White House Urges Reversal of Ban On Cell-Phone Unlocking 256
netbuzz writes "In a dramatic call for action directly prompted by 114,000 signatures on a 'We the People' petition, the Obama Administration moments ago urged the reversal of a federal regulatory decision that had rendered the act of unlocking a cell phone illegal. From the reply: 'The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. 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. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.' Statements from the FCC and Library of Congress indicate that they back the administration's position."
Link to the response (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Confused (Score:4, Insightful)
ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.
Since when do we have that?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I love that "continue to have" part too...can't tell if the WH is being sarcastic or the telco money [opensecrets.org] actually convinced them so.
The Real News (Score:5, Insightful)
The real news item here is that a We The People petition actually garnered a thought-out response, instead of a boilerplate restating of current policy.
First time for everything...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reason this policy is getting attention is that nobody important (read: major corporations) stands to lose much by changing the policy. It's not an important issue, when compared to drug reform, single payer health care, drone strikes, or jailing bankers. It's just a shiny bauble Obama can use to misdirect us away from these important issues.
Re:The Real News (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, they do. Local in-network service is practically provided on a at-cost basis (except for data, which is pretty much the only profit center available). What makes them money is roaming - when you roam and pay the expensive roaming fees that can easily be $1/minute+, $0.50/text, $1/MB, etc., that is split up between the foriegn carrier and your carrier.
It's why carriers offer "travel packages" - hoping you'd go over, as well as being able to charge you a little more.
An unlocked phone, even on contract, using another SIM deprives them of this revenue source.
Re: (Score:3)
Roaming?
I use Verizon and live in a semi-populated area (Ohio), and travel to all manner of little podunk town for business, often on back roads to keep the driving interesting. The only time my phone has been "roaming" in recent years has been down at a buddy's farm down in a random Kentucky holler where the nights are quiet, the stars are magnificent, and you have to climb a hill to get any signal at all.
Otherwise: West to Chicago? Verizon. East to Connecticut? Verizon. South to Florida? Verizon.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That would be correct.
Say 2000 people move from carrier A to carrier B. Another 2000 will move from carrier B to carrier A. Because y'know... they're the exact same fucking thing anyway. That's kinda how oligopolies work. Welcome to the last decade or so, you've missed a lot.
Early termination fee (Score:2)
You mean if a lot of people unlock their phones and move to another carrier, their current providers won't lose much?
They'd still have to pay their ETFs.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason this policy is getting attention is that nobody important (read: major corporations) stands to lose much by changing the policy.
You mean if a lot of people unlock their phones and move to another carrier, their current providers won't lose much?
Their position is that your phone should remain locked (and you remain subject to DMCA reprisal) at the carriers discretion, until your contract has expired and you've fullfilled any and all "service agreement[s] and other obligations".
Many of them will do that by request after your contract is up anyway. As far as they're concerned you've paid off the subsidy and generated the profit you were expected to.
This was the easy response.
Re: (Score:2)
1) The Obama Administration agrees with the ideas in the petition.
and
2) This is the fault of the Librarian of Congress who can legally make this call.
This is followed by some vague talk of how they "support a range of approaches to addressing this issue" and how other agencies (FCC, Congress, mobile providers) should consider doing something about it.
Oh yeah, I'm just holding my breath to see the action commence!
Re:The Real News (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you note in the WH response that they supported unlocking of cells/tablets "when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation"?
If you read the LoC's original decision, the "you can't unlock your phone" applied while you were under contract.
In other words, no real change there.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, a lot of successful petitions also lack what could be called "well thought out" qualities. A lot of really successful petitions are asking the president to do unconstitutional things, or override a decision made by congress, or, terrifying to me, I've seen numerous instances of people asking the president to interfere with criminal proceedings.
Not to mention the outright jokes that the site is used for. We use one of the constitutionally protected tools for fixing our government to ask them to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, a lot of successful petitions also lack what could be called "well thought out" qualities.
To be truly fair, you'd have to go read all the petitions that received answers; a large number of them, including every single one about marijuana legalization, received the standard, boilerplate B.S. response, regardless of how "well thought out" they may have been. I tend to agree with other posters, who point out that this is likely an attempt by the Obama Administration to trick the public into thinking that they take our grievances seriously.
Not to mention the outright jokes that the site is used for. We use one of the constitutionally protected tools for fixing our government to ask them to build a death star.
