15 ms·

White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

752 points by sinak 14y ago

sinak 14y ago
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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5112020 there were a lot of very skeptical responses to the effect of "petitions don't have any effect". The optimist in me is glad they were wrong. The White House seem to be genuinely committed to helping push through a piece of legislation to fix this. If there's something about government that bugs you, it's worth trying to do something about it. Also, we're launching a campaign to ask Congress to change Section 1201 of the DMCA, with backing from the EFF, Reddit and others. Sign up at http://fixthedmca.org http://fixthedmca.org - should be launching the site tomorrow.
- sneak 14y ago
  I hate to break it to you, but their response was effectively: "we agree with you but we respect the process that brought us to this fucked-up state and look forward to continuing to work with congress". Petitions don't have any effect other than getting a response that's designed to get you to stop complaining from a false sense of achievement. In that sense, they work perfectly.
  - niggler 14y ago
    If they (the White House) can point to the guilty parties here (congressmen, senators, lobby groups) or even point to relevant bills or decisions, it will help us in terms of knowing which politicians we should not vote for. Remember: vote with your wallet/ballot. Outrage works when it is concentrated and directed at the right people.
    - sneak 14y ago
      I did vote with my wallet: I voted for a different government, by taking my productive energies and contributions to the GDP to another nation, because it's clear to anyone paying attention that the triad of the two parties and the media have reached some sort of perverse Nash Equilibrium in the US. Resultantly, nothing that you put on a ballot is going to reverse the direction at this point. There's only voting with your tax dollars.
    - Zak 14y ago
      I'm pretty sure who voted for the DMCA and/or specific anticircumvention provisions is a matter of public record. We don't need any help from the president to identify those legislators and vote for their opponents.
  - phreeza 14y ago
    Sad but true. Is the White House, ie the executive, the right entity to petition in this matter, which seems to be legislative? In Germany we have a mechanism to bring stuff in front of [a committee of] our parliament, is there anything like that in the US?
    - mpyne 14y ago
      As far as I know the only way to do so is by lobbying one of your Congressional representatives (or one of the Congression representatives on the subcommittee in question to introduce the question for you).
  - Cushman 14y ago
    If he just got off the phone with the White House, I'd imagine he has a pretty good idea of what their response was. Your cynicism is a big part of the reason it's so hard to change things around here.
    - sneak 14y ago
      No it's not. I emigrated from the US after it became clear they weren't going to reinstate the rule of law. Your military-industrial complex is the reason that it's so hard to change things around... there. This is why you have bullshit laws like the DMCA in the first place.
      - jvrossb 14y ago
        Where did you emigrate to?
        ynniv 14y ago
        Neukölln, Berlin, Germany [https://twitter.com/sneakatdatavibe https://twitter.com/sneakatdatavibe]
        antimatter 14y ago
        I'd be interested in reading about your experience doing this. I've been considering leaving the US as well lately.
        cgio 14y ago
        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.
        socialist_coder 14y ago
        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/ 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.
  - jbooth 14y ago
    Well, if you're looking to feel superior to the rubes, a little tried-and-tested "they're all the same" cynicism will really do it for you. Petitions raise visibility and they require organization to get the signatures. Organizing to get the signatures once means you build the mailing lists etc to organize for other things later. I mean, when they instituted this petition thing in 2009 do you think they were really thinking "We need some kind of 1984 mind control device here after that presidential campaign"? As far as the actual content -- read the word 'respect' in the diplomatic context there and it's pretty clear that they'd love to get rid of this, but don't have the legal authority to just up and do it.
  - brown9-2 14y ago
    What outcome would you have been happier with? The executive branch cannot pass legislation.
    - iy56 14y ago
      Refuse to enforce this clause of the DMCA and pardon anyone imprisoned because of it.
      - dyno12345 14y ago
        Has this actually been enforced against anyone so far?
        AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        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.
        dyno12345 14y ago
        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.
        AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca
        dyno12345 14y ago
        Those are civil suits - not criminal enforcement that the administration could choose to pursue or not
  - tzisc 14y ago
    Well, I'd argue that cynical responses like these are the most detrimental response of all. Pessimism is not realism. Getting the full verbal support of a second-term lame-duck administration with nothing to lose is not a negligible achievement. Some progress != no progress. You're right that petitions have limited scope and effect, but in successful efforts like these, they can generate publicity and political momentum, giving ammunition and gravitas to Congressmen who would co-sponsor legislation. At the very least it is a step in the right direction. The system is broken, but sitting back and needlessly berating those who would try to take small steps to achieve small goals is hardly an acceptable response. It's calculus; if you integrate a positive attitude over a large enough population of believers, you can effect large-scale change. If you integrate so-called "cynical realism" over the same intelligent population, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeatism which is nothing to pat yourself on the back about, either. I applaud sinak's achievement and I hope that this conversation shifts to what steps need to be taken next.
    - doktrin 14y ago
      >second-term lame-duck administration The term "lame duck" typically refers to Presidents at the tail end of their term, most often used in the time between an election and a transition of power. That isn't the case here.
      - tzisc 14y ago
        Right. I was just trying to refer more specifically to the fact that since the term-limit is already reached, this administration has more political flexibility to back more contentious issues. From wikipedia: A president elected to a second term is sometimes seen as being a lame duck from early in the second term, because presidents are barred from contesting a term four years later, and is thus freer to take politically unpopular action. Nonetheless, as the de facto leader of his or her political party, the president's actions affect how the party performs in the midterm elections two years into the second term, and, to some extent, the success of that party's nominee in the next presidential election four years in the future. But you are certainly correct about typical usage.
    - deleted 14y ago
  - mmanfrin 14y ago
    Just last week they mandated publicly-funded research should be publicly available within a year -- thanks to a petition. Quit being such a damn naysaying cynic.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    What else are they going to say? "We will issue an illegal decree making it legal to unlock cell phones again?"
  - dbecker 14y ago
    I spent about 15 seconds clicking on a petition, and the guy who started the petition was able to use that to start a dialogue? If anything, it's remarkable how effective that was. What sort of change did you expect with so little effort? If you've ever done business development, you'd know that opening that dialog is frequently the hardest step. Meaningful changes are carefully considered, and they don't happen overnight. This is a good first step.
