The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates • Hacker News Board

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#121

Post by nickff » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 9:36 PM UTC

wfo wrote: post #109

nickff wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why must you accuse your intellectual opponents of being mean and evil? Why would they be so cruel and irrational? Do you have any real reason to believe you are any better than them?

Because it takes a whole lot of energy to constantly invent imaginary earnest justification after imaginary earnest justification for a group of people who consistently come out against making life better for the less fortunate at every turn. No matter the cost or savings or lack of either, no matter the circumstance -- it's always vote against the interests of the disadvantaged. And it doesn't help when it's literal…

>"I get that it's easy to say it's always a mistake or oversimplification to call a group of people evil, but what if they actually are?"

How do I know you are not evil? You say that the conservatives are trying to persecute the disadvantaged, but you could be accused of pursuing authoritarianist populism.

Emotional screeds like this convince no one; perhaps this is a self-satisfying venture, or it may be an attempt to signal your loyalty to a cause, but either way, it is entirely useless to anyone except you.

If you want to argue against someone, please pick a logical framework, and go with it. From what you've written, it seems you have utilitarian leanings; there are points for and against this vote in that paradigm, and it would be interesting to read an exposition of them.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#122

Post by grecy » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 9:36 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #6

I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. Now if they had an alternative proposal that required prisons to have two or more vendors, I'd be totally onboard with not setting an artificial price restriction. Since…

>I don't understand why the Republicans voted against.

It's very simple, they support businesses making a ton of money. They don't care about competition, they don't care about regulation, they don't care about fair.

They care about businesses making a boat load of money. End of story.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#123

Post by icebraining » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

discardorama wrote: post #72

Someone1234 wrote: post #6

I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. Now if they had an alternative proposal that required prisons to have two or more vendors, I'd be totally onboard with not setting an artificial price restriction. Since…

> I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. > Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. I hate to say this, but: most Republicans are not pro-competition. They're very happy helping the government put in place monopolies, and milking that monopoly status…

The economist Luigi Zingales likes to say he's "pro-market, not necessarily pro-business." Most Republicans seem to defend the opposite.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#124

Post by intopieces » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #98

intopieces wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow why the system has to be so complex. Why not just block access to Instagram entirely? China does, and they seem to be satisfied with the results. I don't forsee prison inmates getting access to VPNs. As other users have proposed, a locked-down version (not 'unfettered') of the web seems like a reasonable compromise.

Because "you have unfettered access to the internet, except for the parts of the internet with other people" doesn't really work. It's so stupid that pretty much anyone who hears it will immediately realize it doesn't work. We're trying to prevent prisoners from communicating. The internet is a tool the sole purpose of which is communication. To be remotely plausible, you'd have to use a very restrictive whitelist ap…

> To be remotely plausible, you'd have to use a very restrictive whitelist approach, something like "you are allowed to send email (through the prison's forwarding server) to the following addresses".

TRULINCS appears to work like this. [0]

I think a lot of the hesitation surrounding a system for giving inmates additional access to the Internet focuses on the premise that all inmates would get access at once, or all the time. But that's not necessary. It could used as a reward for good behavior. Basic monitoring technology already exists, and humans could be employed if absolutely necessary. Additionally, it's easy to know who committed what crime and disqualify them if they're likely get up to no good.

[0] http://wysk.lamp.uscourts.gov/ex-offender-suggestions/trulin...

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#125

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 9:48 PM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #62

smt88 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone else said, the FCC isn't created or controlled by the executive branch. Many decisions with a "legislative character" are, however, made by the executive branch through executive agencies (Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Homeland Security, etc.) These agencies only exist with the blessing of Congress, though, so they technically derive their power from the legislative branch. If that sounds weird, it is. The…

It's frustrating how much Congress has ceded to these agencies. it's a loophole in democracy.

> It's frustrating how much Congress has ceded to these agencies.

It hasn't ceded any; Congress retains all legislative power. Regulatory power is a delegation (and the degree to which power can be delegated is limited), not a cession.

> it's a loophole in democracy.

