Live data from Hacker News

White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

petitions.whitehouse.gov

151–160 of 284 posts

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

#151
post #139

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…

[deleted]

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

#152
post #19
post #6

Earlier 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…

[deleted]

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

#155
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You need to understand that nothing could change. The White House has responded that they are on our side. Obama is not a tsar: he can't go in and change the law. So to detractors, I say: You turned the key in the ignition and the car started. You still have to drive the damn thing to get where you need to be.

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

#156
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason you pay sales tax on a car you finance. Just because you are paying for the phone over 2 years does not mean that you get to defer sales tax.

(1) You can sell a car you financed to someone else, even if they buy their gas from a different gas station. (2) You are not taking out a loan on the phone. You are paying a discounted price for it in exchange for signing a contract for service. You bought the phone when you paid the sales tax.

> (1) You can sell a car you financed to someone else, even if they buy their gas from a different gas station.

Yes, but you must pay off your loan (the early termination fee) first and then you own the car and can sell it (i.e. as Obama suggested, after your contract ends).

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

#157
post #110
post #105

The 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.

Tripartism [1] and neo-corporatism [2], for the win again.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

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

#158
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Hel…

This goes for all of you: Bullshit. Learn some recent political history, starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#2010_electio... The Tea Party didn't sweep because they had money (although they did), but because they got people to vote . They were elected with a mandate to destroy the Federal government, and by God, they almost pulled it off. Whether you're progressive or libertarian, the reaso…

The tea party isn't a great example at arguing against the effectiveness of money in politics, as the entire movement was partially founded on astroturfing done by Koch Industries and big tobacco. Now I wouldn't go so far as to write the movement off as an example of "democracy not working" or what have you, as the tea party had it's share of honest grassroots self-organization, but it isn't fair to say it developed independently from moneyed interests.

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

#159
post #15
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he just got off the phone with the White House, I'd imagine he has a pretty good idea of what their response was. Your cynicism is a big part of the reason it's so hard to change things around here.

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.

Sorry to break it to you, but this response is completely in line with the rule of law - the Administration is bound to follow the laws passed by Congress, even if they disagree with those laws.

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

#160
I disagree. If you made an agreement not to unlock the phone as a condition of purchasing it, then people should honor their agreements!

Buy from a carrier that lets you unlock the phone. If that carrier does not exist, and there truly is a market demand for this, then start a cell phone carrier.

Post reply on HN