    - larrys 14y ago
      "you'd know that opening that dialog is frequently the hardest step." How true and essentially the value of "connections" I would add. They get the person (you are "selling" to) to at least listen to what you have to say and consider it and to typically be taken more seriously.
  - larrys 14y ago
    "getting a response that's designed to get you to stop complaining from a false sense of achievement" I'm also sure they bend over backward to find a reason to agree with something just so they can say they are agreeing with some petitions and get points for it in news stories instead of giving a negative response. Politicians do this as well. If you visit your local congressman he will be glad many times and enthusiastic about supporting your special interests. How much he goes to bat for you depends of course on the issue and who you are. At least he can wave a finger and say "I tried but the others wouldn't vote for it". Much better than telling you up front your issue will never get voted into law.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- cleis 14y ago
  The people's champion
- thinklarge 14y ago
  Wow this is an awesome step and please keep us appraised of how things are going or if more help is needed. It is this kind of optimism that demands changes from the government. Sometimes it takes the people speaking up about an issue for the government to get a sense of what the people want. Now for anyone else tho is on here call your congressmen and senators! They really do care what you think and about the public opinion even above what lobbyists have to say.
- akarpenko 14y ago
  Nice petition, but it didn't go far enough. Why should locking phones be legal at all?
  - fijal 14y ago
    In a strange twist, it's illegal in South Africa
  - TylerE 14y ago
    Why should it be illegal? We really, really, really don't want government interference in voluntary private contracts.
    - akarpenko 14y ago
      Are you saying that there is usually no government interference in private contracts? Or that there should be no government interference just when the consumers rights are being violated?
      - TylerE 14y ago
        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 phone, or any other of a multitude of options.
        lysium 14y ago
        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.
- moxie 14y ago
  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.
  - dhimes 14y ago
    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 agree with you. We don't write the damn laws- but here is what we're willing to sign. Our job is to get our Senators and Representatives to change the law. It may not be pretty, and it's certainly not efficient, but this is democracy in action. It requires effort from its citizens in order to work. Not running away. EDIT: I forgot to add, that I did receive a 'blow it out your ass' response from President Clinton many years ago. He later reversed his stance on the issue, but it was too late for him to affect it and just left it as a recommendation to the next pres- who ignored it.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - moxie 14y ago
      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.
      - leetrout 14y ago
        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. WH responded favorably in agreement with petition supporters. 4. ... 5. Profit! ;)
- unreal37 14y ago
  Sinak, good job on raising the issue, and getting the White House, the Library of Congress and the FCC to all respond. This is a win for democracy. You must feel great today. For those getting all worked up about how it is still illegal to unlock cell phones, think of it like this. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent/crack software security - period. You phone is locked by software. Up til January, there was an exemption for phones. Now there's not. The problem isn't "unlocking phones". The problem is "you can't alter something expensive you've bought and paid for in full". In a way this is good. Regular people will get pissed at the carrier for not unlocking their phone at the end of their contract. And suddenly regular people will see how bad the DMCA is. The DMA targets not just Movie Pirates.
- mistercow 14y ago
  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.
- mtgx 14y ago
  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?
- Legion 14y ago
  > "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.
  - sinak 14y ago
    Hah. Quite badass! Next up I'm going to get an unlocking tattoo.
- teeja 14y ago
  Congratulations for demonstrating once again that it's worth trying to do something about it. It's the only alternative to taking it in the neck over and over whilst crying in bitter beer.
- BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
  Just a heads up: The current headline on that site says "forom the White House" instead of "from the White House". I wouldn't have said anything, but it's a headline...
- ck2 14y ago
  You realize the moment President Obama expresses support for this, it will die in congress or be filibustered to death? 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.
JamesCRR 14y ago
As a Brit, I'm pretty stunned by the efficacy of the We The People Platform here. Good work democracy.
- SworDsy 14y ago
  it may or may not work in the short term but there's nothing like an outside perspective to make you appreciate what you have. its true that the legislative branch has to pass this, but at the very least the political climate changes (slightly, around this issue after a public statement) and the people involved feel empowered which both have at least the potential to recreate the situation
- obviouslygreen 14y ago
  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.
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    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.
- metaphorm 14y ago
  as an American, I'm glad that we are at least able to get an official response from the White House, but deeply pessimistic about their ability to deliver on the policies they claim to support. this isn't really a win for democracy. its a win for a mass communications platform but it has no real impact on getting shit done. congress is a mess and we're no closer to a solution.
- spwestwood 14y ago
HarryHirsch 14y ago
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 to lobbyist influence. It encourages the wrong mindset.
- GabrielF00 14y ago
  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.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - obviouslygreen 14y ago
    Not sure what you're going for here. The literal definition of "petition" is not what's intended there and having the right to ask nicely doesn't mean the government is required to implement something else that allows this; the primary means is through electing and speaking with officials. And that doesn't work either. [edit: As pointed out below, my use of "literal" here is not as intended; by "literal definition" I was attempting to say "relevant definition" in the sense of the mechanism used by the We the People website.]
    - andrewem 14y ago
      Actually, while I am not a Constitutional scholar, I believe that the literal definition of "petition" is precisely what is meant by that section of the First Amendment. The Founders knew what petitions were and how they intended them to function when sent to the government. The proof of that is that back in 1774 the Continental Congress sent a petition [1] to King George III (well, theoretically to him, but in practice to the two Houses of Parliament) requesting that a set of laws they disliked be repealed. This was about 15 years before the Bill of Rights was approved by Congress [2], so one can assume that people were still aware of it. The analogy isn't perfect since the US doesn't have the same system of government and so petitions to the US government can't go to quite the same party or parties, but it's bizarre to claim without evidence that the plain sense of the word as used then and now isn't what's meant. The fact that the President is making it easier to gather signatures for a petition doesn't change the fact that they're requests to the government initiated by citizens, for the redress of grievances. (Now if you are a Constitutional scholar, as say the current President is, I'd love to hear an argument as to why the straightforward meaning is wrong. Any such response would likely cite various Supreme Court decisions from the last 200+ years.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition_to_the_King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition_to_the_King [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
