We've seen countries institute some pretty weird regulations when it comes to wireless handsets, but this one is apt to seem patently absurd to anyone outside of (and possibly within) Sri Lanka. Government officials are reportedly gearing up to implement legislation that would require handset owners to "to carry a certificate of ownership at all times when carrying their phone around." The new law will hopefully cut down on some terrorist activities that have apparently been going on, but it will also inconvenience quite a few innocent citizens as well. Ah well, at least locals can legitimately ask their mooching friends to get their own without sounding all snobbish.

[Via textually]

We don't usually take much stock in proposed legislation -- Schoolhouse Rock left out the part where lobbyists gut all the good bits -- but we're willing to root for the Wireless Consumer Protection and Community Broadband Empowerment Act, currently on the floor in the House and Senate. The bill, sponsored by Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey, would require carriers to sell contract-free phones, provide rate plan information in a "clear, plain, and conspicuous manner," disclose any phone subsidies hidden in the plan's price, and offer price-comparable plans with no subsidy or early termination fee. That means you'd finally know exactly how much a plan would bill you every month including taxes and fees, it'd be easier to see how much devices like the iPhone are marked up, and most importantly, it'd be way easier to switch carriers to get better deals. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, of which Markey is the chairman, held a hearing on the bill this morning with reps from both the wireless industry and consumer groups present, so progress is being made -- we'll see how things go.

[Via CNET]

Read - Markey's statement to open the hearings
Read - Proposed bill [PDF]

Rest assured, we've seen some brainless criminals in our day, but this one ranks pretty high on the list. Reportedly, a (potentially inebriated) individual waltzed into a police station and frantically announced that his phone had been stolen at gunpoint. When the detective called the number of the phone reportedly stolen, however, a ring was heard from the "victim's" pocket. After pondering what the criminal hoped to gain from the situation, we here at Engadget HQ came up empty, and apparently, the police involved in the situation were equally stumped -- so stumped, in fact, that they issued a statement entitled "Dumbest criminal?" with details of the event in a local newspaper. We'd say that sums it up fairly accurately.

[Image courtesy of FOTW, thanks LordFarkward]

It's not a common occurrence for both sides of a court case to be pleased with His / Her Honor's decision, particularly in the appeal-plagued world of wireless patent law. Well, here's a little breath of fresh air: both Nokia and InterDigital are declaring victory in a ruling put forth by a London High Court, saying that "most" of InterDigital's patents aren't essential to the UMTS standard. Why's InterDigital so amped, then? Turns out that the court did declare one of its patents to be essential, which appears to be the first time that any court has ever declared a company's patent to be inseparable from UMTS itself, the world's predominant 3G standard. The whole ruling stems from a complaint filed by Nokia way back in 2005 as a proactive attack against a potential (and at that time, purely theoretical) InterDigital lawsuit over patent infringement; sure enough, InterDigital ended up filing a motion with the ITC not long ago that prompted an investigation, though this latest court action might throw a wet towel on that whole business. Then again, that one pesky patent that the court left untouched could end up causing a lot of trouble for Nokia -- and any other 3G handset manufacturer, for that matter -- that doesn't care to cough up the licensing fees.

[Via mocoNews]

We already knew that UK motorists caught driving while texting (or vice-versa) could face a penalty of two whole years in the slammer, but now it seems that merely talking while controlling a motor vehicle could land you in the exact same predicament. Reportedly, British drivers caught chatting on a handset or sending an SMS while on the road "could be jailed" under new guidelines that are expected to be published. In the most extreme cases, they could be tagged with "dangerous driving, which carries a two-year maximum sentence and an unlimited fine." Currently, these folks simply get slapped with an "automatic fine and three points on their license under the lesser charge of careless driving." But honestly, it's not like prison would be so bad for cellphone addicts -- after all, we hear some cells over there actually provide service.

[Image courtesy of MotorTrend]

It's still largely unclear just what the heck cellphone-sized doses of radiation do to the human body -- but whatever happens, you've gotta figure those effects are multiplied many times for folks spending their days standing in front of carriers' antenna arrays. An Alaskan equipment installer working for AT&T filed a disability claim against his employer for unspecified health problems caused by ongoing exposure to RF levels above FCC recommendations; eventually, the claim ended up on the docket of the state's Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the employee. We imagine the decision will likely get tied up in further appeals, but if the law ultimately sides with the afflicted worker, this could all spell trouble for carriers whose installers spend much of their time blasted with all manner of airwaves. In the interest of health (or not getting sued, as the case may be), are we looking at more blackouts down the road as transceivers get turned off for maintenance?

