Off-topic, but how come they answer so quickly to this one, and not yet to the Aaron Swartz one ?
Because it was easier to answer, I'd guess.
White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
101–110 of 284 posts
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#102Earlier 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?
You are having a laugh! There hasn't been a disruptive presence in US politics since you ganged up with the French because the Brits were charging too much tax (same old, same old).
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cell phone companies get a government granted monopoly on a public resource (spectrum). The cell phone industry wouldn't exist as it is without government interference.
But there is nothing inherent in offering cell phone service as far as locking phones. That's a totally separate issue. I assure you that you could buy an unlocked phone (at full retail) and use it on a network of your choice with an appropriate SIM card. You just don't get the telco to pay for 2/3rds of your phone when you do that.
They pay 2/3 of the phone for your contract, which has nothing to do with locking or you using someone else's sim card.
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#104For those TL;DR'ers out there, here's a summary: The White House understands the petition and claims to agree. However, they aren't going to do anything about it other than wait for the "legislature" to address the issue. You might as well petition the corporate owners of the major cell. carriers, as they are probably the only ones who will do anything about this.
Or you might want to take "DR" less literally and actually read the statement and realize that changing unlocking rules doesn't require legislative intervention. The Library of Congress oversees the designation of DMCA exceptions, and the specific act in question was the non-renewal of an existing unlocking exemption. The LoC stated today (as part of a coordinated response to the petition) that this set of exemptions will be re-reviewed: http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#105The White House answered an entirely different question from the one asked!
Emphasis mine:
* "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."
* "...neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation."
The White House response doesn't support unlocking phones, only unlocking phones after contracts are expired. Which isn't at all what the petition complains about. They evaded it entirely.
No, it's lower than that. They're pretending to agree with the petition, in the tone of their writing; but when you read the fine print, they don't. It's fucking doublespeak.
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Largely, yes, and that is as it should be. It's an agreement between two willing parties with benefit received by both sides. A simple, legal, contract. We're not talking about a legislated monopoly here, like your local power company. No one is FORCING you to go down to your local Verizon reseller and buy a contract phone. You're free to either buy an unlocked smartphone (at full un-subsidized price), or a prepaid p…
I'm with you that you could by a non-subsidized phone. However, one of the points of the petition is that unlocking is currently illegal _even after the original contract has expired_. Why should that be allowed? The original contract is over, after all. No party should have any rights beyond the contract they've agree upon.
Is it illegal as in criminal? Or civil, and you could be sued?
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate to break it to you, but their response was effectively: "we agree with you but we respect the process that brought us to this fucked-up state and look forward to continuing to work with congress". Petitions don't have any effect other than getting a response that's designed to get you to stop complaining from a false sense of achievement. In that sense, they work perfectly.
I spent about 15 seconds clicking on a petition, and the guy who started the petition was able to use that to start a dialogue? If anything, it's remarkable how effective that was. What sort of change did you expect with so little effort? If you've ever done business development, you'd know that opening that dialog is frequently the hardest step. Meaningful changes are carefully considered, and they don't happen over…
"you'd know that opening that dialog is frequently the hardest step."
How true and essentially the value of "connections" I would add. They get the person (you are "selling" to) to at least listen to what you have to say and consider it and to typically be taken more seriously.
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#108Hey guys, petition starter here. Just wanted to thank anyone who signed for their support. I just got off the phone with the White House and they're really enthusiastic about getting this fixed. We also discussed fixing Section 1201 of the DMCA permanently, and they've agreed to continue the conversation on that. When I originally posted this to HN at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5112020 there were a lot of ve…
If you have some information from the phone call that wasn't in the official response, then it's probably worth sharing it here. Otherwise, the official statement seems to absolutely confirm the doubts of the original skeptical responses.
This is as good of a response as you can expect. This is a win. If you expected anything else (sneak, I'm looking at you here too) then you've never received a response from the White House on an issue on which they truly disagree. That letter would have said something like "While we respect your opinion, we believe that the current law best satisfies the needs of blah blah blah."
Here, they are saying: yeah. We agree with you. We don't write the damn laws- but here is what we're willing to sign.
Our job is to get our Senators and Representatives to change the law.
It may not be pretty, and it's certainly not efficient, but this is democracy in action. It requires effort from its citizens in order to work. Not running away.
EDIT: I forgot to add, that I did receive a 'blow it out your ass' response from President Clinton many years ago. He later reversed his stance on the issue, but it was too late for him to affect it and just left it as a recommendation to the next pres- who ignored it.
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate to break it to you, but their response was effectively: "we agree with you but we respect the process that brought us to this fucked-up state and look forward to continuing to work with congress". Petitions don't have any effect other than getting a response that's designed to get you to stop complaining from a false sense of achievement. In that sense, they work perfectly.
Well, I'd argue that cynical responses like these are the most detrimental response of all. Pessimism is not realism. Getting the full verbal support of a second-term lame-duck administration with nothing to lose is not a negligible achievement. Some progress != no progress. You're right that petitions have limited scope and effect, but in successful efforts like these, they can generate publicity and political momen…
>second-term lame-duck administration
The term "lame duck" typically refers to Presidents at the tail end of their term, most often used in the time between an election and a transition of power. That isn't the case here.
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#110The White House answered an entirely different question from the one asked! Emphasis mine: * "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." * "...neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligat…
Agreed. Criminal penalties for unlocking!
Could this be more draconian? Contract law is normally covered by civil penalties. And the current administration supports it.