JagMicker 14y ago
For those TL;DR'ers out there, here's a summary: The White House understands the petition and claims to agree. However, they aren't going to do anything about it other than wait for the "legislature" to address the issue. You might as well petition the corporate owners of the major cell. carriers, as they are probably the only ones who will do anything about this.
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  To be fair though, isn't that how the US government is supposed to work? It's not like the President can just arbitrarily change laws.
  - brown9-2 14y ago
    Yes, and a large amount of people who propose petitions on change.org seem to not understand this.
  - drharris 14y ago
    Um, that hasn't stopped the past few administrations from doing exactly that.
    - leetrout 14y ago
      Or the current one... Or at least the current regime's attempts to use executive orders to ignore the legislative process. Par for the course.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  So you can do what I just did, write your congressional representative and include a copy of the statement from the Whitehouse. My argument was simply, this is what the people want, the executive branch agrees, its up to you guys to make it happen so please do so. I can only imagine how hard it will be to be re-elected if you were to not support such legislation when it came up in favor of one of your big donors (AT&T). Sincerely, .... The process is slow, but it is pretty durable. I've got both the petition and the Whitehouse response in my notebook, and we're in an 'off' year but next year we'll put a bunch of new candidates up for congress, this will come out again as a test to see if they did what was demanded or not. So the stage is set assuming we use the tools given us :-)
ibejoeb 14y ago
"...neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation." Right. This is a solved problem. We have contracts for a reason: to establish and enforce obligations. Get rid of these ridiculous locks. Either that or harden them and get rid of contracts.
rallison 14y ago
This is a promising response, although one part is of (possibly unfounded) concern: "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." This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted.
- DigitalJack 14y ago
  That is a matter of contract law. If you are no longer obligated by the contract you agreed to, then there should be no barriers to unlocking.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    Why should there be any barriers while you are on contract? What if someone wants to use their phone one two different networks for some reason, swapping SIM cards occasionally (OK, I cannot come up with a reason why, but that does not mean no such reason exists)? If you are paying for your service, what's the problem?
    - uvdiv 14y ago
      swapping SIM cards occasionally (OK, I cannot come up with a reason why Because if you travel, your contract provider will charge you extortionate fees. It's one of the ways they nickle-and-dime. You can get cheaper plans from foreign telecoms.
- onedognight 14y ago
  > This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted. You don't really own the phone until the contract that got you the phone is terminated. They agree to buy your phone for you if you agree to n-months of service.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    "You don't really own the phone until the contract that got you the phone is terminated." ...then why do you wind up paying sales tax on it?
timtadh 14y ago
my response to their response (sent via the "what did you think form") I don't think you adequately addressed the larger issues raised by DMCA. Cell phones and tablet carrier locking is only one of the anti-consumer anti-user results of the law. Not being able to install a different OS without illegal procedures such as "rooting" and "cracking" the device remain an outstanding issue for all ARM based devices. This limits competition and unfairly privledges the position of the device manufacturer over the user. A device is a physical item. It is not rented it is sold. One should have full control over their own devices. Today, sadly, we (the people of the USA) are subject to an over-reaching law which prevents us from legally using our devices to their fullest potential. As witnessed in the recent volatility of the tablet and smart phone market, commericial players come and go frequently. When they leave, they leave their customers stranded. With out a legal means to change the OS of their devices they are left with insecure outdated software which puts them, their employers and their family at risk. Please consider expanding your approach to include a full range of consumer protections.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
ericjeepn 14y ago
On a different note... After reading the library of Congress response to the White House response here http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html I'm not sure what their actual response is.
- britta 14y ago
  I think they're saying something like this: "We did our job as prescribed by the law - we went through an extensive public comment and hearing process, and we produced an exemption that interpreted the available legal arguments as fairly as possible. Even if it would be nice to make unlocking legal, we only have the power to interpret existing laws; changing the laws is up to the rest of you."
nraynaud 14y ago
Off-topic, but how come they answer so quickly to this one, and not yet to the Aaron Swartz one ?
- Mahn 14y ago
  Because it was easier to answer, I'd guess.
kirillzubovsky 14y ago
It is sad how irrelevant "We the people" really is. It gives people an illusion that the government actually cares. The response to this petition is essentially "we agree with you and we will work towards ... {bullshit here}." I signed a few of the petitions to see what would happen, but I think I am going to stop now as it's just a waste of time; a trap, nicely put in place by the administration. The only way petitions would matter if they led to real actions, but it would be suicidal on the part of the government to try and intervene with telecom companies; wouldn't be very helpful for the next election, that's all. Oh... sigh.
- andybak 14y ago
  How do you propose democracy deals with situations like this? I would be wary of asking for more direct democracy without studying those places and times that had this and looking into how that turned out.
gmisra 14y ago
TL;DR: 1. The White House thinks this is a good idea, but it is not within their powers to implement change under the current law. 2. These rules (DMCA exceptions) fall under the Library of Congress, and the White House has recommended a review of said rules. 3. The LoC has also responded and agreed to re-review these exceptions: "We also agree with the administration that the question of locked cell phones has implications for telecommunications policy and that it would benefit from review and resolution in that context." [2] 4. In an amicus-like capacity, the FCC has also responded and commented on the current regulatory regime: "From a communications policy perspective, this raises serious competition and innovation concerns, and for wireless consumers, it doesn't pass the common sense test. The FCC is examining this issue, looking into whether the agency, wireless providers, or others should take action to preserve consumers' ability to unlock their mobile phones." [3] (end summary) The Library of Congress could choose to reinstate the unlocking exception, which they at least purport to be reviewing. Or, the FCC could step in and claim regulatory oversight and create new regulations. Neither of those actions require direct congressional intervention, and both appear to have much higher visibility as a consequence of this petition. ---- [1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7?update https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel... [2] http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html [3] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0304/DOC-319250A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013...