It seems three Irish inmates are getting their hands slapped by way of a one-month sentence for unlawful use of a cellphone while in prison. The new law, passed on May 1st this year, makes it illegal for inmates to possess or use a cellphone while in the slammer. Apparently six other men have been nabbed but their cases have been pushed back a few weeks -- and seriously, what's another month in the grand scheme of things? While we understand the need to keep tabs on the criminals, we also understand the need to be able to let your fingers do the walking for late night snacks and, of course, late night missives of love.

[Via textually.org]

We're sure somewhere Drew Curtis's head is exploding over this one: submitted for your perusal, one California State Senator Carole Migden -- former voter for a state bill that fines people for using their cellphones while driving -- rear-ended her state-issued SUV into a Honda sedan on Highway 12 in Solano County, today. While on her phone. The driver of the Honda was taken to the hospital with minor injuries, although the most painful aspect of this story is surely the jaws-of-life-biting irony. Then again, at least we know Midgen's heart is in the right place; like the cleaned-up drug addict invited to tell schoolkids to stay off the dope, surely this morning more than others Midgen felt all the more confident in having voted the way she did.

[Via Raw Feed]

Following up on a prior threat, Washington has put its legislative rubber to the road to become the first state to turn texting drivers into criminals. While the safety of handsfree voice calling continues to be a source of controversy, texting behind the wheel is a pretty boneheaded move any way you slice it -- seeing how it robs you of your eyes, your hands, and your attention -- so we applaud Washington's stance here. For the time being, though, it's more of a symbolic move since the state's politicians gave the law virtually no bite to back up its bark; besides the relatively light $101 fine, DWT is a secondary offense, meaning that a driver already needs to be nailed for something else (say, speeding) to get thrown the book. Maybe a little time in the pokey would get violators on the straight and narrow?

Any Brits reading this will probably already be aware of the occasionally questionable exploits of the "red top" tabloids, but for those that prefer not to take their tea with crumpets, the news that Clive Goodman, a journalist for the UK Sunday tabloid the News of the World, was found guilty and sentenced to four months jail time for intercepting over 600 phone messages left for three senior officials in the royal household will probably come as a mild shock. To British readers, the fact that a tabloid hack was willing to go to such lengths in order to provide such thrilling exclusives as the "news" that Prince William casually asked an ITV reporter to borrow a video editing suite won't be a surprise at all. Perhaps the most depressing fact in this case is the complete incompetence of the assailants: Mr. Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire -- the freelance investigator who was sentenced to six months prison time for his role in this plot, and for independently tapping several other notable figure's phones -- illegally and recklessly accessed voicemails before the rightful owners had retrieved them. If there's any good to come out of this case, it'll be a tightening of the security at the network operators that provided the royal official's mobile phones: apparently Mulcaire somehow managed to obtain the passwords "issued by the mobile phone companies to their own security staff. This allowed him, having obtained the mobile phone numbers of his targets, to call customer services and to obtain the voicemail retrieval numbers." We don't know whether to be flattered by the fact that royal staff slum it with the rest of us by using the same mobile phone networks that us "commoners" do, or to freak out at the lax security exercise by the unnamed network operators.

[Via Boing Boing]

In a decision being touted by prosecutors as a major victory in the war on inmate cellphone usage, jurors slapped Texan Michael Manor with a surprising 40-year sentence for what they considered the very serious crime of possessing a cellphone in prison. Manor, who was already serving 32 years on auto theft charges, was not even charged with using the phone for criminal purposes; rather, the long sentence comes as a result of a new zero-tolerance cellphone policy in the Texas prison system, where the offense was recently given third-degree felony status. Corrections offers are also a target of the crackdown, with prosecutors promising to bring offenders in front of juries instead of offering them probation, although there are concerns that the stricter penalties may actually make smuggling appear more lucrative.

[Via textually]