Let's be honest, who here is actually surprised that underpaid and overworked data workers would sell on our details for a few extra quid? Given the number of uninvited calls to our unlisted phone numbers, we know for a fact that somebody has been dishing our personal contacts to those Nigerian princes and caring loan consolidators, so it's no shock to learn that T-Mobile employees have been fingered for committing the deed and are now facing prosecution. We're told that inappropriately leaked information made its way into the hands of brokers, who then "cold-called the customers as their contracts were due to expire" without T-Mob's knowledge. Disappointed by the failure of current fines to discourage such illegal information trade, British Justice Minister Michael Wills has even called for "custodial sentences" to be levied against the poor slobs responsible. So, if you're scoring at home, that's now two black eyes for T-Mobile when it comes to keeping our data safe. For shame.

Samsung and Qualcomm have wrapped up a cross-licensing deal with ten figures of US currency in it, which will permit the Korean giant to continue producing 3G- and 4G-enabled wireless devices for the next 15 years. In exchange, Samsung is letting Qualcomm make use of its own 57 patents on mobile technology and splashing out a further $1.3 billion as a down payment. Further royalty payments are involved, but not detailed, but just as a reference point, that's more than the new Dallas Cowboys stadium and its ultra-huge scoreboard cost to build. The move is a renewal of the two companies' current arrangement and Samsung has boldly claimed the terms of the new contract are more favorable to it, but we get the feeling the champagne will be flowing in San Diego this week.

[Via MobileTechWorld]

Whoa -- we just got word that AT&T is suing Verizon for false advertising over Big Red's "There's a map for that" ads. We're reading the complaint and motion to stop the ads right now, but here's what AT&T says is the big problem:

In essence, we believe the ads mislead consumers into believing that AT&T doesn't offer ANY wireless service in the vast majority of the country. In fact, AT&T's wireless network blankets the US, reaching approximately 296M people. Additionally, our 3G service is available in over 9,600 cities and towns. Verizon's misleading advertising tactics appear to be a response to AT&T's strong leadership in smartphones. We have twice the number of smartphone customers... and we've beaten them two quarters in a row on net post-paid subscribers. We also had lower churn -- a sign that customers are quite happy with the service they receive.

AT&T also says its network reaches about the same number of people as Verizon's, so we're thinking it's a little miffed that it's being portrayed as an also-ran here. We'll update as we learn more, keep it locked!

Update: So this seems like a very narrow lawsuit, actually. As we've been told, AT&T thinks Verizon is trying to fool viewers into thinking that they can't use any AT&T phone services outside of 3G coverage areas by showing two essentially different maps. Since Verizon's entire network is 3G, the gaps in the red map are actual service gaps -- but Verizon doesn't show that the gaps on the AT&T map might be covered by AT&T's huge 2G network. We can see how that could be misleading, but at some point you've got to compare apples to apples, and AT&T even says it has "no quarrel with Verizon advertising its larger 3G network" in its complaint, so we'll see how the court reacts.

Update 2: Interestingly, Verizon's already changed the ads once at AT&T's behest, editing them to remove the phrase "out of touch" and adding a "Voice and data services available outside of 3G areas" small print disclaimer at the end. Apparently that wasn't enough for AT&T, which says the ads still confuse non-technical viewers into thinking AT&T provides no service at all outside of its 3G coverage.

Update 3: Okay, we've read everything -- there's really not much more to this suit than the arguments over the maps. We're thinking Verizon could have easily dealt with this by just using dark blue and light blue on the AT&T map to differentiate between 3G and 2G coverage, but at this point we don't think Ma Bell is all that interested in anything except getting these ads off the air. All that said, it's hard to deny that Verizon's ads made a perfectly valid point: using an iPhone on AT&T's network in New York or San Francisco is an exercise in frustration, regardless of whether you have 2G or 3G, and we've had zero problems on Verizon. Let's just hope AT&T is working as hard to fight these ads with its actual service as it is with its lawyers.