The lack of proper response to serious petitions came long b
Re: (Score:2)
The real news item here is that a We The People petition actually garnered a thought-out response, instead of a boilerplate restating of current policy.
Exactly. There is some hope that the white house actually listens, and just maybe actually cares.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a start. With 100K+ signatures, it might even turn some representatives' and senators' heads.
And that's the point of the system. It hasn't fulfilled its ultimate purpose yet, but it's headed there. We'll see how far this gets in 4 years, and if anything significant and meaningful comes out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that does not always happen. They just gave a flippant response to the one I signed, "We are not in the business of blowing up planets".
To which I would respond, 'your terrestrial policies indicate otherwise.'
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that policy doesn't go far enough. We need a law that mandates cross-compatibility between cell networks (just like the laws they have in Europe).
An unlocked Sprint CDMA phone doesn't get me anywhere in the United States. Verizon won't accept it on its own CDMA network. And the other networks are not compatible with CDMA, so they couldn't accept it even if they wanted to.
Recently, my Sprint phone became useless where I live, at least as a data connection, as a phone it still worked. Although, I ha
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, some of the responses are well thought-out. Generally, these are ones that respond to actual issues, instead of, for example, "LET SECEDE FROM THE UNION" or "HAVE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA RESIGN." And yes, they get a lot of these. Pissed off hicks with access to computers are, surprisingly, a nontrivial demographic.
Isn't it interesting how quickly these "majority rules" types change their opinions the second the majority in question is one they don't agree with?
And yes, I mean that as a 2-way dig.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, man... I think I almost prefer Bush's 'not-even-pretending-he's-listening' approach.
No false sense of hope.
Is this the website's first "yes"? (Score:2)
A win for common sense (Score:2)
I guess we can recall the death star from over Washington DC.
CDMA Carriers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You are absolutely correct. It is worse than locking. The Sprint and Verizon iPhone 4 and 4s are identical hardware-wise. But both companies colluded together to keep you from registering phones they didn't sell.
Re: (Score:2)
but why are CDMA carriers allowed to block activating phones on their network that they didn't sell to you?
Because they don't want something connecting to their network that can do damage to their network. But you say, "Shouldn't they have defense in depth strategies for dealing with a rogue client?" Yes, they should; but apparently they don't, which is why they're so worried about (and have extensive tests around) every software update that could possibly be pushed out to existing phones.
The ban needs revoking, but not for why most think (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the very reason that they gave for why it was felt acceptable to have a ban on cell phone unlocking (the alleged wide availability of unlocked cell phones as alternatives for consumers) is the very reason that it should *NOT* be illegal for consumers to unlock cell phones.
Because by creating laws which protect locked cell phones from being tampered with by consumers, the system ends up creating an incentive (however slight) for cell phone providers to actually distribute locked cell phones, usually in place of unlocked ones, so that the distributors can enjoy whatever additional benefits that the legal protection actually offers. It's the same problem as with outlawing the breaking of encryption on copyrighted works... the lawmakers end up supporting a particular business model or technology that may not actually reflect what consumers really want. And because providers of such devices have been given some additional incentive to distribute such locked devices, the availability of unlocked devices will gradually start to decrease over time, ultimately leaving a consumer with little to no choice but to either purchase a locked technology, or else ultimately simply not be be part of the modern culture that regularly uses such technologies at all.
It might not be immediately obvious, but it's certainly not rocket science either. I only wish more people could see it.
So now what? (Score:2)
Insufficient (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFR: "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."
Emphasis mine. It doesn't matter what service agreement you have, it should not be illegal to unlock the phone. If you have an agreement (aka a contract), then the contract language states what you may do with your device to remain within the bounds of the contract, and if you choose to violate that agreement what the injured party is allowed to recover as a result of your default. It's basic contract law - and it's straight forward. The carriers don't really give a rat's ass what you do with your subsidized phone, as long as you fulfill your 24 months of minimum service. If you buy your device, unlock it, and go buy service with another company they really don't care - just as long as your check clears every month for the next two years. Hell, I'll bet AT&T would sell unlocked iPhones for $2000 with no commitment at all ($200+$75/mo for 24 months) if they though they could sell enough of them.
Point is - this should not be a criminal statute. It's contract law; civil stuff - plain and simple.
