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

191–200 of 284 posts

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

#191

Post by moxie »

pekk wrote: post #176
moxie wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just the opposite. What I'm suggesting is that it's better to recognize the lack of agency we have than to reproduce processes which give us a false sense of agency.

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

#192

Post by tunesmith »

I agree with the skeptics that the petition was not a sufficient condition to affect change. However, I do not believe the petition starter ever claimed that the petition would be sufficient.

I also agree with the petition starter that the petition might prove to be a necessary condition to affect the change. It is too early to tell, but this is a good start.

I don't agree with anyone that claims that since a petition is not sufficient, it's a waste of time. That's just lazy fatalism.

Heck, even lobbyists start with conversations that don't go anywhere. The trick is what happens next, that might not have happened if not for the initial conversation.

The other day I downloaded a new programming framework and spent 30 minutes learning it, but it didn't turn into an award-winning website product. So clearly those 30 minutes were a waste of time I guess.

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

#193

Post by AnthonyMouse »

dfxm12 wrote: post #127
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…

Usually, when you become bound by a service agreement, you get a phone at a $200 discount. The fine print generally lets you break this service agreement - for a $200 fee. I agree the "other obligation" bit is vague, and thus scary. Obviously, the phone seller would like to nickle and dime you throughout the length of a 2 year service agreement, but when you enter a service agreement, you are entering a contract that…

The wrong part is thinking that imposing criminal penalties for what amounts to breach of contract is at all a reasonable outcome.

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

#194

Post by snowwrestler »

obviouslygreen wrote: post #31
JamesCRR wrote: post #3

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

Hold that thought. If something actually happens , then I as a citizen of the USA will tentatively join you in your shock and awe. It would almost certainly be the first time something tangible and beneficial came from this. The experienced cynic in me also says it would probably be the last time, as it would be a clear symbol to our many lobbies that this platform is a serious threat to their continued profit glut.

A statement of policy by the White House is something tangible and beneficial. It might not seem like much, but it is. During the SOPA fight the White House did nothing more, but it went a long way toward changing the tone of that conversation in Washington.

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

#195

Post by jussij »

brownbat wrote: post #174
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…

> 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.

You have to look know futher than to the likes of Jack Abramoff to know US government is controlled by money:

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

Just one example from the link:

> Abramoff and his law firm were paid at least $6.7 million by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) from 1995 to 2001, which made manufacture goods with the "Made in the USA" label but is not subject to U.S. labor and minimum wage laws.

What’s good about that one is it went on for years and all the politicians knew about it.

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

#196

Post by cgio »

ynniv wrote: post #39
jvrossb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you emigrate to?

Neukölln, Berlin, Germany [ https://twitter.com/sneakatdatavibe ]

I hope you do not get too dizzy by the swings on the cradle of democracy and peace that you moved to. How would someone compare democracy in the States with that in Germany is beyond me. People tend to forget very easily.

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

#197

Post by crusso »

GabrielF00 wrote: post #5
HarryHirsch wrote: post #4

What's this fuss about petitions? Last time I checked, the form of government in the US was a republic, that is the offices of government are appointed by and derive their legitimacy from the people as a whole. We as a people should not have to petition the White House to grow sense and pass sensible laws, in the way one petitions a monarch. This is the wrong way of combating the laws that come out of Congress thanks…

Its in the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances .

The first amendment reference to "petition" has nothing to do with the form of the request. It's all about the RIGHT to complain about the government itself and to request a solution from it without reprisal.

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

#198

Post by rayiner »

moxie wrote: post #121
dhimes wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is as good of a response as you can expect. This is a win. If you expected anything else (sneak, I'm looking at you here too) then you've never received a response from the White House on an issue on which they truly disagree. That letter would have said something like "While we respect your opinion, we believe that the current law best satisfies the needs of blah blah blah." Here, they are saying: yeah. We agre…

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.

> merits of this process

I can't really imagine a more effective outcome in any representative democracy of 300 million people where 99% of them don't give a shit about your "right" to tinker with your cell phone.

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

#199

Post by socialist_coder »

ynniv wrote: post #39
jvrossb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you emigrate to?

Neukölln, Berlin, Germany [ https://twitter.com/sneakatdatavibe ]

Same here. Berlin is absolutely awesome. My wife and I came back to the US this winter to visit with family so they could meet our new baby. The longer I'm back in the US though, the more I miss Berlin.

If anyone is in the video game industry and wants to try and move to Berlin, this is a pretty good company who is hiring right now: http://www.yager.de/career/

The way I immigrated was by having a baby with a German. That allowed me to get a work permit / permanent resident status without any hassle at all.

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

#200

Post by rayiner »

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…

> We the People

You're confused about who "We the People" are. "We the People" are not the technolgenstia that hangs out on HN. "We the People" are my wife's parents in rural Oregon. There are things they care about, but this is not one of those things.

"What this process reproduces" is inaction on issues that don't rile up more than a tiny minority of people. I'm not sure why this is surprising.

Post reply on HN