
White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal” - sinak
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7?update
======
sinak
Hey guys, petition starter here. Just wanted to thank anyone who signed for
their support. I just got off the phone with the White House and they're
really enthusiastic about getting this fixed. We also discussed fixing Section
1201 of the DMCA permanently, and they've agreed to continue the conversation
on that.

When I originally posted this to HN at
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5112020> there were a lot of 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> \- should be launching the site tomorrow.

~~~
sneak
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.

~~~
Cushman
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
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.

~~~
Cushman
It's not? Normal people abdicating the political process is _exactly_ what
hinders change in democracies.

We just completed our one-hundred-thirteenth peaceful transition of power at
the will of the people. The entrenched powers-that-be are only entrenched
because we, as an electorate, keep voting for them. If everybody showed up to
the polls, they'd be out in two years— but hey, why bother?

~~~
onemorepassword
There has been no transition of power. Power is still in the hands of those
who have bought it. All democracies are far from perfect, but the US have
allowed theirs to be dominated by money from the very foundation.

Even quite corrupt democracies are more open to be changed by popular vote
than the US, were not being bought and paid for _beforehand_ means you don't
have the means to successfully stand for election.

Hell, even countries where political candidates regularly get murdered stand
more chance of peaceful democratic change.

The US political system is a effectively a convoluted equivalent of having a
ballot with only one name on it. Only in this case it's a dollar sign. I would
be very surprised if this could be overturned by peaceful means, but it will
most certainly require extra-parliamentary action, because US democracy has
been sold.

~~~
Cushman
This goes for all of you: _Bullshit._ Learn some recent political history,
starting here:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#2010_electio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#2010_election)
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 reason the established parties keep winning is
because their people vote, and our people don't.

Gerrymandering is a huge problem. Voter suppression is a huge problem.
Electoral fraud may be a huge problem. But these things have not succeeded in
destroying our democracy, yet — the person who wins the election becomes the
person in power, every time. Our system _is_ working, we're just _losing_.

So don't get involved if you like, sit back and be cynical if it makes you
feel better(?), but don't pretend you're not part of the problem.

~~~
onli
> the person who wins the election becomes the person in power, every time.

That is a joke, isn't it?

~~~
Cushman
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.

~~~
arthurrr
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 thinks he is.

~~~
Cushman
I am most certainly not an idealist, but I take it as a compliment to be
called one.

~~~
BCM43
I don't think arthurrr called you an idealist. Naive, maybe.

~~~
Cushman
Well, let's agree to disagree.

------
uvdiv
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.

~~~
px43
Why would you unlock a phone when you are still on your contract? That doesn't
make any sense. If you switch carriers, then by definition you have just ended
your contract, and you should be able to use your old phone. This is exactly
what the petition is talking about.

~~~
uvdiv
_Why would you unlock a phone when you are still on your contract?_

So that you can switch telecoms when you're travelling, to avoid extortionate
fees. This is one of the complaints in the petition.

------
gmisra
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-
cel...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-
legal/1g9KhZG7?update)

[2] <http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html>

[3]
[http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013...](http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0304/DOC-319250A1.pdf)

------
JagMicker
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
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.

~~~
drharris
Um, that hasn't stopped the past few administrations from doing exactly that.

~~~
leetrout
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.

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

~~~
obviouslygreen
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
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.

------
HarryHirsch
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
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_.

~~~
obviouslygreen
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
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> [2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights>

~~~
obviouslygreen
I believe I stated my post poorly. I should have said the _relevant_
definition of "petition." It more generally means to request. Regardless, it's
my uninformed impression that "petition" here isn't used in the specific sense
of being enjoined by a number of people.

You're certainly correct that they _are_ petitions, though a petition in this
sense matches petition in the general sense, as a request regardless of
format.

I definitely am not a Constitutional scholar, though, and I appreciate the
informative response.

------
ibejoeb
"...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.

------
stcredzero
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?)

------
timtadh
_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.

------
rallison
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.

~~~
onedognight
> 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
"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?

~~~
jmj42
The same reason you pay sales tax on a car you finance. Just because you are
paying for the phone over 2 years does not mean that you get to defer sales
tax.

~~~
betterunix
(1) You can sell a car you financed to someone else, even if they buy their
gas from a different gas station.

(2) You are not taking out a loan on the phone. You are paying a discounted
price for it in exchange for signing a contract for service. You bought the
phone when you paid the sales tax.

~~~
onedognight
> (1) You can sell a car you financed to someone else, even if they buy their
> gas from a different gas station.

Yes, but you must pay off your loan (the early termination fee) first and then
_you_ own the car and can sell it (i.e. as Obama suggested, after your
contract ends).

~~~
betterunix
OK, but you are ignoring the second point: the cell phone company is not
issuing a loan to you, they are selling the phone to you at a discount. It is
a loss leader strategy, _not_ a financing program.

------
tunesmith
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.

------
ericjeepn
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> I'm
not sure what their actual response is.

~~~
britta
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."

------
Wonderdonkey
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.

------
coffeemug
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
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.

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

------
kirillzubovsky
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
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.

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

------
logn
"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.

------
Scramblejams
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-
cel...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-
legal/1g9KhZG7)

------
Pro_bity
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand nothing really happened.

------
dreamdu5t
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.

------
zaidf
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.

------
argumentum
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.

------
gesman
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
does it matter what his title is? he's appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate

~~~
gesman
Sorry, just confusing title.

Next we'll be following orders issued by the Janitor General, I guess.

------
csense
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
Or so you think. Read it again.

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

~~~
Mahn
Because it was easier to answer, I'd guess.

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

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

~~~
dangerlibrary
The Copyright office is housed in the Library of Congress. since the DMCA is a
copyright law, the LoCo has some authority.

------
jurist
What a waste of the president's time.

------
danbmil99
weird, something from gov't that is intelligible and lucidly written.

------
fakeer
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 :-)

------
paulhauggis
Where were they when it passed? sleeping?

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

