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

White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

petitions.whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 284 posts

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#51

Post by onemorepassword »

Cushman wrote: post #26
sneak wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. I emigrated from the US after it became clear they weren't going to reinstate the rule of law. Your military-industrial complex is the reason that it's so hard to change things around... there. This is why you have bullshit laws like the DMCA in the first place.

It's not? Normal people abdicating the political process is exactly what hinders change in democracies. We just completed our one-hundred-thirteenth peaceful transition of power at the will of the people. The entrenched powers-that-be are only entrenched because we, as an electorate, keep voting for them. If everybody showed up to the polls, they'd be out in two years— but hey, why bother?

There has been no transition of power. Power is still in the hands of those who have bought it. All democracies are far from perfect, but the US have allowed theirs to be dominated by money from the very foundation.

Even quite corrupt democracies are more open to be changed by popular vote than the US, were not being bought and paid for beforehand means you don't have the means to successfully stand for election.

Hell, even countries where political candidates regularly get murdered stand more chance of peaceful democratic change.

The US political system is a effectively a convoluted equivalent of having a ballot with only one name on it. Only in this case it's a dollar sign. I would be very surprised if this could be overturned by peaceful means, but it will most certainly require extra-parliamentary action, because US democracy has been sold.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#52

Post by onedognight »

rallison wrote: post #32

This is a promising response, although one part is of (possibly unfounded) concern: "And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network." This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted.

> This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted.

You don't really own the phone until the contract that got you the phone is terminated. They agree to buy your phone for you if you agree to n-months of service.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#53

Post by danenania »

SeanLuke wrote: post #38
sneak wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. I emigrated from the US after it became clear they weren't going to reinstate the rule of law. Your military-industrial complex is the reason that it's so hard to change things around... there. This is why you have bullshit laws like the DMCA in the first place.

> Your military-industrial complex is the reason that it's so hard to change things around... there. Wait..., what? The military-industrial complex has something to do with locking cell phones? Are you familiar with the origin of this phrase?

It has quite a lot to do with the corruption of principles that make such legislative absurdities possible.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#54

Post by cube13 »

brown9-2 wrote: post #37
kyllo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can't pass legislation, but it can issue an executive order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order However, an exec order for cell phone unlocking would be a tremendous waste of political capital.

An executive order would also probably be a waste of time because it is irrelevant; the FCC is an independent agency and not directly overseen by the Executive Branch. The President appoints commissioners but Congress has to approve them and they do not report to him/her.

And more importantly, an executive order can be ignored by any subsequent presidency. This change needs to be in law for it to have any teeth.

Unfortunately, that kind of stuff takes time.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#55

Post by metaphorm »

Cushman wrote: post #26
sneak wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. I emigrated from the US after it became clear they weren't going to reinstate the rule of law. Your military-industrial complex is the reason that it's so hard to change things around... there. This is why you have bullshit laws like the DMCA in the first place.

It's not? Normal people abdicating the political process is exactly what hinders change in democracies. We just completed our one-hundred-thirteenth peaceful transition of power at the will of the people. The entrenched powers-that-be are only entrenched because we, as an electorate, keep voting for them. If everybody showed up to the polls, they'd be out in two years— but hey, why bother?

lol. i'm so sorry that you are still under the impression that voting is how you change the system.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#56

Post by rjv »

rallison wrote: post #32

This is a promising response, although one part is of (possibly unfounded) concern: "And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network." This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted.

Meaning you'll have to opt out of your contract (and pay early termination fees) prior to unlocking. At which point, you will have paid for your device in full. I think this is completely reasonable.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#57

Post by akarpenko »

meandthebean wrote: post #46
akarpenko wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice petition, but it didn't go far enough. Why should locking phones be legal at all?

Same reason it's not illegal to sell a closed padlock without a key.

Not quite the same thing, is it? We are comparing huge monopolistic corporations who use an anti-competitive, anti-capitalist technique with selling a primitive mechanical device that doesn't require a network to operate.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#58

Post by duskwuff »

rallison wrote: post #32

This is a promising response, although one part is of (possibly unfounded) concern: "And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network." This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted.

And I see no problem with that. If you're on contract, your cell provider gave you your phone for free (or at a very steep discount) in exchange for your agreeing to use it exclusively with them for the next 1-2 years. Having the phone locked to only work on their network is part of that agreement.

Don't like that part of the agreement? Don't sign it, and pay the full price for the phone.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#59

Post by metaphorm »

JamesCRR wrote: post #3

As a Brit, I'm pretty stunned by the efficacy of the We The People Platform here. Good work democracy.

as an American, I'm glad that we are at least able to get an official response from the White House, but deeply pessimistic about their ability to deliver on the policies they claim to support. this isn't really a win for democracy. its a win for a mass communications platform but it has no real impact on getting shit done. congress is a mess and we're no closer to a solution.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#60

Post by Uchikoma »

Cushman wrote: post #26
sneak wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. I emigrated from the US after it became clear they weren't going to reinstate the rule of law. Your military-industrial complex is the reason that it's so hard to change things around... there. This is why you have bullshit laws like the DMCA in the first place.

It's not? Normal people abdicating the political process is exactly what hinders change in democracies. We just completed our one-hundred-thirteenth peaceful transition of power at the will of the people. The entrenched powers-that-be are only entrenched because we, as an electorate, keep voting for them. If everybody showed up to the polls, they'd be out in two years— but hey, why bother?

There are some that think a two party system isn't democratic at all (Most Europeans, except the UK, but they don't consider themselves Europeans). Others here think parties are not democratic at all (Some Italians for example).
Post reply on HN