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

171–180 of 284 posts

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

#171

Post by eli »

moxie wrote: post #93
sinak wrote: post #2

Hey 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.

Honest question: what do you think they should have said that they didn't? (Keeping in mind that the Librarian of Congress doesn't work for the Whitehouse)

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

#172

Post by betterunix »

onedognight wrote: post #156
betterunix wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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).

OK, but you are ignoring the second point: the cell phone company is not issuing a loan to you, they are selling the phone to you at a discount. It is a loss leader strategy, not a financing program.

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

#173

Post by snowwrestler »

moxie wrote: post #148
leetrout wrote: post #128

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.…

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…

There are still disagreements within a genuinely free society, and those are what the government exists to adjudicate.

We The People do have the power, but to exercise it in one's preferred direction, one needs to get most of the People to agree on the same direction and priorities. That is not easy to do, regardless of how self-evident the benefits of a particular policy direction might appear to oneself individually.

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

#174

Post by brownbat »

onemorepassword wrote: post #51
Cushman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

> Power is still in the hands of those who have bought it.

As former Presidents Steve Forbes, Nelson Rockefeller, Ross Perot, Donald Trump, John (Heinz) Kerry, and Mitt Romney clearly demonstrate, money is all that matters in politics.

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

#175

Post by sinak »

moxie wrote: post #148
leetrout wrote: post #128

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.…

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…

So I think we've achieved a "win" in getting the White House to say publicly that they support this. The original petition them to either convince the Librarian to reverse the decision (which I realized at the time was kind of impossible), or to champion a bill in Congress. They aren't quite championing a bill, but the response indicates that "The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes."

I'd much prefer a broad fix, repealing Section 1201 of the DMCA, So that's what I'm working on next. Having the WH says that there are real problems that need to be addressed by Congress seems like a "win" - but perhaps of the milder kind. A loss would have been if they defended carrier/CTIA positions, or simply stated that the Librarian of Congress has authority and that they can't take action. Both of those were definitely a possibility.

Generally, I agree about the danger of affirming processes that don't result in real action. If the bombard-congress-campaign I'm working on at FixtheDMCA.org works, we've got the abstraction in place to let other people create similar campaigns relatively easily. Which will hopefully those freedom-loving, democratic folk get more involved in the political process, which is ultimately what we want.

I think other similar platforms, for example Causes or Change.org fall woefully short in actually affecting change legislatively. Hopefully what we're working on will be better in those regards.

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

#176

Post by pekk »

moxie wrote: post #148
leetrout wrote: post #128

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.…

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…

It isn't reasonable to think that an online petition site created by a presidential administration will directly result in passed legislation without the involvement of Congress.

Publicizing the issue and getting an official favorable response from the President is not actually nothing.

I'm curious what you propose as an alternative, which will allow one individual among several hundred million to feel as if they are politically empowered even when the majority of the country completely disagrees with them, meaning that in reality they have no influence.

Or is the point that special people (you?) should be empowered more than others?

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

#177

Post by AnthonyMouse »

zanny wrote: post #78
onemorepassword wrote: post #51

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…

I agree I don't like the peaceful transition wording. Republicans and democrats collude together, and are both paid off by almost every major company in the US to vote in their favor. Both are owned, both put forth candidates in each district that fit their ideology and interests, and people vote between two politicians groomed to uphold the party line. There isn't a choice. It is why I vote libertarian. But the root…

>Republicans and democrats collude together, and are both paid off by almost every major company in the US to vote in their favor.

Not exactly. There are two things that win elections: Money and votes. And money only because it can be used to buy votes.

When the major parties agree on an issue it's because that issue has a stable equilibrium: Either the parties both side with the electorate or the monied interests because the number of vote-equivalent dollars gained in changing positions is not greater than the number actual votes lost by doing so (or vice versa). So you don't see many politicians seriously advocating legalizing murder or drastically slashing the defense budget, respectively.

But all you have to do to get them to change is to make the number of votes they lose by siding with corporations on a particular issue greater than the amount of money they get by doing so. You don't even have to get the parties to split -- most of the issues they're split on are intentionally wedge issues or detail-free hogwash like "small government" or the vague notion that rich people should pay more taxes. You can actually get them both to start siding with the interests of the people on a particular issue, you just have to make more noise than what the opposing interests are paying in dollars. It has happened before. The establishment of the EPA, the breakup of AT&T, the defeat of SOPA, it's a pretty long list.

But it only happens if we make it happen. We have to make them understand that if they don't do what we want, they lose more votes than the money they're being paid can buy them back. Getting 100,000+ voters to sign a petition that brings the issue to the attention of lawmakers may not be sufficient to achieve that on its own, but it ain't a bad start.

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

#178

Post by britta »

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?

This exemption process is part of the DMCA, and it produces "rules", not as weighty as laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Ac... has an explanation:

> In addition to the safe harbors and exemptions the statute explicitly provides, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) requires that the Librarian of Congress issue exemptions from the prohibition against circumvention of access-control technology. Exemptions are granted when it is shown that access-control technology has had a substantial adverse effect on the ability of people to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted works.

> The exemption rules are revised every three years. Exemption proposals are submitted by the public to the Registrar of Copyrights, and after a process of hearings and public comments, the final rule is recommended by the Registrar and issued by the Librarian. Exemptions expire after three years and must be resubmitted for the next rulemaking cycle. Consequently, the exemptions issued in the prior rulemakings, in 2000, 2003 and 2006 are no longer valid.

For a more authoritative and detailed source, the Copyright Office's rulemaking statement begins with several pages explaining its authority and process: http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/2012-26308_PI.pdf

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

#179

Post by defen »

Cushman wrote: post #26
sneak wrote: post #15

Earlier 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?

> The entrenched powers-that-be are only entrenched because we, as an electorate, keep voting for them.

99.9% of federal employees are not elected. That's the true entrenched power - the permanent bureaucracy. They'll be there regardless of who gets elected.

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

#180

Post by smsm42 »

sneak wrote: post #15
Cushman wrote: 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.

"Military-industrial complex" doesn't vote. People vote. If people refused to vote for congressmen that enact stuff like DMCA, this won't happen. But most of the people think as long as their congressman "brings home the bacon" and doesn't steal too much money and doesn't cheat on his wife (this one is the most important for some reason unless you're Clinton), it's fine.
Post reply on HN