White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal” • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by sneak » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 9:14 PM UTC

techpeace wrote: post #149

sneak wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Uhh, okay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

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

#162

Post by spwestwood » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 9:16 PM UTC

JamesCRR wrote: post #3

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

The UK version has a much worse design:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/departments

Responses are guaranteed after 10k signatures, which is a bit more achievable than the (current) 100k in the US. If they get to 100k then they have to be debated in parliament.

Highest number of signatures is for saving badgers. Which seems very English :)

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257

Started by (now Dr) Brian May.

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

#163

Post by zem » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 9:17 PM UTC

readme wrote: post #126

uvdiv wrote: 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…

Have you considered that maybe they just overlooked the inconsistency you found? Never attribute to malice what you can to ignorance.

well, someone had to have put that phrase in there deliberately. your contract is an agreement to pay the cellphone carrier a certain monthly fee for a certain number of months, with early termination fees written in, all of which you are already bound to by civil law. it should have nothing to do with phone unlocking.

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

#164

Post by argumentum » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 9:19 PM UTC

As the DMCA is a federal statute, what the White House should have said at the end, is, quite simply .. we will not be enforcing any related complaints. Unlock away.

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

#165

Post by coffeemug » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 9:21 PM UTC

When I train our employees to respond to customer support issues, I always make sure that in every response they do as much as possible to "drive an issue to a close". Not every issue can be fixed, but at the very least we can give the user a clear understanding of a) precisely what the state of affairs is and why, b) whether or not we can fix it and why, c) if we can fix it, who's responsible for the fix and when it's likely to make it into mainline and d) if we can't fix it, what the workaround is.

We never ever just say "we agree with you". It's always "we agree with you, and here's how Bob is going to fix this by March". I know that the political machine is much more complicated then a startup of 12, but they don't even try. After having read the whole thing, I'm left with no more understanding of where things are going than I did before I read it.

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

#166

Post by jgross206 » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 9:22 PM UTC

gesman wrote: post #144

Why the *uck Librarian [of Congress or anything else] should be empowered to make the federal laws that can put people in jail? Aren't librarians are supposed to manage books?

does it matter what his title is? he's appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate

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

#167

Post by lwat » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 9:23 PM UTC

readme wrote: post #126

uvdiv wrote: 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…

Have you considered that maybe they just overlooked the inconsistency you found? Never attribute to malice what you can to ignorance.

There's zero chance the white house overlooked anything accidentally here. These responses are VERY carefully crafted and reviewed by dozens of lawyers and other white house staff.

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

#168

Post by gesman » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 9:24 PM UTC

jgross206 wrote: post #166

gesman wrote: post #144

Why the *uck Librarian [of Congress or anything else] should be empowered to make the federal laws that can put people in jail? Aren't librarians are supposed to manage books?

does it matter what his title is? he's appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate

Sorry, just confusing title.

Next we'll be following orders issued by the Janitor General, I guess.

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

#169

Post by icelancer » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 9:24 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #91

onli wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the person who wins the election becomes the person in power, every time. That is a joke, isn't it?

Well, almost every time. Shit does happen. But no, I would seem to be the shockingly uncommon American who has some measure of faith in the process of self-governance that has seen us through the last two hundred thirty years.

Why are you so sure this concept of self-governance is what has kept the peace, and not, for example, some other forces involved? Why must we give all credit to the public sector?

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

#170

Post by eli » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 9:27 PM UTC

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #76

TylerE wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it be illegal ? We really, really, really don't want government interference in voluntary private contracts.

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.

This isn't really about cell phones, it's about copyright and how copyright laws apply to physical devices that you own. The fact that the devices in question happen to use public airwaves is incidental. IMHO, I should be able to hack my WiFi-only iPad and my XBox without risking criminal prosecution.