uvdiv 14y ago
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 obligation." The White House response doesn't support unlocking phones, only unlocking phones after contracts are expired. Which isn't at all what the petition complains about. They evaded it entirely. No, it's lower than that. They're pretending to agree with the petition, in the tone of their writing; but when you read the fine print, they don't. It's fucking doublespeak.
- ericb 14y ago
  Agreed. Criminal penalties for unlocking! Could this be more draconian? Contract law is normally covered by civil penalties. And the current administration supports it.
  - dmix 14y ago
    Tripartism [1] and neo-corporatism [2], for the win again. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
- readme 14y ago
  Have you considered that maybe they just overlooked the inconsistency you found? Never attribute to malice what you can to ignorance.
  - zem 14y ago
    well, someone had to have put that phrase in there deliberately. your contract is an agreement to pay the cellphone carrier a certain monthly fee for a certain number of months, with early termination fees written in, all of which you are already bound to by civil law. it should have nothing to do with phone unlocking.
stcredzero 14y ago
The Obama administration isn't perfect. (What administration is?) However they do seem to understand society's generational lag in understanding technology. They understand that the generation in charge is out of touch and so will unknowingly perpetrate heinous rules interfering with the way the society of people in their 20's actually use and understand technology. Then again, maybe it's just because Obama is a smartphone user. (Is he still using a Blackberry?)
zaidf 14y ago
All this is good, but what happens to the next guy who gets arrested for this and has his life wrecked? Sometimes I think there should be a penalty against lawmakers for passing reckless laws which could be convincingly argued against in a few paragraphs, as is the case here.
smackfu 14y ago
Am I the only one surprised that the Library of Congress has rule-making abilities?
- DannyBee 14y ago
  They are specifically granted by the statute in this case.
- dangerlibrary 14y ago
  The Copyright office is housed in the Library of Congress. since the DMCA is a copyright law, the LoCo has some authority.
gesman 14y ago
Why the *uck Librarian [of Congress or anything else] should be empowered to make the federal laws that can put people in jail? Aren't librarians are supposed to manage books?
- jgross206 14y ago
  does it matter what his title is? he's appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate
  - gesman 14y ago
    Sorry, just confusing title. Next we'll be following orders issued by the Janitor General, I guess.
- britta 14y ago
  This exemption process is part of the DMCA, and it produces "rules", not as weighty as laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Anti-circumvention_exemptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Ac... has an 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. For a more authoritative and detailed source, the Copyright Office's rulemaking statement begins with several pages explaining its authority and process: http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/2012-26308_PI.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/2012-26308_PI.pdf
knodi 14y ago
So the white house is saying they're going to do nothing...
paulhauggis 14y ago
Where were they when it passed? sleeping?
- AimHere 14y ago
  Barack Obama was in the Illinois State Senate when the relevant law - the DMCA - was passed.
Scramblejams 14y ago
WH: This step is "important for ensuring we continue to have [a] vibrant, competitive wireless market"[1] Vibrant, competitive wireless market? Coulda fooled me. [1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel...
Pro_bity 14y ago
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand nothing really happened.
dreamdu5t 14y ago
I disagree. If you made an agreement not to unlock the phone as a condition of purchasing it, then people should honor their agreements! Buy from a carrier that lets you unlock the phone. If that carrier does not exist, and there truly is a market demand for this, then start a cell phone carrier.
argumentum 14y ago
As the DMCA is a federal statute, what the White House should have said at the end, is, quite simply .. we will not be enforcing any related complaints. Unlock away.
coffeemug 14y ago
When I train our employees to respond to customer support issues, I always make sure that in every response they do as much as possible to "drive an issue to a close". Not every issue can be fixed, but at the very least we can give the user a clear understanding of a) precisely what the state of affairs is and why, b) whether or not we can fix it and why, c) if we can fix it, who's responsible for the fix and when it's likely to make it into mainline and d) if we can't fix it, what the workaround is. We never ever just say "we agree with you". It's always "we agree with you, and here's how Bob is going to fix this by March". I know that the political machine is much more complicated then a startup of 12, but they don't even try. After having read the whole thing, I'm left with no more understanding of where things are going than I did before I read it.
- Zak 14y ago
  The political process doesn't work like a business. If you're the CEO and something Bob knows how to do needs doing, you just order him to do it. None of the entities with the legal authority to fix this problem work directly for the president. He cannot fire them because he doesn't like how they're doing their jobs, nor can they fire him for that reason. There is one, and only one person with the unilateral legal authority to fix the unlocking ban. His name is James Hadley Billington.
jsilence 14y ago
Cute how so many of you still believe you are living in a democracy.
tunesmith 14y ago
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.
logn 14y ago
"We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, the wireless and mobile phone industries, and most importantly you" Right, this should go well for us then.
csense 14y ago
This is the first White House petition I've ever seen that actually got a response that wasn't just some vapid equivocation. I'm impressed.
- markdown 14y ago
  Or so you think. Read it again.
Wonderdonkey 14y ago
Read: Nothing will come of this. President Obama also said he would veto CISPA, close Guantanamo Bay, curb ICE, pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, end indefinite detention, defend labor rights, stop hiring former lobbyists in the White House, end the practice of recess appointments, oppose FISA, and end the use of drones to assassinate terrorists, among many other blatant lies.
ctdonath 14y ago
Isn't this the same White House that signed the law making unlocking cell phones illegal?
fakeer 14y ago
Aah... Wish my country(India - the largest family owned 'democracy' on this planet) had something like this. Here we get arrested for posting things on Internet. Maybe starting such a petition would attract life imprisonment. Congratulation Americans! Glad for you. Don't loose this freedom, don't let them take this away from you and wish us luck and support so that we can get/snatch it too. One day, maybe :-)
danbmil99 14y ago
weird, something from gov't that is intelligible and lucidly written.
jurist 14y ago
What a waste of the president's time.