What about pre-paid? (Score:3)
buy it on installment plan (Score:2)
Rather than subsidizing the phone for pre-paid plans, just sell them on instalment plans. That way the end-user pays the full price of the phone no matter what, and also gets the benefit of not paying extra money to the carrier after the phone is paid off.
my reaction as well (Score:2)
The locking of the phone is completely orthogonal to whether or not you still owe the carrier.
There should be no reason why I can't use the same phone with another carrier as long as I'm still paying the original carrier for the phone subsidy.
Agreeing completely with you, I'm just nitpicking (Score:2)
It's basic contract law - and it's straight forward. The carriers don't really give a rat's ass what you do with your subsidized phone, as long as you fulfill your 24 months of minimum service.
Or pay the early termination fee which is its equivalent.
You're totally right.
Another Viewpoint... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually close. It wouldn't be the end of the world to get a partial victory. I'm not sure it it's the nuances they don't understand* or this is big telco making sure to keep their thumb on top of subscribers, but it's better than the alternative. I'd like to see this as the first crack in the DMCA dam.
*The people who work at the top of the administration are not, in any way, intellectual midgets - they either know what they've written or they simply haven't put much thought into it. I'm betting on the
Conspiracy.. (Score:3)
Its an evil Obama plot to take away our cell phones.. no, I mean, its an Obamanation conspiracy to give away cell phones to lazy welfare bums.. ah.. no.. it must be a liberal democrat plan to make Obama the first dictator of America by screwing the kind hearted telecom companies and making us all love him with our free unlocked cell phones and thus we'll abolish the 2 term limit and all become muslims and be overly healthy with our free health care and and and..
Kinda sorta (Score:2)
What they actually did was say they would support allowing you to unlock your phone only after it was paid for / off of contract. That is not at all the same thing as saying they are supporting a ban on cell phone locking and the story submission is misleading at best.
Your two year old cell phone could be unlocked and transferred to another carrier under their proposal, not your current cell phone that your actually using (if your the average smart phone user). For most people that have a modern cell phone
Re: (Score:2)
It means if you buy a cell phone without a contract, however, you can unlock it. Contracts are still bound by contract law. This wouldn't change that. If you want to save a ton of money by tethering yourself to a particular vendor then that is your choice.
I don't think this is a reversal. (Score:5, Interesting)
Read what they say. It pretty much says implicitly that if you've got a contract, fuck you, otherwise "yes we believe". That covers the telecom bases. Wanna get your "free" upgrade as part of your contract and sell it to someone on CL for $200 off MSRP? Still under contract? Then Fuck You.
Wanna switch your phone midstream?
"This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs -- even if it isn't the one on which the device was first activated"
What does that mean? That means AT THE END OF THE CONTRACT otherwise FUCK YOU.
This is way less liberal than people seem to be interpreting it. They've also let the FCC in and other red tape that will ensure this moves at a typical snails pace. Read between the lines, read what it doesn't spell out.
Is it better than nothing? Yes. Is it a full retraction and concession to public pressure? Fuck no.
PS, I read this on Hacker News hours ago.
you don't own your phone until your contract ends (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think what's going to come out of it is that the contracts with carriers will be re-written.
When you "buy" your smartphone at a discounted price from a carrier by all means they should own the carrier lock as it protects their "investment" into subsidizing the handset in hopes of making it back with profit (albeit disproportionately large profit) on your contract. Until your contract period is in place, I don't see why it should be allowed for you switch carriers?
That's why you get charged an ETF for breaking the contract early. The ETF is supposed to make up for the part of the subsidy that hasn't been paid back yet.
It does what, now? (Score:2)
innovative products and solid service
Continue to have competitive wireless market? (Score:2)
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
He's just politically grandstanding on a popular issue. Nothing will actually come of it, and he knows it.
Stating his position is "grandstanding"? He should be silent on it so you can trash him about that as well?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Like, what you're trying to do, but failing?
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
So the Obama administration shouldn't have taken a position on this?
I'm pretty sure anything Obama does is wrong. Even when he does the "right thing" the anti-Obama crowd claims he did it for the wrong reasons. It's a form of insanity.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm pretty sure anything Obama does is wrong. Even when he does the "right thing" the anti-Obama crowd claims he did it for the wrong reasons. It's a form of insanity.
