9 ms·
Not to be the naysayer on this but it is a very serious incursion on states rights. The legal consensus i'm hearing is that it will be overturned by the judi
by TimMeade 11y ago
Not to be the naysayer on this but it is a very serious incursion on states rights. The legal consensus i'm hearing is that it will be overturned by the judicial system.
Does the FCC have the right to tell a state or town what to do with local calls? That is the root of this. It's a given that they can regulate interstate, but historically intrastate has been the rights of the states.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoIn the event this is overturned judicially, I intend to incorporate a 501c3 non-profit (or B Corp, depending on the legalities) to provide these services at-cost to deep six Securus Technologies' profiting off of this.
- vonmoltke 11y agoWhy do you think that will work? If it was that easy, Securus would already have competitors.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI intend to use lobbying efforts in concert with a technical solution, even if I have to go state by state. Everyone here hustles for something different; I hustle for a better (imho) world. I cannot sit back and watch shitty people be shitty. Each personal project I work on is technical primarily, but each requires me to involve myself more in the political process by design. Technology alone will not change things, so I must get better at the people part of the process to enact the change I wish to see.
- smt88 11y agoCheck out https://pigeon.ly https://pigeon.ly
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- nickalewis 11y agoWe should talk; My goals with Penmate[1] are somewhat similar. Technology can and _will_ disrupt this [1] http://penmateapp.com http://penmateapp.com
- smt88 11y agoIt's probably time to give up on the ridiculous sanctity of states' rights. It made sense in a time when people lived in same state their whole lives, rarely traveled outside the state, and rarely communicated outside the state. Their whole lives unfolded within a few hundred square miles. That's not the case anymore. You can't subdivide the interests of American citizens by state anymore. What does it mean to be from Ohio vs. Indiana? Almost nothing.
- harryh 11y agoWhat does it mean to be from Hawaii vs. Mississippi? Kind of a lot?
- smt88 11y agoI'm not saying states shouldn't be able to determine certain things. But the federal government should be able to overrule asinine state policies after public debate (still subject to testing in court). When that testing happens, as it does now, the determining factor shouldn't be "states vs federal rights". It should be, "Does this state have a good reason to differ from the rest of the country?" In this case, where inmates' families are being harmed, there is no reason for Hawaii to differ from Mississippi.
- harryh 11y agoMaybe in a poorer state like Mississippi the revenue state raised by more expensive phone calls is needed to properly pay for the prisons in question? I'm not saying I believe that argument, but I don't live in Mississippi, I don't pay taxes in Mississippi, and I'm extremely unlikely to ever end up in a Mississippi prison. Maybe it should be the job of Mississippians to weigh the pros and cons of these things?
- toomuchtodo 11y agoIf you can't pay for your prisons without extorting the families of convicts, stop locking people up.
- s73v3r 11y agoStates rights once again got it wrong. I am not upset at all that the federal government stepped in and fixed it. I am upset that the states themselves allowed this to happen.