basically turned unlocking cellphones into an illegal activity. As of right now, it’s still legal to unlock phones purchased before January 26th, but unlocking phones purchased past that date will run you afoul of the DMCA.

Of course, many feel that unlocking cellphones should be legal in all respects – it’s their device once they buy it, and it’s that simple.

Late last month, a petition on the White House’s We The People site to make unlocking legal crossed the required signature threshold, which means that the Obama administration is forced (to a certain extent) to issue an official response. While we’re still waiting for that response, today we learn that the Federal Communications Commission will look into the matter.

“The ban raises competition concerns; it raises innovation concerns,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told TechCrunch.

“It’s something that we will look at at the FCC to see if we can and should enable consumers to use unlocked phones.”

At this point, Genachowski isn’t sure about what power the FCC has to enact change in this matter. But they will look into it.

In the meantime, we will wait on the White House’s response. That petition currently boasts over 112,000 signatures.

Back in January, unlocking new cellphones became illegal via decision from the Library of Congress. It’s still legal to unlock phones purchased before January 26th, but doing so on any device purchased after that cutoff mean you could run afoul of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The basis for the reversal of U.S. federal policy was that only software owners (mostly Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.) shoudl have the rights to unlock handsets.

Of course, many consumers strongly disagree and feel as though it’s their right to do whatever they want with a device once they’ve made the purchase. And that’s the feeling behind the petition.

Here’s the full petition, simply titled “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”:

The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.

As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.

Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.

The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.

We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.

The petition currently has 101,000+ signatures, which means that the White House is required to respond. In mid-January, the White House upped the signature threshold to 100,000 from the previous 25,000, in the hopes of weeding out “joke” petitions and make the process a little more credible.

Before this move, there were dozens upon dozens of petitions that hit their goal but were sitting in limbo, waiting for responses.

The cyclical nature of popular tech has been documented in a new infographic from Insurace2go. The information may be popular tech from the UK, but I think you’ll find that it’s largely analogous to popular tech in the U.S. As you’ll see, game consoles and phones have dominated popular tech for the past 30 years with both going in and out of vogue until something new comes out.

The past few years have been dominated by mobile devices like the iPad and the Galaxy Note, so does that mean that game consoles are going to move back in on their turf? Probably not, unless the next PlayStation or Xbox really wow consumers. I’m with Insuracen2go on this one – the next popular technology will involve wearable computing.

According to the court documents, Staley claims that on July 20th, he saw a Metropolitan Police Department cruiser hit a man on a motorbike. As the man lay on the ground, the officers reportedly starting punching the injured biker. Soon after, our two defendants, officer James O’Bannon and officer Kenneth Dean, arrived in plain clothes, announced that they were indeed MPD, and began “aggressively demanding the bystanders leave the scene, including making physical contact.”

Thinking this was improper, Staley took out his phone and snapped a picture of Dean. Shortly after, O’Bannon approached Staley and grabbed the phone out of his hands.

Staley was told that he was breaking the law by taking the photograph and threatened arrest if he didn’t “chill out.” Staley was told that he could pick up his phone at the station later in the day.

But when he did, he found that his memory card was missing. Staley claims that the card stored irreplaceable information, such as pictures of his daughter and other family from 2008 onward.

“That memory card had a lot of my life on it,” said Mr. Staley. “I can never replace those photos of my daughter’s first years. The police had no right to steal it. They’re supposed to enforce the law, not break it.”

The ACLU has stepped in, and here’s what they have to say:

Mr. Staley’s activities on July 20, 2012, did not interfere in any way with police operations. No reasonable police officer in the position of defendant O’Bannon could have believed that he had a lawful basis to seize Mr. Staley’s phone or to threaten to arrest him.

The ACLU is suing on grounds that the officers violated Staley’s First Amendment and Fourth Amendement rights, dealing with freedom of expression and illegal search and seizure.

First, on the First Amendement front:

Defendants’ actions, described above, violated Mr. Staley’s right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by preventing him from taking additional photographs of police activity, by intimidating him from asserting his right to recover his camera and criticize the police, and by destroying the photograph he had taken of Officer 2, as well as many other valuable photographs and expressive material,

And in terms of the Fourth Amendment:

Mr. Staley’s conduct on July 20, 2012, did not provide probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit any crime, and did not provide defendant O’Bannon with any lawful basis on which to seize Mr. Staley’s phone or to search, destroy or dispose of Mr. Staley’s memory card. Defendant O’Bannon’s actions in seizing Mr. Staley’s phone and searching, destroying or disposing of Mr. Staley’s memory card violated Mr. Staley’s right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

The ACLU is seeking the return of Staley’s memory card, compensatory damages, and an order to D.C. Police to train all officers in the First and Fourth Amendment implications of photographing police procedures.