I have a friend who, in response to exactly this kind of insanity, simply adds his thanks to Obama for everything good that happens in his life. Having beautiful weather? Thanks Obama! Finding five dollars in a jacket you haven't worn for months? Thank goodness Obama is President! Getting engaged? We might never have met if it wasn't for Obama!
Re: (Score:2)
For starts he has no authority.... It's the Library of CONGRESS, so who is he to tell them what to do???
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that the POTUS has the power to introduce bills into Congress for consideration, dont you?
No president has ever forced any congress to ever pass any specific law.
Your post is 100% troll BS.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the "right thing" that helps his handlers and Washington lobby groups and other special interests, but by and large it's the American people who are getting screwed over in this economy. If he appears to be doing the "right thing" it's only to get more votes or brownie points.
Isn't getting more votes the "right" reason for a president to do something? Would you be happier if he consistently did something that would get him less votes?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
In other words
If it feels good, do it.
If ya got it, spend it!
etc.
Sometimes what is best for the Nation is not what is popular.
A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.
Paraphrased, Elmer T. Perterson, The Daily Oklahoman
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In other words
If it feels good, do it.
If ya got it, spend it!
etc.
Sometimes what is best for the Nation is not what is popular.
A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.
Paraphrased, Elmer T. Perterson, The Daily Oklahoman
"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve"
BTW (Score:2)
My comment makes no judgement on the phone unlocking issue.
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.
Paraphrased, Elmer T. Perterson, The Daily Oklahoman
Can you point to three examples where a democracy failed because the masses voted themselves largess? For every single example you give, I'll give three examples of a society failing because the aristocracy voted themselves largess from the public treasury.
If you can't point to three clear examples of democracy ending because "the voters discovered they can vote themselves largess", can you please just stop regurgitating this hateful bullshit fucking meme.
Frankly, most voters are vastly more decent and selfless than those at the top. Which is why political arguments about "belt tightening" and "sacrifice" resonate so much with them. And "fairness" and "family" and "American values". Even when you give them free stuff, you have to couch it in terms of caring for the poor, or creating a decent society, something larger than "hey look, free shit".
Now I'm not saying people are all that bright, hell half of them have below average; which is why they don't always see when politicians and lobbyists using terms like "fairness" and "values" are lying and stealing from them. But they are trying to vote for the right thing. And this constant war against the integrity of the masses (the "takers", the "47%", the "welfare mentality") is not only disgusting, it is the real cause of harm to your nation.
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd just like to see a politician with some convictions and backbone for a change.
See...you don't, really. People with convictions create standstills. What you want is people who are willing to compromise. People who are willing to see both sides of an argument and will try to get the best of all of it. You need "flip-floppers". You need people that will accept that they can't have everything they want. Stop voting for people that are "strong leaders". Vote for people that work well in groups.
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is there's no "pro-cancer" lobby.
There is, however, a large and well-funded anti-handset-unlocking lobby; which is why the LoC reversed their original decision allowing unlocking. So the President coming out in favour of a completely unfunded public group, against the will of the funded business lobby, is actually a much greater gesture than a "Cancer bad, m'kay."
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Informative)
The decision was made by the Library of Congress, removing unlocking from the list of things exempt from the DMCA I believe. If they reverse that decision, and it sounds like they will, then the problem is solved unless Congress drafts specific legislation to make it illegal.
Re:Political stunt (Score:4, Informative)
All Congress has to do is let the 3 years expire again and we're back to the status quo.
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like all Congress has to do is let the Patriot Act or the Bush Tax Cuts expire, but you don't see those happening do you?
Re: (Score:2)
So, by "budget cuts" you mean "growing budgets, just not as fast as we'd like", then yeah, we are in agreement. Baseline Budgeting is horrible paradigm and leads to inefficiencies, since no program has to fight for its existence, and all programs are treated as equal. Which is why Obama likes to say crazy things like he has over the last month or so about how budget growth limits is going to be Armageddon. Meanwhile his little romp with Tiger Woods and Michelle's expensive vacations could offset some of tho
Re:Political stunt (Score:4, Informative)
stop using word games to perpetuate that myth.
they are cuts.
they are real cuts in real budgets.
right now, already, all federal employees (non military) of the department of defense, have had their take home pay for the remainder of the fiscal year cut by 20%, via mandated furloughs of 1 "no-work, no-leave, no-pay", day per week from NOW until the end of hte fiscal year.
That is not a cut in in growth.
That is a real cut, happening right now, that affects real people.
