What's wrong with it? Apple (and many others) are using federal criminal laws to enforce their business model. It is very possibly a criminal act to unlock your iPhone. Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a business model?
The gated community you refer are not using criminal laws; just civil contracts to enforce the position.
IANAL, but I'd suspect it becomes criminal trespass once you're lease is terminated. FWIW, here in the UK there is always the possibility of going to jail if you paint your house pink: http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3118
Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a business model?
So far as I can tell they haven't. And, yes, the judicial system will get involved if you run afoul of your gated community's regulations: you'll be evicted by an officer of the law, and you'll be arrested and jailed if you attempt to remain in your former home after the eviction.
The threat of imprisonment is not a deterrent for millions of people to have unlocked phones??
Don't confuse the home ownership issue. The actions you are talking about (law officers arresting you) come after a civil process is lost. Such civil processes must be instigated at the cost of the plaintiff, not the government.
Apple, and anyone else locking devices are relying on the threat of criminal penalties. It is enough that the act of unlocking the phones is illegal and closes off competition. If it were not for laws that provide for these penalties, there would be a huge secondary market of unlocked devices, instead of the grey/black market that exists.
Apple, and anyone else locking devices are relying on the threat of criminal penalties.
As they say on Wikipedia: "citation needed". Last I checked Apple hadn't bothered going after anyone who'd unlocked their phone, or even anyone who'd distributed tools for unlocking phones. Also, it's questionable that the law would even support that -- there's a DMCA exemption for cell-phone unlocking, for example, which means the only likely grounds for going after someone would be civil proceedings based on breach of user agreements.
Which means that, um, you're spouting off a bunch of hyperbole unrelated to actual reality.
I live in a reality where I can read public U.S. documents.
Here's one where Apple requests to keep it a criminal act to unlock an iPhone:
"Apple Inc. submits this responsive comment in opposition to proposed Class #1 contained in
proposed exemptions labeled 5A and 11A3 submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation"
To date, it is legal for an "individual" to unlock their phone (an iPhone's additional behavior, not so certain) but it is still a criminal act to provide services or create tools to assist such acts. The fact that the government isn't currently prosecuting does not make the threat any more real. The threat keeps the unlocking market from being legitimate and pervasive. The current Copyright Office exemption only applies to a narrow range of activity leaving wholesale unlocking a gray/black market.
You can see the most recent EFF request is September, 2009. It seems pretty clear the status of jailbreaking is still up in the air.
It took me one Google search to find dozens of quality sources of information on this topic. Next time, please do your own search before publicly accusing someone of being disconnected from reality.
The gated community you refer are not using criminal laws; just civil contracts to enforce the position.