Strangely enough, the events in question took place just one day after the MPD issued a general order concerning the rights of the public to record police business.

“The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) recognizes that members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record MPD members while MPD members are conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space, unless such recordings interfere with police activity,” it states.

It also says that officers “shall not…[i]n any way threaten, intimidate or otherwise discourage an individual from recording members’ enforcement activities” and calls for supervisors to be present before any device is seized.

“When a police officer sees a camera he should smile,” said Arthur B. Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital and the attorney representing Mr. Staley. “Officers must learn that people have a right to photograph them in public places, and that trying to cover up police misconduct is worse than the initial misconduct. The officer’s actions here will have consequences.”

It’s not surprising that some police would have the desire to crack down on citizens photographing or videotaping their activities. The rise of YouTube and social media has meant that actions that were once secret are seen by millions of people within a matter of minutes. American law enforcement has bad apples, there’s no getting around that.

Of course, it’s unfair and just plain wrong to suggest that a majority of police officers around the country are participating in illegal seizures and intimidation surrounding cellphone recording. But orders like the one issued by the D.C. MPD are there to protect citizen’s rights. The ACLU has made cases of illegal search and seizure one of their most important issues, and as more and more citizens gain access to tools like smartphones and wireless internet, it should be shocking if more lawsuits like this one appear on dockets around the country.

[via Wired]

[Image Courtesy vpickering, Flickr]

“Can he get herpes? That’s all that I ask.”

I’m sure I had plenty of other ill wishes for the thief. But I’m pretty sure I never hoped that he would contract Ebola.

Apparently that’s just what happened to one cellphone snatcher in Uganda. The country, which is the midst of an outbreak of the virus, has confirmed nearly two dozen cases so far, with a pretty high death rate. And one of the deceased victims had their phone stolen from the isolation ward at the Kagadi Hospital a couple of weeks ago.

According to the Ugandan Daily Monitor, a 40-year-old man snuck into the ward on August 14th under the guise that he was comforting the many patients. Although he reportedly did comfort some victims, he also took a souvenir on his way out.

Police began tracking the criminal when he began to use the phone to contact friends, but all of the tracking wasn’t really necessary. Soon, the thief was admitted to the hospital with Ebola-like symptoms.

According to police, he handed over the phone and confessed to the theft. He is currently undergoing tests and receiving medication.

Moral of the story: An Ebola ward is no place to go searching for an easy steal. If this isn’t a prime example of karma, I don’t know what is.

[via TIME]

To say the least…

But most butt-dial horror stories involve the disclosure of sensitive information, or in the worst cases an unwilling broadcast of some more…private times. Most butt-dials don’t wind up throwing you in the slammer.

Unfortunately for 24-year-old Justin Kryzanowski of Scranton, Pensylvania, his butt-dial wasn’t most butt dials.

The Times-Tribune is reporting that Kryzanowski is facing possession charges (drugs, paraphernalia, and weapons) after a very unlucky accidental call led police to his door. According to the report, Kryzanowski most an unwitting call to 911 while in the middle of a drug deal. The Lackawanna County dispatch center captured the entire deal on recording, and notified Scranton police of the “open line” to “narcotics activity.”

Police later tracked Kryzanowski to his place of residence. There, they found syringes of Suboxone, various types of prescription medication, paraphernalia, and a set of brass knuckles. They also found Kryzanowski, a little messed up from the drugs.

And sure enough, his cellphone was found to be the one that made the unfortunate 911 call.

Surprisingly enough, this isn’t the first time in recent memory that a butt-dial has led to the foiling of a criminal plot. Back in December of 2011, two men were arrested as they tried to rob a video game store after police listened to them plot the heist for nearly an hour beforehand.

On of the two men had accidentally called 911.

A majority of adults are now using their mobiles to check email or surf the internet.

Pew research also points out that 88% of the adult population in the United States owns a cellphone. Statistically speaking, that means almost half (49%) the adult population is going online via cellphones to check email or use the internet for various purposes.

Sticking with the same theme, over 40% of the respondents from the study said they go online almost daily, or on a typical day. If you refer to the chart below, you can see this mobile internet access trend is growing fast.

Of course, Pew includes all the stats on these folks who are using their cellphones to go online. Take a look at their data on race, gender, income, and several other factors. As usual, they give us a very comprehensive view.