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

131–140 of 171 posts

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

#131

Post by lotu »

jlgreco wrote: post #118
ajross wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of effect were you expecting? The president promises to do whatever you want as long as you get N "signatures" on a weakly authenticated website? Even if you got those N people to all show up in person at the White House door, wrapping policy around the desires of a vocal minority is not a valid or just way to structure a government. They promised to respond, which is about all they can promise. And this gi…

> Basically this is a tool to better inform policy decisions No, it is actually a safety valve. If the public gets a little too agitated about anything they can go sign a petition to let of some steam. This petition site furthers couch-potato politics; it enables people to 'do their bit' without actually moving their ass. It neutralizes those who are naturally prone to apathy already.

Bullshit, the idea that this website is just a plane to place and pacify the public is simply silly. First the issues handled on this site are not the type that will spill out into the streets if ignored people simply will not riot over being unable to legally unlock their phones (this is the definition of a first world problem b.t.w.).

The fact of the matter is their aren't any looming issues facing the US that are likely to result in widespread riots today. But let's assume we are back in the 1950s during the Civil Rights Movement, I can't imagine a non-reply to a "We the People" petition doing anything to quell the Civil Rights Movement. Frankly, I suspect it would just further fan the flames.

The only way I could see this working as a "safety value" is if people confuse signing an online petition with actually voting. Something I find unlikely. Now if the government uses the site inform their opinions of the populace and shape their actions this could influence policy but only if it has been shown that if you oppose a petition than you will get voted out next election. The elderly are great at doing this which is why no one touches Social Security and Medicare. A lot of people think the Internet is a representative sample of the general population, and if something is massively popular online than the fact the the government isn't doing is means that they are usurping the will of the people.

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

#132

Post by btilly »

pessimizer wrote: post #47
btilly wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The President is not the head of the party (Debbie Wasserman Schultz is to the extent that the position exists), nor is he in charge of whipping people (for the Democrats that's Steny Hoyer right now). He admittedly does have a huge bully pulpit. A defined legislative role. And he does personally lean on representatives. But the US has absolutely nothing equivalent to the organization and party discipline that countr…

The chair of the DNC is not (even a little bit) the leader of the party, and the Whip is not the person who determines what policy people are to be whipped to. A sitting President is always the head of their party.

Citation needed.

My understanding of US political parties says that they do not have a rigid structure nor a single head. Indeed if you look through the section on the structure of the Democratic Party on Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States... - really, go look) you won't find Barack Obama's name anywhere in that section.

The President has a huge bully pulpit. He is in charge of one of the 3 branches of government. The public hears and sees the President.

But the President does not run the party.

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

#133

Post by jacoblyles »

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 keeping track of people who are actually doing politics in Silicon Valley, as well as running a group of my own (http://www.meetup.com/Politihacks-of-Silicon-Valley/). Outside of politihacks, these guys seem interesting: http://engine.is/

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

#134

Post by [deleted] »

scarmig wrote: post #106
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?

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by jacoblyles »

scarmig wrote: post #106
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?

Obviously there's other political considerations going on besides demonstration size. The March for Life draws ~300,000 people every year, but I doubt the Obama administration changes its position on abortion anytime soon.

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

#136

Post by CamperBob2 »

pyre wrote: post #113
betterunix wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since at least 1970, when the Controlled Substances Act gave the executive branch of government the power to declare drugs illegal without involving Congress.

Cool, that applies in this situation, how?

Inability to exercise abstract thinking is a big part of what got us into this mess. It's all well and good when an executive power grab results in an outcome that you agree with, after all.

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

#137

Post by jlgreco »

lotu wrote: post #131
jlgreco wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically this is a tool to better inform policy decisions No, it is actually a safety valve. If the public gets a little too agitated about anything they can go sign a petition to let of some steam. This petition site furthers couch-potato politics; it enables people to 'do their bit' without actually moving their ass. It neutralizes those who are naturally prone to apathy already.

Bullshit, the idea that this website is just a plane to place and pacify the public is simply silly. First the issues handled on this site are not the type that will spill out into the streets if ignored people simply will not riot over being unable to legally unlock their phones (this is the definition of a first world problem b.t.w.). The fact of the matter is their aren't any looming issues facing the US that are…

You are the one talking about riots, not me.

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

#138

Post by superkarn »

jlgreco wrote: post #122
jdechko wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem is that there are too many congress people. We have 535 congress members trying to come to an agreement on important things like actually developing a working budget. Can you imagine over 5,000 people voicing opinions on what a budget ought to look like?

Then maybe we should consider the possibility that it doesn't make any sense to have a country this large. Why should people living in Florida have any say whatsoever into the affairs of people living five thousand miles away in Alaska? Why vice-versa? How does that make any more sense than people in London having a say in the lives of people three thousand miles away in Boston?

Isn't that why we have states?

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

#139

Post by Trezoid »

breckenedge wrote: post #29
speeder wrote: post #12

This is something that I like in Brazillian laws, in Brazil carriers are supposed to always provide "portability", this mean that you can keep your phone numbers when you change your carrier. The "portability" laws, also say that the carriers themselves have to unlock your phones if you want to change carrier. This ensures that a carrier cannot make you locked to them by using phone lock or number lock. It is highly…

In the US, we also get to port our numbers to new carriers. It's been this way for a while. Do Brazilian carriers offer contract-subsidized phones? Many carriers here will unlock your phone once your contract is complete. See AT&T's unlock details at [1] [1] https://www.att.com/deviceunlock/client/en_US/

In Australia we have number portability and while we have contract subsidized phones they are legally required to be free and simple to unlock. For an iPhone, for example, you just run the reset in iTunes and the phone's unlocked.

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

#140

Post by jlgreco »

superkarn wrote: post #138
jlgreco wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then maybe we should consider the possibility that it doesn't make any sense to have a country this large. Why should people living in Florida have any say whatsoever into the affairs of people living five thousand miles away in Alaska? Why vice-versa? How does that make any more sense than people in London having a say in the lives of people three thousand miles away in Boston?

Isn't that why we have states?

Yes.

Nevertheless, people in Florida are able to exert control over people in Alaska, and vice versa. That seems incredibly absurd to me, what do they share beyond a common language and currency? Even the distance between Portugal and Finland is only half of that, and the EU is rather different than the US Federal Government.

If we all needed to band together to increase our military might in order to keep razing hoards of Canadians at bay, then I may see the need for it, and clearly the importance of common travel and trade agreements cannot be overstated, but right now our system enables politicians elected in flyover country to tell people living in Portland what they may or may not do in the privacy of their own home. The opposite is equally unfair. Where is the value in that?

These are different communities, different regions, different societies being forced to play politics with each other. If we need to start sacrificing the quality of the democracy (reducing representation per individual) in order to keep a system so absurd running smoothly, then it should be downsized.

Chop it all in half, or more, until the size of it resembles a more reasonably sized country. Two to four federal governments instead of one would make more sense. Representation per individual could increase back to previous levels without resulting in deadlock.

Lest I come off the wrong way, my problem is not that the Federal government is strong, but rather that the Federal government covers a regions and people too diverse. I'm not a "state's rights" nut, just a Cascadia nut.

Post reply on HN