Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Petition to make unlocking phones legal again passes 100,000 signatures

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 171 posts

Re: Petition to make unlocking phones legal again passes 100,000 signatures

#101

Post by coldpie »

chimeracoder wrote: post #76
pessimizer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the guy who signs bills into law, and as the head of his party (meaning that he dictates how they are going to be whipped) he is lawmaker number 1.

> he is lawmaker number 1. The president is a member of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. He signs bills into law in his authority as an executive who will be responsible for carrying out the laws that the legislators write, not as a legislator responsible for creating those laws. You absolutely cannot say that he is "lawmaker number 1", because he's not even a lawmaker. The fact that most presidents…

You might be interested in the phrase "realpolitik". The phrase comes from Germany in the mid-1800s. "Realpolitik" refers to politics as they actually occur, as opposed to the idealized interpretation you were taught in middle school, for example.

America has never in its history operated according to the ideal. It's just easier to become informed in America in 2013 than it was 150 years ago, so the discrepancies between the ideal and the realpolitik are more obvious.

I guess this boils down to whether you find manipulating the realpolitik to be more or less effective than trying to eliminate it.

Re: Petition to make unlocking phones legal again passes 100,000 signatures

#102

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

DigitalJack wrote: post #58
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Since when is the President a 'lawmaker?' Probably since overriding a veto is a lot harder than getting one more Senator to vote for the bill, which means the President has more say in what makes it into law than any individual legislator.

Don't forget signing statements and executive orders.

And political appointees.

Re: Petition to make unlocking phones legal again passes 100,000 signatures

#103

Post by knowaveragejoe »

jobu wrote: post #83

Fast forward to next week: "The White House announces a new threshold of 500,000 signatures before it will respond to online petitions." I was initially enthusiastic about these online petitions, but it doesn't seem like any of them have had an effect.

I'm not sure what people are expecting. All the petitions guarantee is a response from the WH, not action.

Re: Petition to make unlocking phones legal again passes 100,000 signatures

#104

Post by cschneid »

diminoten wrote: post #67

We need to stop calling these "Petition to ". These are not petitions for things to happen. This is not a petition to make phone unlocking legal again, it's a petition for the Whitehouse to write a response. Furthermore, these petitions aren't going to be seen by lawmakers, as someone in the below comment says. Strictly speaking, the President is part of the executive branch, not the legislative branch, so in any eve…

Well, for this specific issue, it was an executive branch decision that allowed, and now doesn't allow unlocking. Laws are often just "hey, executive, do this", and the executive figures it out (see also: EPA, FTC and lots more).

Re: Petition to make unlocking phones legal again passes 100,000 signatures

#106

Post by scarmig »

jobu wrote: post #83

Fast forward to next week: "The White House announces a new threshold of 500,000 signatures before it will respond to online petitions." I was initially enthusiastic about these online petitions, but it doesn't seem like any of them have had an effect.

Hell, 40,000 people are demonstrating on the National Mall about climate change/Keystone XL, getting arrested, and the Obama administration doesn't give a damn. Why the hell would anyone think 100,000 "signatures" on an online petition site would make a difference?

Re: Petition to make unlocking phones legal again passes 100,000 signatures

#107

Post by yakiv »

warfangle wrote: post #51
eshvk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the logic behind corporate financing/lobbying is that if you allow individuals to contribute money separately, there is no reason why organized groups should not band together, analyze the election, choose a candidate and pay $100 for every one of their members to that candidate's campaign. This organized machine is going to always trump a bunch of individuals haphazardly contributing money.

Organizations should not be able to donate to campaigns or political action committees. Unions, superpacs, all of it. If an organization wants to petition its members to donate to a campaign or political action committee, go for it. But it cannot coerce, it cannot apply punitive measures to members that do not donate, and it cannot be a religious institution that receives tax-exempt status.

Why does it matter here if the tax-exempt organization is religious or not? Pretty much every tax-exempt organization is going to have an agenda---if it didn't, it probably wouldn't exist. Why are religion-based agendas less tolerable here?

Re: Petition to make unlocking phones legal again passes 100,000 signatures

#109

Post by declan »

mmanfrin wrote: post #35
riggins wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all 100k people chipped in a $100 I've actually thought for some time this is an area the tech community could make a positive impact addressing the inefficiency of a small focused interest prevailing against a much larger, but unfocused public interest. Thinking more like if 100M people contributed $1 to fund politicians that protect the public interest.

I've been tossing around an idea of setting up a small PAC dedicated to tech issues. It would rate legislators on their stances on issues like net neutrality, patent reform, etc. Additionally, it would have a campaign fund, and each election cycle it would target the most egregiously bad legislators with that campaign fund. I've written some of the code -- but since that time I've learned a lot more so I will probabl…

I wrote a column for CNET 11 years ago titled: "Is it time for a GeekPAC?" Some of the ideas may still be useful: http://news.cnet.com/2010-1023-971115.html

Nowadays you don't want a PAC. You'd probably want to set up multiple organizations including perhaps a 501(c)(4) and definitely a Super PAC expenditure-only committee, which is far more useful than a traditional PAC because it can conduct unlimited independent spending in favor of your preferred candidate (or against your non-preferred candidate).

Traditional PACs, by contrast, can only give $5,000 to a candidate -- they're more useful if you're a company trying to lobby a congresscritter. Their scheduler is going to check to make sure you've given before deciding whether to set up the meeting with the boss, etc. Not as useful if you're an advocacy group trying to influence elections.

Re: Petition to make unlocking phones legal again passes 100,000 signatures

#110

Post by ratherbefuddled »

Nursie wrote: post #89
jobu wrote: post #83

Fast forward to next week: "The White House announces a new threshold of 500,000 signatures before it will respond to online petitions." I was initially enthusiastic about these online petitions, but it doesn't seem like any of them have had an effect.

Are they new? We've had them in the UK starting from about 7 or 8 years ago, unsure if we still do. All that ever happened when one reached the 'must get a response' threshold was some staffer would write a couple of quick sentences about how they weren't going to do whatever the thing was, and how you were wrong for wanting it. Useless exercise all round.

Actually in the UK anything getting 100k signatures is considered for debate in the House of Commons. You can see a list of debates that began in this manner (warning, pdf) here:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/backbe...

Post reply on HN