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

221–230 of 284 posts

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

#221

Post by zanny »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #177
zanny wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

We had the ability to pressure with votes 50 years ago. Today, the vast majority of congressional districts are so heavily gerrymandered the ruling party can do anything and the political climate of that region is so fanatic that people will never not vote for their choice party candidate.

Out of 435 house representatives, each election every two years, only a dozen or two seats will change party. At best. That often throws the balance in congress towards one party or the other, but the vast majority of congressmen can be corrupt as fuck and never worry about losing their seat because they are in "red" or "blue" districts.

If you don't live in one of the few turbulent districts with political discourse, nothing will change and the congressman has no care for his / her constituents because they can't be displaced, and the constituents are brainwashed into an us vs them mentality and local culture of blaming everything on the "other guy" even when their rep is actively voting against them.

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

#222

Post by rayiner »

MereInterest wrote: post #214
rayiner wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

> 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.

The way politicians see it (not without merit): embraced by 'job creators', ignored by the public, opposed by a tiny minority of people who wouldn't vote for them anyway.

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

#223

Post by AutoCorrect »

dhimes wrote: post #155
smsm42 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ah, but this is not a law that needs changing, it's the Librarian's opinion that needs changing. It's a ruling, not a law. Basically, Obama just told everyone to shut up and suck a lemon. If he wanted to change it, he could call the Librarian and say "Hey, I need you to change something for me", or just publish an executive order - change it or get on my kill list.

He could change it, but he's not interested enough to change it.

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

#224

Post by [deleted] »

eli wrote: post #171
moxie wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

[deleted]

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

#225

Post by Legion »

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…

> "I just got off the phone with the White House"

How badass did you feel writing that? I feel badass for you.

Good job. Well done.

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

#227

Post by morpher »

dvogel wrote: post #206
sinak wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the 3rd paragraph of your petition you allude to unlocking your phone for use on multiple carriers: "Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad." If their response only applies to situations where you've let your service contract expire, it doesn't seem to allow you to unlock your phone for use on multiple carriers while under contract with the carrier from which t…

You can be a current customer with outside of the (typically two year) contract period. Currently AT&T (and possibly other carriers?) will unlock the phone for you in this situation. But, it wouldn't be terrible to have this specifically allowed/required.

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

#228

Post by morpher »

lysium wrote: post #94
TylerE wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Largely, yes, and that is as it should be. It's an agreement between two willing parties with benefit received by both sides. A simple, legal, contract. We're not talking about a legislated monopoly here, like your local power company. No one is FORCING you to go down to your local Verizon reseller and buy a contract phone. You're free to either buy an unlocked smartphone (at full un-subsidized price), or a prepaid p…

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.

Although this is true (and silly), AT&T (at least) will unlock the phone for you after contract expiration. If this is true of other carriers, then the issue is largely irrelevant.

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

#229

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#230

Post by dyno12345 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #181
dyno12345 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has this actually been enforced against anyone so far?

Whether it actually gets enforced doesn't matter, what matters whether people refrain from engaging in the activity (or aiding others in doing so) because of the risk that it could be.

There's always that risk with unenforced laws - there's hardly ever (ever?) a stated policy of non-enforcement, since the executive is also technically obliged to enforce everything congress has told it to.

I would generally be interested to know if it ever has actually been enforced so far.

Post reply on HN