More than 800,000 of them.
Similar cuts are happening across all the agencies. That means to FBI agents, USDA food inspectors (already some meat plants have had to shutdown operations either a few days a week, or altogether due to lack of inspectors), etc.
And while you can argue about what the federal spending should be all day long, those are real people performing real jobs, that are now facing having 20% less money to meet their financial obligations for the rest of the fiscal year (now to september). many of thsoe folks are on contract so they cant just leave for better work. and the cuts in pay are likely to stick around, unless the work consolidates, which instead means more work spread across fewer people; dont you love when that happens in a project??
Re: (Score:3)
Are you doing that thing again where you look at budget items in non-inflation-adjusted dollars while at the same time bitching about all the inflation the administration is causing?
My salary is not automatically incremented by inflation, so why should theirs be? I have to get by on the same amount that I made 6 years ago. They need to learn to do so, too, or even less. Because they are the federal government, so they should only be in charge of things that need to be done at a national level,
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
The decision was made by the Library of Congress, removing unlocking from the list of things exempt from the DMCA I believe. If they reverse that decision, and it sounds like they will, then the problem is solved unless Congress drafts specific legislation to make it illegal.
In addition to(as you say) the matter being out of Congress' hands unless they amend the DMCA to change the Librarian of Congress' role, it is in some sense the purpose of these goofy little exemptions to protect the DMCA as a whole.
How better to protect the fundamental overreach of the DMCA(ie. just by combining virtually anything copyrighted with even a totally crap DRM system, anybody can code rules into their product, with those rules being given force of federal law, or at least serving as a presumptively very strong basis for lawsuits) than by having a tame process for throwing the opposition a bone on a few relatively minor; but culturally, educationally, or otherwise symbolically significant issues?
If the intention were to open a real exemption in the DMCA, it'd be legal to break DRM for any purpose that is otherwise legal, and development, use, sale, etc. of circumvention tools and devices would only constitute aggravating factors in copyright infringement cases, rather than crimes in themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
How better to protect the fundamental overreach of the DMCA(ie. just by combining virtually anything copyrighted with even a totally crap DRM system, anybody can code rules into their product, with those rules being given force of federal law, or at least serving as a presumptively very strong basis for lawsuits) than by having a tame process for throwing the opposition a bone on a few relatively minor; but culturally, educationally, or otherwise symbolically significant issues?
If you're really going to be paranoid, why not just assume that they want to prevent you from removing the trackify software from your phone so you don't have the man up your ass every time your phone sends a packet?
Re: (Score:2)
How better to protect the fundamental overreach of the DMCA(ie. just by combining virtually anything copyrighted with even a totally crap DRM system, anybody can code rules into their product, with those rules being given force of federal law, or at least serving as a presumptively very strong basis for lawsuits) than by having a tame process for throwing the opposition a bone on a few relatively minor; but culturally, educationally, or otherwise symbolically significant issues?
If you're really going to be paranoid, why not just assume that they want to prevent you from removing the trackify software from your phone so you don't have the man up your ass every time your phone sends a packet?
I'm not usually the hyper-paranoid type, but from a political perspective, I think he's right on this. The best way to protect something ugly like the DMCA is to knock the sharpest edges off it.
Meanwhile, and either way, the DMCA is preserved with relatively minor caveats.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Case in point:
The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: 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.
Not exactly a condemnation of aggregious overreach with the DMCA. It's a soft response that anyone can safely cheer for.
LoC a regulatory agency? (Score:5, Interesting)
I had to rub my eyes there for a minute, but apparently the DMCA puts exemptions in the hands of the Librarian [wikipedia.org]
I never envisioned a librarian making rules beyond, "keep quiet", "no reference checkouts", and fines for being overdue.
So. Among other oddities we can now cite the DMCA for making the LoC a regulatory agency!
SHHHHHHH! (Score:2)
This guy's so out of touch he thinks books are relevant to anything.
Easier to put a humiliating slapdown mandated by the proles on some obsolete government functionary rather than smash the Hollywood hydra that wants to throw our childrens in jail.
or something
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be careful... They might hire Agent Paper to come after you.... What library DOESN'T need a cadet of super-spies!!!
Re:LoC a regulatory agency? (Score:5, Interesting)
I had to rub my eyes there for a minute, but apparently the DMCA puts exemptions in the hands of the Librarian [wikipedia.org]
I never envisioned a librarian making rules beyond, "keep quiet", "no reference checkouts", and fines for being overdue.
