Earlier quoted context omitted.
He can't go in and change the law by himself. He can go in and initiate the process that would lead to the change in the law - and he successfully did it many times for things that matter to him, like raising taxes. When we see that happening, then we could say something changed. But before that it's just words, and politicians are professionals in telling people what they want to hear, it costs them nothing. >>>> Yo…
Actually, he can issue an executive order with the same language used by the Library of Congress, but he chose not to do so.
White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
261–270 of 284 posts
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
This goes for all of you: Bullshit. Learn some recent political history, starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#2010_electio... The Tea Party didn't sweep because they had money (although they did), but because they got people to vote . They were elected with a mandate to destroy the Federal government, and by God, they almost pulled it off. Whether you're progressive or libertarian, the reaso…
Bullshit. The Tea Party was swept into power because they had financial backing from rich extremists and mass media support. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the point you're trying to make, but you could not have picked a worse example. Yes, the Tea Party started out as a grassroots thing, but it was quickly co-opted by the existing power structure and its message lost .
We're all so predictably unparticipatory that spending a hundred million dollars to move the needle a few tenths of a percent one way or the other makes good political sense. If everybody showed up to vote, that would simply not be true. That's the point I've been making this whole time.
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Cushman, you sound like somebody who believes everything that you were taught in school, and you are unwilling to entertain an idea that has the possibility of destroying the foundation of your world view. Don't try to impose your world view on events as they occur, rather, observe the world and consider all possibilities. Things usually are not what they appear to be. The expert is not always right, even if he think…
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#264Hey 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…
It's also highly suspect of this administration actually supporting this - HIGHLY suspect. It goes against many things they've done to try to force more commerce and money exchanging hands.
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
""" > "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. """ Processes like this affirm the logic that government fails us because we the people are too apathetic, or too unaware, or too stupid, or too anything at all to yield our immense power (!) as we ought. That, yes, if we e…
The other is to take matters into our own hands and to force them to make those decisions that we want, if only by making a clear statement of: "if you want to keep your little seat of power, you better do these things we want or we'll vote in someone who will".
Approach one is naive at best: even if people in government are generally willing to make the right decisions (which is by no means a given), identifying what decisions those are is a hard problem to begin with, and that's is compounded by the fact that there are many more forces at play than mere morality (pah!).
Positive change doesn't just magically come about because many people sit on their couches being really, really in favour of something. They come about when many people get off their couches and take action. Our governments fail us because we've largely forgotten that democracy is more than going into the voting booth every 4 years and choosing between bad and worse.
That is an uncharitable way of putting it though. There are some very good reasons (or excuses) for our failure to fulfil our part of the contract in a healthy democracy.
If you work 12 hours a day just to make ends meet, live paycheck to paycheck, and all you have energy for in the evenings and weekends is sitting on the couch and absorbing whatever dribble the telly feeds you, it's hard to summon the willpower to improve your long term perspectives.
Similarly (though I don't mean to equate the two scenarios), if you're a privileged software engineer who makes 6 figures, it's hard to summon the motivation or even detect the problem. What do you mean? What problem? I'm doing fine, and so do all the other (privileged rich) people I know.
You know what? I started out writing this to disagree with you, to place the blame squarely with a lazy and inactive citizenry. Now... I'm not so sure any more. So thanks for giving me something to think about!
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#266As 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”
#267Hey 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”
#268Earlier 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…
And they're what's important, right?
The fact it inflicts perverse rules on everyone else is just a side effect and who cares?
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, he can issue an executive order with the same language used by the Library of Congress, but he chose not to do so.
I'm curious though, under what authority is the Librarian of Congress allowed to modify the DMCA exclusion list?
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Ac... has a quick 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.
Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do know that the executive branch doesn't actually write laws, right? By the definitions of the U.S. Constitution, the "legislature" in fact is required to write laws that can address the issue. The Executive branch can influence or request actions of Congress, and it sounds like they're trying to do just that. But they don't have a magic sword that can cut through bureaucracy, which it seems that many people are…
If it wants to, an administration can work through friendly Members of Congress to get a piece of legislation it wants into the hopper. The White House (or some cabinet agency) writes the bill and passes it to a friendly member; the friendly member introduces it under their own name; then they work together to whip up co-sponsors. What this response indicates is that the Administration agrees with the petitioners on…