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

141–150 of 284 posts

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

#141

Post by smsm42 »

leetrout wrote: post #128
moxie wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what you're describing, I think you're going to have a tough sell for the merits of this process if the "win" case and the "lose" case have identical outcomes, but differ only in the language that is used.

I think everyone has their expectations set too high for A. what a petition will really achieve and B. that the executive branch has any position to change laws. The parent to your comment seems to sum this up pretty well. So while I see your point that many may view this as ineffective and therefore a loss I definitely consider it a win in agreement with the parent. 1. Petition was made 2. Signature goal was met 3.…

So the argument here is: detractors say petitions are inefficient since no matter what happens with it nothing changes. But we say - look! WH responded! True, nothing changed, but you couldn't expect anything to change from a mere petition! So you were wrong to say nothing would change!

Somehow this argument does not sound convincing. Yes, one shouldn't expect too much from a mere petition - but that's what was said from the very beginning!

As for president's apparent inability to change laws - give me a break. He's the leader of the major US party who just won the elections, he controls the Senate, he has wide range of supporters in the press, he can successfully solicit billions in donations - and he's absolutely powerless to do any effort towards fixing this little thing? Somehow I have hard time believing it.

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

#143

Post by uvdiv »

betterunix wrote: post #88
DigitalJack wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a matter of contract law. If you are no longer obligated by the contract you agreed to, then there should be no barriers to unlocking.

Why should there be any barriers while you are on contract? What if someone wants to use their phone one two different networks for some reason, swapping SIM cards occasionally (OK, I cannot come up with a reason why, but that does not mean no such reason exists)? If you are paying for your service, what's the problem?

swapping SIM cards occasionally (OK, I cannot come up with a reason why

Because if you travel, your contract provider will charge you extortionate fees. It's one of the ways they nickle-and-dime. You can get cheaper plans from foreign telecoms.

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

#146

Post by andybak »

kirillzubovsky wrote: post #95

It is sad how irrelevant "We the people" really is. It gives people an illusion that the government actually cares. The response to this petition is essentially "we agree with you and we will work towards ... {bullshit here}." I signed a few of the petitions to see what would happen, but I think I am going to stop now as it's just a waste of time; a trap, nicely put in place by the administration. The only way petiti…

How do you propose democracy deals with situations like this? I would be wary of asking for more direct democracy without studying those places and times that had this and looking into how that turned out.

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

#147

Post by jamieb »

lysium wrote: post #98
betterunix wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the law protect loss leader strategies? My local supermarket does not get some special legal protection for its loss leader strategy with milk and eggs. What makes cell phone companies worthy of this special protection of their business, which puts independent cell phone stores at a substantial disadvantage?

Aren't airlines providing cheap tickets at a discount rate but with extra restrictions (no baggage, etc.)? Or discounted tickets that cannot be turned back, even when you are sick? I mean, if you don't like that, by an unsubsidized phone. I don't see the special treatment of the cell phone companies.

The difference is that if I choose to fly on a different airline I dont go to jail.

However, even if I continue to pay my monthly bill, as required by the contract, but I unlock my phone so I can use it in Europe, I am guilty of a felony.

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

#148

Post by moxie »

leetrout wrote: post #128
moxie wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what you're describing, I think you're going to have a tough sell for the merits of this process if the "win" case and the "lose" case have identical outcomes, but differ only in the language that is used.

I think everyone has their expectations set too high for A. what a petition will really achieve and B. that the executive branch has any position to change laws. The parent to your comment seems to sum this up pretty well. So while I see your point that many may view this as ineffective and therefore a loss I definitely consider it a win in agreement with the parent. 1. Petition was made 2. Signature goal was met 3.…

Exactly, I just think it's a tough sell when the difference between the non-believer case which sees this as ineffective, and the believer case that sees this as a "win," is sufficiently low expectations about what this achieves (nothing).

The larger question is a tension, not about what this process produces, but about what this process reproduces. The really dangerous aspect of ineffective but affirming processes like these is the implication that We the People have the power no matter how much evidence accumulates to the contrary. It follows logically that when The People don’t affect changes in our system, we must not want to change it. Hypothetically, we believe in justice, freedom, etc. or we would not have formed a democracy. Since we freedom-loving, democratic people would naturally act to end oppression as soon as we found it out, it follows that if a policy, law or practice does not change then it must not truly oppress people.

Clearly, this train of thought has not, does not and will never transport us to a genuinely free society.

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

#149

Post by techpeace »

sneak wrote: post #139
SeanLuke wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I direct your attention to the "industrial" part of the "military-industrial complex" statement. Giant telecoms and media companies, protecting their aging and anticompetitive business models, paid large sums of money to the legislature to get laws passed to make it a criminal offense to circumvent their dying business models and to protect their entrenched positions. So, yes, the reason that we have the DMCA is beca…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

The phrase does not apply to any industry, it refers specifically to the defense industry, of which telecoms are not a part. Otherwise, we could plausibly say that any sufficiently large business in the US is part of the "military-industrial complex," which is not the case.

So it has little, if anything, to do with the military-industrial complex.

Post reply on HN