So. Among other oddities we can now cite the DMCA for making the LoC a regulatory agency!
Clearly Congress did not want this power to be in the hands of the Executive Branch. They wanted it out of control of any elected official.
Their reasons for this are not exactly transparent, but I suspect money was exchanged.
Most of the DMCA deals with books, music, movies etc. That much seems sane for the Librarian to handle.
But cell phones only fell under the DMCA due to the necessity to circumvent encryption to bypass carriers locks. This is clearly
a tangential area for the Library, and anytime a manufacturer wants to invoke the DMCA simply encrypting some vaguely necessary key
is all that is needed.
The librarian, with no prior powers of doing anything beyond sushing patrons, is now a quasi-legislative body, which is clearly beyond the
scope of tine institution.
This whole thing could be circumvented by the FCC making rules stating that carrier locked phones may not be imported or sold after
some date. Other countries have done this, and it works fine.
Every valid reason for carrier locks on a phone are obsolete. Carriers can kill IMEIs of stolen phones (including customers who walk away without satisfying their contract on a subsidized phone).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the rules for Librarians are:
1.Silence
2.Books must be returned no later than the last date shown
3.Do not meddle with the nature of causality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-space#L-space [wikipedia.org]
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Informative)
Technically it's not so much the "Library of Congress" as it is the "Librarian of Congress", a position appointed by the president, that delivered the decision. The current guy was appointed by Regan in '87, and while it's not terribly clear if he was reappointed by Obama or was just left in place, it is fair to say that he answers to President Obama. (There isn't a specific term on the position; it's life by precedent but there's no reason he couldn't be removed.)
The point is, that this is something that the office of the president has a fair amount of control over. If Obama wants it to happen, there's no real reason it shouldn't. As far as the GP's post, a public "urging" could be seen as grandstanding since this would be a bit like your boss holding a press conference to urge you to change your decision on something. However, as it was publicly asked, a public response is warranted.
With that in mind though, if the ban on unlocking isn't reversed, and rather quickly at that, it'll highlight some serious problems with the system and "grandstanding" would be about the nicest thing you can say about it...
Re:Political stunt (Score:4, Insightful)
Technically it's not so much the "Library of Congress" as it is the "Librarian of Congress", a position appointed by the president,
With the Advice and Consent of the Senate.
It is not clear that the Librarian answers to the President. Nor is it clear that the President can remove him.
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Interesting)
> With the Advice and Consent of the Senate.
"With the Advice and Consent of the Senate." applies to most appointed positions. Take, for example, the Secretary of State [wikipedia.org], which is a very clearly executive branch, close to the president position. So you can't really infer anything from that.
> It is not clear that the Librarian answers to the President. Nor is it clear that the President can remove him.
That's certainly true, and quite probably why the position's term has defaulted to life. Still, there is more to influence than 'can vs can't fire'. If Obama says "reverse that" it would take some serious balls and justification to tell him off, even Obama doesn't threaten his job directly. And that's what I was touching on with my last statement... If the Librarian can just say 'no' without any accountability, that a pretty serious problem and some amount of shit will probably hit the fan, be it changes to the DMCA in terms of who's in charge of these exemptions, or what accountability the Librarian has to the government/people.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, except the bit about not saying NO to the President.
The board of the Federal Reserve are probably the closest equivalent. Pretty much immune to presidential meddling once appointed.
From Wiki:
As stipulated by the Banking Act of 1935, the President appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; they must then be confirmed by the Senate and serve for 14 years. Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy opinions. The chairman and vice-chairman are chosen by the President from among the sitting Governors for four-year terms; these appointments are also subject to Senate confirmation.
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress created the Secret Service, the FCC, DHS, and damn near every part of the executive branch outside the military (which is, essentially, created by the constitution rather than a legislative act, though congress still basically created it.)
While it's true that presidential appointment doesn't mean that it's accountable to the president, being created by congress is even more meaningless as far as the part of government to which it belongs. Sure, you could argue that congress has greater control as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is hardly clear from that article, at best it is a very weak conclusion drawn from "the Federal Communications Commission will investigate ... if the executive branch has any authority to change the law" which can mean any number of things.