752 points by sinak 14y ago

sinak 14y ago

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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5112020 there were a lot of very skeptical responses to the effect of "petitions don't have any effect". The optimist in me is glad they were wrong. The White House seem to be genuinely committed to helping push through a piece of legislation to fix this. If there's something about government that bugs you, it's worth trying to do something about it. Also, we're launching a campaign to ask Congress to change Section 1201 of the DMCA, with backing from the EFF, Reddit and others. Sign up at http://fixthedmca.org http://fixthedmca.org - should be launching the site tomorrow.

sneak 14y ago
I hate to break it to you, but their response was effectively: "we agree with you but we respect the process that brought us to this fucked-up state and look forward to continuing to work with congress". Petitions don't have any effect other than getting a response that's designed to get you to stop complaining from a false sense of achievement. In that sense, they work perfectly.
- niggler 14y ago
  If they (the White House) can point to the guilty parties here (congressmen, senators, lobby groups) or even point to relevant bills or decisions, it will help us in terms of knowing which politicians we should not vote for. Remember: vote with your wallet/ballot. Outrage works when it is concentrated and directed at the right people.
  - sneak 14y ago
    I did vote with my wallet: I voted for a different government, by taking my productive energies and contributions to the GDP to another nation, because it's clear to anyone paying attention that the triad of the two parties and the media have reached some sort of perverse Nash Equilibrium in the US. Resultantly, nothing that you put on a ballot is going to reverse the direction at this point. There's only voting with your tax dollars.
  - Zak 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure who voted for the DMCA and/or specific anticircumvention provisions is a matter of public record. We don't need any help from the president to identify those legislators and vote for their opponents.
- phreeza 14y ago
  Sad but true. Is the White House, ie the executive, the right entity to petition in this matter, which seems to be legislative? In Germany we have a mechanism to bring stuff in front of [a committee of] our parliament, is there anything like that in the US?
  - mpyne 14y ago
    As far as I know the only way to do so is by lobbying one of your Congressional representatives (or one of the Congression representatives on the subcommittee in question to introduce the question for you).
- Cushman 14y ago
  If he just got off the phone with the White House, I'd imagine he has a pretty good idea of what their response was. Your cynicism is a big part of the reason it's so hard to change things around here.
  - sneak 14y ago
    No it's not. I emigrated from the US after it became clear they weren't going to reinstate the rule of law. Your military-industrial complex is the reason that it's so hard to change things around... there. This is why you have bullshit laws like the DMCA in the first place.
    - jvrossb 14y ago
      Where did you emigrate to?
      - ynniv 14y ago
        Neukölln, Berlin, Germany [https://twitter.com/sneakatdatavibe https://twitter.com/sneakatdatavibe]
        antimatter 14y ago
        I'd be interested in reading about your experience doing this. I've been considering leaving the US as well lately.
        cgio 14y ago
        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.
        socialist_coder 14y ago
        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/ 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.
- jbooth 14y ago
  Well, if you're looking to feel superior to the rubes, a little tried-and-tested "they're all the same" cynicism will really do it for you. Petitions raise visibility and they require organization to get the signatures. Organizing to get the signatures once means you build the mailing lists etc to organize for other things later. I mean, when they instituted this petition thing in 2009 do you think they were really thinking "We need some kind of 1984 mind control device here after that presidential campaign"? As far as the actual content -- read the word 'respect' in the diplomatic context there and it's pretty clear that they'd love to get rid of this, but don't have the legal authority to just up and do it.
- brown9-2 14y ago
  What outcome would you have been happier with? The executive branch cannot pass legislation.
  - iy56 14y ago
    Refuse to enforce this clause of the DMCA and pardon anyone imprisoned because of it.
    - dyno12345 14y ago
      Has this actually been enforced against anyone so far?
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        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.
        dyno12345 14y ago
        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.
        AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca
        dyno12345 14y ago
        Those are civil suits - not criminal enforcement that the administration could choose to pursue or not
- tzisc 14y ago
  Well, I'd argue that cynical responses like these are the most detrimental response of all. Pessimism is not realism. Getting the full verbal support of a second-term lame-duck administration with nothing to lose is not a negligible achievement. Some progress != no progress. You're right that petitions have limited scope and effect, but in successful efforts like these, they can generate publicity and political momentum, giving ammunition and gravitas to Congressmen who would co-sponsor legislation. At the very least it is a step in the right direction. The system is broken, but sitting back and needlessly berating those who would try to take small steps to achieve small goals is hardly an acceptable response. It's calculus; if you integrate a positive attitude over a large enough population of believers, you can effect large-scale change. If you integrate so-called "cynical realism" over the same intelligent population, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeatism which is nothing to pat yourself on the back about, either. I applaud sinak's achievement and I hope that this conversation shifts to what steps need to be taken next.
  - doktrin 14y ago
    >second-term lame-duck administration The term "lame duck" typically refers to Presidents at the tail end of their term, most often used in the time between an election and a transition of power. That isn't the case here.
    - tzisc 14y ago
      Right. I was just trying to refer more specifically to the fact that since the term-limit is already reached, this administration has more political flexibility to back more contentious issues. From wikipedia: A president elected to a second term is sometimes seen as being a lame duck from early in the second term, because presidents are barred from contesting a term four years later, and is thus freer to take politically unpopular action. Nonetheless, as the de facto leader of his or her political party, the president's actions affect how the party performs in the midterm elections two years into the second term, and, to some extent, the success of that party's nominee in the next presidential election four years in the future. But you are certainly correct about typical usage.
  - deleted 14y ago
- mmanfrin 14y ago
  Just last week they mandated publicly-funded research should be publicly available within a year -- thanks to a petition. Quit being such a damn naysaying cynic.
- mikeash 14y ago
  What else are they going to say? "We will issue an illegal decree making it legal to unlock cell phones again?"
- dbecker 14y ago
  I spent about 15 seconds clicking on a petition, and the guy who started the petition was able to use that to start a dialogue? If anything, it's remarkable how effective that was. What sort of change did you expect with so little effort? If you've ever done business development, you'd know that opening that dialog is frequently the hardest step. Meaningful changes are carefully considered, and they don't happen overnight. This is a good first step.
  - larrys 14y ago
    "you'd know that opening that dialog is frequently the hardest step." How true and essentially the value of "connections" I would add. They get the person (you are "selling" to) to at least listen to what you have to say and consider it and to typically be taken more seriously.
- larrys 14y ago
  "getting a response that's designed to get you to stop complaining from a false sense of achievement" I'm also sure they bend over backward to find a reason to agree with something just so they can say they are agreeing with some petitions and get points for it in news stories instead of giving a negative response. Politicians do this as well. If you visit your local congressman he will be glad many times and enthusiastic about supporting your special interests. How much he goes to bat for you depends of course on the issue and who you are. At least he can wave a finger and say "I tried but the others wouldn't vote for it". Much better than telling you up front your issue will never get voted into law.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
cleis 14y ago
The people's champion
thinklarge 14y ago
Wow this is an awesome step and please keep us appraised of how things are going or if more help is needed. It is this kind of optimism that demands changes from the government. Sometimes it takes the people speaking up about an issue for the government to get a sense of what the people want. Now for anyone else tho is on here call your congressmen and senators! They really do care what you think and about the public opinion even above what lobbyists have to say.
akarpenko 14y ago
Nice petition, but it didn't go far enough. Why should locking phones be legal at all?
- fijal 14y ago
  In a strange twist, it's illegal in South Africa
- TylerE 14y ago
  Why should it be illegal? We really, really, really don't want government interference in voluntary private contracts.
  - akarpenko 14y ago
    Are you saying that there is usually no government interference in private contracts? Or that there should be no government interference just when the consumers rights are being violated?
    - TylerE 14y ago
      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 phone, or any other of a multitude of options.
      - lysium 14y ago
        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.
moxie 14y ago
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.
- dhimes 14y ago
  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 agree with you. We don't write the damn laws- but here is what we're willing to sign. Our job is to get our Senators and Representatives to change the law. It may not be pretty, and it's certainly not efficient, but this is democracy in action. It requires effort from its citizens in order to work. Not running away. EDIT: I forgot to add, that I did receive a 'blow it out your ass' response from President Clinton many years ago. He later reversed his stance on the issue, but it was too late for him to affect it and just left it as a recommendation to the next pres- who ignored it.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - moxie 14y ago
    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.
    - leetrout 14y ago
      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. WH responded favorably in agreement with petition supporters. 4. ... 5. Profit! ;)
unreal37 14y ago
Sinak, good job on raising the issue, and getting the White House, the Library of Congress and the FCC to all respond. This is a win for democracy. You must feel great today. For those getting all worked up about how it is still illegal to unlock cell phones, think of it like this. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent/crack software security - period. You phone is locked by software. Up til January, there was an exemption for phones. Now there's not. The problem isn't "unlocking phones". The problem is "you can't alter something expensive you've bought and paid for in full". In a way this is good. Regular people will get pissed at the carrier for not unlocking their phone at the end of their contract. And suddenly regular people will see how bad the DMCA is. The DMA targets not just Movie Pirates.
mistercow 14y ago
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.
mtgx 14y ago
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?
Legion 14y ago
> "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.
- sinak 14y ago
  Hah. Quite badass! Next up I'm going to get an unlocking tattoo.
teeja 14y ago
Congratulations for demonstrating once again that it's worth trying to do something about it. It's the only alternative to taking it in the neck over and over whilst crying in bitter beer.
BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
Just a heads up: The current headline on that site says "forom the White House" instead of "from the White House". I wouldn't have said anything, but it's a headline...
ck2 14y ago
You realize the moment President Obama expresses support for this, it will die in congress or be filibustered to death? 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.