Police men and women of Blighty are about to step into the 21st century, albeit a decade late, with a new weapon in the fight against boredom on the beat. The BBC reports that smartphones will become standard issue throughout the Queen's realm by March 2010, as a result of successful trials carried out in 30 constabularies through this year. Improved "operational efficiency" and reduced bureaucracy are argued as the key benefits, with a solid 30 minutes less time being spent in police stations each day. And we're absolutely positive that extra half hour will go toward increased "visibility in the community" and not checking out friends' Facebook status updates. No, really!

Read -- BBC report
Read -- Bedfordshire case study

Starting in November, use of your cellphone's GPS navigation capabilities will be illegal for drivers on New Zealand roadways while dedicated SatNav devices without voice capability are still ok. In fact, use of your modern cellphone as an in-vehicle MP3 player, compass, etc. will all be illegal under Road User Amendment Rule 2009. Here's how it reads currently:

"A driver must not, while driving a vehicle, create, send, or read a text message on a mobile phone or make, receive, or terminate a telephone call on a mobile phone or use a mobile phone in any other way."

A law this broad would also make your car's integrated cellphone entertainment system illegal. There are exceptions of course, one of which allows drivers to use a mobile phone to make, receive, or terminate a telephone call if the phone is mounted in the vehicle and the driver "manipulates the phone infrequently and briefly," even though studies have already concluded that hands-free solutions are still distracting and thus, dangerous. Yeah, the whole thing sounds arbitrary, over-reaching, and completely unenforceable to us as well.

Update: Put down the pitchforks and torches, it looks like the law is already en route for amendment to allow cellphone "satellite navigation or music functions."

[Via Stuff, image courtesy of joannapapa5100]

Based on what we're hearing, a slate of soon-to-be-proposed FCC rules may stop the likes of Comcast from discriminating against P2P applications on their networks, and AT&T sure will have a tougher time justifying why it won't let the iPhone's version of SlingPlayer run on 3G while giving WinMo and BlackBerry users all the bandwidth they can handle. Julius Genachowski, the new chairman of the entity, is slated to discuss the new rules on Monday, though he isn't expected to dig too deep into the minutiae. Essentially, the guidelines will "prevent wireless companies from blocking internet applications and prevent them from discriminating (or acting as gatekeepers) [against] web content and services." We know what you're thinking: "Huzzah!" And in general, that's probably the right reaction to have as a consumer, but one has to wonder how network quality for all will be affected if everyone is cut loose to, well, cut loose. Oh, and if this forces telecoms to deploy more cell sites to handle the influx in traffic, you can rest assured that the bill will be passed on to you. Ain't nuthin' free, kids.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

There's already similar laws in place in Japan and South Korea, and New York Representative Pete King is hoping that the US will soon have a law requiring that all cameraphones make a noise when they snap a picture as well. To that end, King has re-introduced the so-called "Camera Phone Predator Alert Act," which was actually first introduced in 2007 but went nowhere at the time. The bill, as the name not-so-subtly suggests, aims to prevent folks from taking cameraphone pictures without others people's knowledge by forcing the phones to make a sound that's "audible within a reasonable radius" and not able to be disabled. Somewhat curiously, however, the bill apparently wouldn't apply to digital cameras and, as blogger Thomas Hawk points out, it also doesn't take video into account, or do anything to address the millions of camera-equipped phones currently in use that are able to snap pictures silently. No word on any movement of the bill just yet, but it has picked up one co-sponsor and, on the odd chance it actually becomes law, it'd be enforced by the Consumer Products Safety Commission.

Brutal honesty here: on election day this past November, the entire Engadget staff (well, those of us with US passports) collectively agreed that casting our vote via SMS or some other incredibly simple method would be infinitely more awesome than trudging out in the streets and waiting in hour-long lines. Clearly, some higher-ups in Estonia are on board with that concept, as its Parliament has approved a law that will likely make it the first nation on Planet Earth to give citizens the right to vote by phone in something that matters (American Idol notwithstanding). 'Course, those who choose to take advantage must first obtain a free authorization chip for their handset, which sort of kills the whole "not having to leave your house" aspect of all this. Ah well, at least we're moving in the right direction.

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]