It is pretty clear that the Library of Congress isn't terribly well defined in many aspects. It was created "for Coongress", but the Librarian is appointed by the president (without any oversight from congress, until the Senate started being required to approve pre
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Informative)
But, the statement issued by the Library of Congress [loc.gov] says about as little as is possible with so many words. I certainly don't get the feeling that the LoC will revisit the decision, and I don't see where the law provides a mechanism for that, even if they wanted to. The statement refers to a benefit to "review and resolution" in the context of telecommunications policy, says the rulemaking "was not intended to be a substitute for deliberations of broader public policy," and ends with a door slam - "The most recent rulemaking has served this purpose."
Re: (Score:2)
Um, so whom does the Librarian of Congress answer to then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librarian_of_Congress#Librarians_of_Congress [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In theory, the FCC could effectively overturn LoC's decision, by saying that no one may traffick in a radio device, if any usage of the device requires committing a DMCA violation. i.e. if you want to sell DMCA-enforced-locked phones, then those phones are not allowed to use public spectrum. That would either put an end to locked phones, or make it so that the DMCA arguments aginst unlocking could no longer be applied.
FCC already has tons of regulations on what phone makers and sellers are allowed to do,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, I expect this to get some traction. Cell phone unlocking has been legal for a year or two now, and telcos aren't suffering too much from it. This is a small issue that will win Obama some major positive PR. He needs to deliver on small issues like this so people don't notice he hasn't even tried to deliver anything important.
He doesn't even need to get Congress involved. He just needs to have a chat with the Librarian of Congress and work out some quid pro quo. This won't be hard for Obama to
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Political stunt (Score:4, Insightful)
The really silly thing is that the Library of Congress gets to decide the legality of cell phone unlocking.
Yes, I know, it's because of the travesty that is DMCA, but that doesn't make it any less silly.
Re:Political stunt (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I know, it's because of the travesty that is DMCA, but that doesn't make it any less silly.
No, no, of course not, but it does mask it. Like, a man wearing a tutu, bunny slippers, and a singing Billy Bass as a hat is pretty fucking silly. But put that man on a giant merry-go-round with a troupe of nuns yodeling the dictionary backwards, an upside-down pie-eating contest, a poo-flinging monkey in a pope outfit on stilts, and so on, and suddenly the guy in the tutu doesn't stand out so much.
Of course the rational response to all this silliness is to bulldoze the entire merry-go-round into a big hole and cover it with hot tar.
Re:Political stunt (Score:4)
No, no, of course not, but it does mask it. Like, a man wearing a tutu, bunny slippers, and a singing Billy Bass as a hat is pretty fucking silly. But put that man on a giant merry-go-round with a troupe of nuns yodeling the dictionary backwards, an upside-down pie-eating contest, a poo-flinging monkey in a pope outfit on stilts, and so on, and suddenly the guy in the tutu doesn't stand out so much.
So.....Congress?
Re: (Score:2)
It probably is just some PR stunt. But it indicates they actually do read them and consider them. Let's not cast them a stone since they are listening this time :)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he doesn't answer to the president. That doesn't mean the president can't influence him.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama knows that such a ban stands no chance of getting through Congress (the big telecommunications companies bought and paid for them long ago). He's just politically grandstanding on a popular issue. Nothing will actually come of it, and he knows it.
IIRC he is bound to respond to petitions over 25,000 signatures... It's not like he's giving an unsolicited opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
This would go against Verizon - not for - so not sure what your point is. What executive order is restricting guns right now?
But yes as commander in chief he can call the shots in this factitious "War on Terror" - including using drones.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You could also say that it's easy to say "Yes" but haven of intention of making this a priority, which is indistinguishable from saying "No".
Talk is cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The President can order it to not be enforced but he couldn't tell the Librarian to change his rules. Different branch.
Re: (Score:2)
Now to see if the people of the United States can get it by the American Taliban people who keep trying to screw this nation over.
I am hopeful but far from confident.
Serious question - what group are you actually talking about?
Re: (Score:3)
You probably got modded down because this ban was a somewhat arbitrary decision by a federal agency, not an actual change to legislation. Congress did not pass a new law stating "Thou shalt not unlock your cell phone" with associated criminal and civil penalties. Instead, they empowered some unelected bureaucrats in the Library of Congress to make regulations under the DMCA. The bureaucrats decided that the 'unlocking' of a cell phone was the equivalent to un-DRM-ing copyrighted material, which is illega