JamesCRR 14y ago

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

SworDsy 14y ago
it may or may not work in the short term but there's nothing like an outside perspective to make you appreciate what you have. its true that the legislative branch has to pass this, but at the very least the political climate changes (slightly, around this issue after a public statement) and the people involved feel empowered which both have at least the potential to recreate the situation
obviouslygreen 14y ago
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.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  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.
metaphorm 14y ago
as an American, I'm glad that we are at least able to get an official response from the White House, but deeply pessimistic about their ability to deliver on the policies they claim to support. this isn't really a win for democracy. its a win for a mass communications platform but it has no real impact on getting shit done. congress is a mess and we're no closer to a solution.
spwestwood 14y ago

HarryHirsch 14y ago

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 to lobbyist influence. It encourages the wrong mindset.

GabrielF00 14y ago
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.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- obviouslygreen 14y ago
  Not sure what you're going for here. The literal definition of "petition" is not what's intended there and having the right to ask nicely doesn't mean the government is required to implement something else that allows this; the primary means is through electing and speaking with officials. And that doesn't work either. [edit: As pointed out below, my use of "literal" here is not as intended; by "literal definition" I was attempting to say "relevant definition" in the sense of the mechanism used by the We the People website.]
  - andrewem 14y ago
    Actually, while I am not a Constitutional scholar, I believe that the literal definition of "petition" is precisely what is meant by that section of the First Amendment. The Founders knew what petitions were and how they intended them to function when sent to the government. The proof of that is that back in 1774 the Continental Congress sent a petition [1] to King George III (well, theoretically to him, but in practice to the two Houses of Parliament) requesting that a set of laws they disliked be repealed. This was about 15 years before the Bill of Rights was approved by Congress [2], so one can assume that people were still aware of it. The analogy isn't perfect since the US doesn't have the same system of government and so petitions to the US government can't go to quite the same party or parties, but it's bizarre to claim without evidence that the plain sense of the word as used then and now isn't what's meant. The fact that the President is making it easier to gather signatures for a petition doesn't change the fact that they're requests to the government initiated by citizens, for the redress of grievances. (Now if you are a Constitutional scholar, as say the current President is, I'd love to hear an argument as to why the straightforward meaning is wrong. Any such response would likely cite various Supreme Court decisions from the last 200+ years.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition_to_the_King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition_to_the_King [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

JagMicker 14y ago

For those TL;DR'ers out there, here's a summary: The White House understands the petition and claims to agree. However, they aren't going to do anything about it other than wait for the "legislature" to address the issue. You might as well petition the corporate owners of the major cell. carriers, as they are probably the only ones who will do anything about this.