It may not be something you like, but I don't think its really anything other than the system working as designed; executive agencies making decisions within parameters set by Congress through legislation, including decision that involve notice of predictable ways that executive power will be applied, within the limits set by legislation, in future cases (i.e., regulation) was not an idea that the founders would have been surprised by.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#126

Post by scottshepard » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 9:49 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #95

linksbro wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how I understand how an independent commission created by congress to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges"[1] is increasing the scope of their authori…

If you read the commission's charter broadly enough, and without regard to either the original understanding or the original intent, you come to all kinds of absurd conclusions. From the text you provided, one could, for instance conclude that the FCC has the authority to issue regulations which require parents to provide all children above the age of two with a cellphone capable of high-speed internet access with no…

Except that prisoners are a captive audience, being held by the Government, and the phone companies get a monopoly on an essential good. So a federal regulatory body absolutely makes sense.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#127

Post by wfo » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 9:51 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #121

wfo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it takes a whole lot of energy to constantly invent imaginary earnest justification after imaginary earnest justification for a group of people who consistently come out against making life better for the less fortunate at every turn. No matter the cost or savings or lack of either, no matter the circumstance -- it's always vote against the interests of the disadvantaged. And it doesn't help when it's literal…

>"I get that it's easy to say it's always a mistake or oversimplification to call a group of people evil, but what if they actually are?" How do I know you are not evil? You say that the conservatives are trying to persecute the disadvantaged, but you could be accused of pursuing authoritarianist populism. Emotional screeds like this convince no one; perhaps this is a self-satisfying venture, or it may be an attempt…

I could be accused of many things. I didn't say they are trying to persecute anyone (though I think there's an argument to be made there), I said they obstruct efforts to help those who need it. And they undeniably do. Their justifications are the only facts of the matter which are up for debate. And I'm not intending to win over high ranking members of the republican party; rather establishment sycophants and independents and some left-wing people who feel some ridiculous need to always be considered "fair" or "balanced" -- there is an inclination among those who ask to be considered intelligent to always assume the correct answer lies in the middle of the two positions they are presented with. This is a fallacy and a dangerous one: sometimes one position is simply wrong, or put forth by dishonest or disingenuous or careless or misinformed people. And the "level-headed, thoughtful even handed" position of supposing the correct answer to always be in the middle forces each position to a further extreme in order to push the middle over further and further to their side.

My post was not particularly emotional; it's not really necessary to attack it by claiming so: claiming you are the logical reasonable one and I am being hysterical is a cheap schoolyard tactic and I'm not particularly moved by it. You asked a question and I answered it.

I intended with my post to defend the notion of unconditional rejection of a position or of an ideology or of a political group; we are allowed to just say that they are wrong. We aren't obligated to constantly justify their positions and look for ways in which they are right -- in fact if we do this we will be taken advantage of and it will cause even more extremism and polarization.

I despise utilitarianism and I'm not quite sure how you inferred I was one from my post.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#128

Post by barkingcat » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 9:55 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #122

Someone1234 wrote: post #6

I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. Now if they had an alternative proposal that required prisons to have two or more vendors, I'd be totally onboard with not setting an artificial price restriction. Since…

> I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. It's very simple, they support businesses making a ton of money. They don't care about competition, they don't care about regulation, they don't care about fair. They care about businesses making a boat load of money. End of story.

Modification: they care about businesses that support conservative candidates making a boat load of money.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#129

Post by smt88 » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 9:59 PM UTC

intopieces wrote: post #88

smt88 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That software (whatever is used by China and Iran) is designed to tell the difference between parts of the web that are political and parts that aren't. It isn't designed to tell whether Inmate X is flooding Victim Y's Instagram with veiled threats. You'd have to create an incredibly complex system of rules for each individual inmate in order to do anything close to being effective, and even then, you'd require a lev…

I'm not sure I follow why the system has to be so complex. Why not just block access to Instagram entirely? China does, and they seem to be satisfied with the results. I don't forsee prison inmates getting access to VPNs. As other users have proposed, a locked-down version (not 'unfettered') of the web seems like a reasonable compromise.

You can't prevent access to any social network that has an API, which Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter have. The connection the social network happens on the server side, where the filter can't get it.

Further, you can't prevent access to email for the same reason.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#130

Post by smt88 » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 10:02 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #107

smt88 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be the harm in doing it and then seeing if the courts struck it down? That's done in politics all the time. Their explanation was just a smokescreen. It's politically dangerous as a Republican to look like you have compassion for convicted criminals.

> What would be the harm in doing it and then seeing if the courts struck it down? That's a pretty terrible way to run a government. When you elect someone you expect them to follow the law and do their job. Not just do anything they want and say "it's fine, if we are wrong the court will fix it".

> That's a pretty terrible way to run a government. When you elect someone you expect them to follow the law and do their job.

Whether or not it's terrible, it's the system of checks and balances that was envisioned by the founders of the United States. It's exactly how our government has (and does) run for its entire history. The courts exist for this purpose.

"Follow the law" is not cut-and-dried. Statutes can be interpreted any number of ways, and very little common law is set in stone. Even common law created by the Supreme Court (e.g. Roe v Wade) it incredibly controversial and could be challenged again.