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

211–220 of 284 posts

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

#211

Post by techpeace »

sneak wrote: post #161
techpeace wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The entire reason this was controversial was specifically because we consider telecommunications working hand-in-hand with intelligence agencies to be a violation of our basic freedoms. Had this been set up in a foreign country by KBR, it would fit within the concept of the "military industrial complex."

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

#212

Post by mc32 »

moxie wrote: post #191
pekk wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think for a given case that may be true. That is, for case 'A' where the WH agrees but the other branches disagree, then it will seem as if it's a false sense of power (a placebo mechanism). However, just because this is true in some cases does not preclude there being case 'B' where the WH agrees and the other branches agree, in which case one would have exerted influence.

I think people do understand that not all their wishes can come true and that there are others whose wishes are the exact opposite (with respect to rules and.

So long as the process is predictable and somewhat transparent, then I think people's expectations will be reasonable.

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

#213

Post by mistercow »

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…

Petitions do absolutely work, but not how you think. They aren't for convincing the people they're directed at. They're for mobilizing the people who signed them and deepening their commitment to the cause. Signing your name to a statement has an effect on your self perception which causes you to act in a way that is consistent with the statement.

Signing a petition to the White House and having the White House respond "we agree with you" does not mean that you convinced them. It means they agree with you.

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

#214

Post by MereInterest »

rayiner wrote: post #69
danenania wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has quite a lot to do with the corruption of principles that make such legislative absurdities possible.

The DMCA is not a "legislative absurdity." It was embraced by both content owners and internet companies, who sought the safe harbor provisions of the act. From Congress's viewpoint, it was a measure that had broad industry support, with little to no public opposition. As for why "broad industry support" is so crucial--it's because Americans care pretty much only about jobs. The media sector has jobs and the internet…

Embraced by both content leasers (I refuse to say "content owners", because copyright is a finite monopoly, not ownership.) and internet companies, but not by the general public.

It is absurdity because it provides a mechanism by which fair use can be completely restricted. It is the equivalent of saying "You are completely allowed out of your cell, provided that you do not break the lock."

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

#215

Post by bbrian »

px43 wrote: post #129
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…

Why would you unlock a phone when you are still on your contract? That doesn't make any sense. If you switch carriers, then by definition you have just ended your contract, and you should be able to use your old phone. This is exactly what the petition is talking about.

If you desperately want to leave your network but don't want to drop, e.g., €300 in one day for the privilege, you should be able to leave and continue paying off the €50/month that you've signed up to and to do what you want with the handset.

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

#216

Post by mtgx »

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…

Is it me or are they saying they support unlocking "as long as it's out of contract" or something?

That doesn't really move the needle, does it?

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

#217

Post by notatoad »

eli wrote: post #170
mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cell phone locking has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. It is absurd that copyright law applies to unlocking/locking a cell phone.

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

#218

Post by jellicle »

schrodinger wrote: post #106
lysium wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you that you could by a non-subsidized phone. However, one of the points of the petition is that unlocking is currently illegal _even after the original contract has expired_. Why should that be allowed? The original contract is over, after all. No party should have any rights beyond the contract they've agree upon.

Is it illegal as in criminal? Or civil, and you could be sued?

It's a felony, with a fine of up to $500,000 and up to five years in prison. For unlocking one (1) cell phone.

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

#220

Post by jimmaswell »

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.

Former president Mitt Romney?
Post reply on HN