MichaelGG 14y ago
To be fair though, isn't that how the US government is supposed to work? It's not like the President can just arbitrarily change laws.
- brown9-2 14y ago
  Yes, and a large amount of people who propose petitions on change.org seem to not understand this.
- drharris 14y ago
  Um, that hasn't stopped the past few administrations from doing exactly that.
  - leetrout 14y ago
    Or the current one... Or at least the current regime's attempts to use executive orders to ignore the legislative process. Par for the course.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
So you can do what I just did, write your congressional representative and include a copy of the statement from the Whitehouse. My argument was simply, this is what the people want, the executive branch agrees, its up to you guys to make it happen so please do so. I can only imagine how hard it will be to be re-elected if you were to not support such legislation when it came up in favor of one of your big donors (AT&T). Sincerely, .... The process is slow, but it is pretty durable. I've got both the petition and the Whitehouse response in my notebook, and we're in an 'off' year but next year we'll put a bunch of new candidates up for congress, this will come out again as a test to see if they did what was demanded or not. So the stage is set assuming we use the tools given us :-)

ibejoeb 14y ago

"...neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation." Right. This is a solved problem. We have contracts for a reason: to establish and enforce obligations. Get rid of these ridiculous locks. Either that or harden them and get rid of contracts.

rallison 14y ago

This is a promising response, although one part is of (possibly unfounded) concern: "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." This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted.

DigitalJack 14y ago
That is a matter of contract law. If you are no longer obligated by the contract you agreed to, then there should be no barriers to unlocking.
- betterunix 14y ago
  Why should there be any barriers while you are on contract? What if someone wants to use their phone one two different networks for some reason, swapping SIM cards occasionally (OK, I cannot come up with a reason why, but that does not mean no such reason exists)? If you are paying for your service, what's the problem?
  - uvdiv 14y ago
    swapping SIM cards occasionally (OK, I cannot come up with a reason why Because if you travel, your contract provider will charge you extortionate fees. It's one of the ways they nickle-and-dime. You can get cheaper plans from foreign telecoms.
onedognight 14y ago
> This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted. You don't really own the phone until the contract that got you the phone is terminated. They agree to buy your phone for you if you agree to n-months of service.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "You don't really own the phone until the contract that got you the phone is terminated." ...then why do you wind up paying sales tax on it?

timtadh 14y ago

my response to their response (sent via the "what did you think form") I don't think you adequately addressed the larger issues raised by DMCA. Cell phones and tablet carrier locking is only one of the anti-consumer anti-user results of the law. Not being able to install a different OS without illegal procedures such as "rooting" and "cracking" the device remain an outstanding issue for all ARM based devices. This limits competition and unfairly privledges the position of the device manufacturer over the user. A device is a physical item. It is not rented it is sold. One should have full control over their own devices. Today, sadly, we (the people of the USA) are subject to an over-reaching law which prevents us from legally using our devices to their fullest potential. As witnessed in the recent volatility of the tablet and smart phone market, commericial players come and go frequently. When they leave, they leave their customers stranded. With out a legal means to change the OS of their devices they are left with insecure outdated software which puts them, their employers and their family at risk. Please consider expanding your approach to include a full range of consumer protections.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

ericjeepn 14y ago

On a different note... After reading the library of Congress response to the White House response here http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html I'm not sure what their actual response is.

britta 14y ago
I think they're saying something like this: "We did our job as prescribed by the law - we went through an extensive public comment and hearing process, and we produced an exemption that interpreted the available legal arguments as fairly as possible. Even if it would be nice to make unlocking legal, we only have the power to interpret existing laws; changing the laws is up to the rest of you."

nraynaud 14y ago

Off-topic, but how come they answer so quickly to this one, and not yet to the Aaron Swartz one ?

Mahn 14y ago
Because it was easier to answer, I'd guess.

kirillzubovsky 14y ago

It is sad how irrelevant "We the people" really is. It gives people an illusion that the government actually cares. The response to this petition is essentially "we agree with you and we will work towards ... {bullshit here}." I signed a few of the petitions to see what would happen, but I think I am going to stop now as it's just a waste of time; a trap, nicely put in place by the administration. The only way petitions would matter if they led to real actions, but it would be suicidal on the part of the government to try and intervene with telecom companies; wouldn't be very helpful for the next election, that's all. Oh... sigh.

andybak 14y ago
How do you propose democracy deals with situations like this? I would be wary of asking for more direct democracy without studying those places and times that had this and looking into how that turned out.

gmisra 14y ago

TL;DR: 1. The White House thinks this is a good idea, but it is not within their powers to implement change under the current law. 2. These rules (DMCA exceptions) fall under the Library of Congress, and the White House has recommended a review of said rules. 3. The LoC has also responded and agreed to re-review these exceptions: "We also agree with the administration that the question of locked cell phones has implications for telecommunications policy and that it would benefit from review and resolution in that context." [2] 4. In an amicus-like capacity, the FCC has also responded and commented on the current regulatory regime: "From a communications policy perspective, this raises serious competition and innovation concerns, and for wireless consumers, it doesn't pass the common sense test. The FCC is examining this issue, looking into whether the agency, wireless providers, or others should take action to preserve consumers' ability to unlock their mobile phones." [3] (end summary) The Library of Congress could choose to reinstate the unlocking exception, which they at least purport to be reviewing. Or, the FCC could step in and claim regulatory oversight and create new regulations. Neither of those actions require direct congressional intervention, and both appear to have much higher visibility as a consequence of this petition. ---- [1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7?update https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel... [2] http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html [3] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0304/DOC-319250A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013...

