I was pointed to an article on G+ asking for language when someone takes control of their own computer in a way that is designed to be done by the manufacturer, rather than using an exploit that circumvents the intention of the manufacturer. The term "jailbreaking" and "rooting" are often used, sometimes not differentiating between these very different scenarios.
I prefer to use language that expresses the issue from the point of the owner, rather than third parties including device manufacturers or copyright holders.
A device that is comes unlocked, is designed to be unlockable, or where it is designed for the owner to be able to change the locks, could simply be called non-infringing hardware.
Other hardware where the intention is to block the owner from exercising their basic property rights of being able to control what they own would be infringing hardware.
When an owner makes use of software or hardware which removes a foreign lock from their property, this could be called a TPPM: Technological Property Protection Measure. The intention is to use technology in order to reduce infringements of the owners rights. Examples would include jailbreaking (most often referencing devices Apple has infringed), "Mod Chips" (most often referencing game consoles), or what is sometimes correctly called "rooting" when a security exploit is abused to gain root/administrative control over a computer.
The language of infringement clarifies that this is a moral and legal issue, not a technological one. The technology doesn't know who the owner is, and thus tools to jailbreak/mod/root devices can be used to protect the rights of the owner, or attack them.
This language also puts companies confusing politicians into legalizing or even legally protecting these infringements of owners rights into perspective. We should be offering individuals working for the ESA/ESAC, IIPI, BSA/CAAST or others lobbying in favour of this infringement less respect than they would Kim Dotcom, or the organizers of the Pirate Bay and ISOHunt. These are folks who have no respect for other peoples property rights, and are guilty of direct infringement, contributory infringement, or both.
Note: I wrote more about this infringement in my brief to the committee studying Bill C-11.