uvdiv 14y ago

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 obligation." The White House response doesn't support unlocking phones, only unlocking phones after contracts are expired. Which isn't at all what the petition complains about. They evaded it entirely. No, it's lower than that. They're pretending to agree with the petition, in the tone of their writing; but when you read the fine print, they don't. It's fucking doublespeak.

ericb 14y ago
Agreed. Criminal penalties for unlocking! Could this be more draconian? Contract law is normally covered by civil penalties. And the current administration supports it.
- dmix 14y ago
  Tripartism [1] and neo-corporatism [2], for the win again. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
readme 14y ago
Have you considered that maybe they just overlooked the inconsistency you found? Never attribute to malice what you can to ignorance.
- zem 14y ago
  well, someone had to have put that phrase in there deliberately. your contract is an agreement to pay the cellphone carrier a certain monthly fee for a certain number of months, with early termination fees written in, all of which you are already bound to by civil law. it should have nothing to do with phone unlocking.

stcredzero 14y ago

The Obama administration isn't perfect. (What administration is?) However they do seem to understand society's generational lag in understanding technology. They understand that the generation in charge is out of touch and so will unknowingly perpetrate heinous rules interfering with the way the society of people in their 20's actually use and understand technology. Then again, maybe it's just because Obama is a smartphone user. (Is he still using a Blackberry?)

zaidf 14y ago

All this is good, but what happens to the next guy who gets arrested for this and has his life wrecked? Sometimes I think there should be a penalty against lawmakers for passing reckless laws which could be convincingly argued against in a few paragraphs, as is the case here.

smackfu 14y ago

Am I the only one surprised that the Library of Congress has rule-making abilities?

DannyBee 14y ago
They are specifically granted by the statute in this case.
dangerlibrary 14y ago
The Copyright office is housed in the Library of Congress. since the DMCA is a copyright law, the LoCo has some authority.

gesman 14y ago

Why the *uck Librarian [of Congress or anything else] should be empowered to make the federal laws that can put people in jail? Aren't librarians are supposed to manage books?

jgross206 14y ago
does it matter what his title is? he's appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate
- gesman 14y ago
  Sorry, just confusing title. Next we'll be following orders issued by the Janitor General, I guess.
britta 14y ago
This exemption process is part of the DMCA, and it produces "rules", not as weighty as laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Anti-circumvention_exemptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Ac... has an 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. For a more authoritative and detailed source, the Copyright Office's rulemaking statement begins with several pages explaining its authority and process: http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/2012-26308_PI.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/2012-26308_PI.pdf

knodi 14y ago

So the white house is saying they're going to do nothing...

paulhauggis 14y ago

Where were they when it passed? sleeping?

AimHere 14y ago
Barack Obama was in the Illinois State Senate when the relevant law - the DMCA - was passed.

Scramblejams 14y ago

WH: This step is "important for ensuring we continue to have [a] vibrant, competitive wireless market"[1] Vibrant, competitive wireless market? Coulda fooled me. [1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel...

Pro_bity 14y ago

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand nothing really happened.

dreamdu5t 14y ago

I disagree. If you made an agreement not to unlock the phone as a condition of purchasing it, then people should honor their agreements! Buy from a carrier that lets you unlock the phone. If that carrier does not exist, and there truly is a market demand for this, then start a cell phone carrier.

argumentum 14y ago

As the DMCA is a federal statute, what the White House should have said at the end, is, quite simply .. we will not be enforcing any related complaints. Unlock away.

coffeemug 14y ago

When I train our employees to respond to customer support issues, I always make sure that in every response they do as much as possible to "drive an issue to a close". Not every issue can be fixed, but at the very least we can give the user a clear understanding of a) precisely what the state of affairs is and why, b) whether or not we can fix it and why, c) if we can fix it, who's responsible for the fix and when it's likely to make it into mainline and d) if we can't fix it, what the workaround is. We never ever just say "we agree with you". It's always "we agree with you, and here's how Bob is going to fix this by March". I know that the political machine is much more complicated then a startup of 12, but they don't even try. After having read the whole thing, I'm left with no more understanding of where things are going than I did before I read it.

Zak 14y ago
The political process doesn't work like a business. If you're the CEO and something Bob knows how to do needs doing, you just order him to do it. None of the entities with the legal authority to fix this problem work directly for the president. He cannot fire them because he doesn't like how they're doing their jobs, nor can they fire him for that reason. There is one, and only one person with the unilateral legal authority to fix the unlocking ban. His name is James Hadley Billington.

jsilence 14y ago

Cute how so many of you still believe you are living in a democracy.

tunesmith 14y ago

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.

logn 14y ago

"We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, the wireless and mobile phone industries, and most importantly you" Right, this should go well for us then.

csense 14y ago

This is the first White House petition I've ever seen that actually got a response that wasn't just some vapid equivocation. I'm impressed.

markdown 14y ago
Or so you think. Read it again.

Wonderdonkey 14y ago

Read: Nothing will come of this. President Obama also said he would veto CISPA, close Guantanamo Bay, curb ICE, pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, end indefinite detention, defend labor rights, stop hiring former lobbyists in the White House, end the practice of recess appointments, oppose FISA, and end the use of drones to assassinate terrorists, among many other blatant lies.

ctdonath 14y ago

Isn't this the same White House that signed the law making unlocking cell phones illegal?

fakeer 14y ago

Aah... Wish my country(India - the largest family owned 'democracy' on this planet) had something like this. Here we get arrested for posting things on Internet. Maybe starting such a petition would attract life imprisonment. Congratulation Americans! Glad for you. Don't loose this freedom, don't let them take this away from you and wish us luck and support so that we can get/snatch it too. One day, maybe :-)

danbmil99 14y ago

weird, something from gov't that is intelligible and lucidly written.

jurist 14y ago

What a waste of the president's time.