Comments on: White House weighs in on right to unlock your phone

By: ohbejoyful

ohbejoyful — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:03:00 +0000

Law enforcement is part of the executive branch of government. They “execute” the laws that the legislative branch enact. The DOJ and the FBI are under the direction of the President. For instance, the President has instructed the DOJ not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

Municipal law enforcement, aka the police, are under the direction of the mayor, and state police similarly under the governor. This means that in Oregon, where marijuana is legal for medical use, the local authorities have instructed their law enforcement to go after pot users only if they have nothing else to do.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 20:44:00 +0000

Wait, so you’re saying you think Ben and Glory have some kind of connection?

By: Eric0142

Eric0142 — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:57:00 +0000

The DoJ and FBI are law enforcement and rarely take that sort of direction (what criminal laws to follow, what not to follow) from the executive. And it won’t stop rights holders from bringing civil cases.

There’s probably more that the WH could do, but this is a start.

By: EH

EH — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 20:52:00 +0000

The Obama Administration coming down on the side of unlocking, compared to all of the other benefits telcos receive, is the equivalent of telling the TSA they can’t insert more than one finger into your rectum.

By: bill_mcgonigle

bill_mcgonigle — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:49:00 +0000

Obama can executive order the DoJ and the FBI to not pursue any cases arising from such complaints. The Capitol Police aren’t exactly outfitted for such duties.

By: toobigtofail

toobigtofail — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:15:00 +0000

Oh. Congress. Right.

Never mind.

By: oasisob1

oasisob1 — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:54:00 +0000

You can’t tell me that there’s any good reason to have a quadcore with 32GB of RAM. We realize that computers will never be completely banned, but we think1950′s era pocket calculators should be sufficient for any personal need.

By: Andrew Singleton

Andrew Singleton — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 16:35:00 +0000

And the War on General Purpose computing continues…

Make us feel grateful to have limited use consumption only devices to the point where we aren’t focused quite as much on the computer that’s being hobbled.

By: Jacob Ewing

Jacob Ewing — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:49:00 +0000

Exactly. What they’re claiming to support is a ridiculously limited exception. It should be taken for granted that you have every right to hack your purchased items however you see fit.

If auto-manufacturers produced automobiles that could only be driven on privately owned toll roads, then this would be equivalent to the government supporting one’s right to modify hatchbacks and motorbikes.

By: KevinRaposo

KevinRaposo — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:46:00 +0000

True, but I believe it’s their job to agree and move forward with this. Hopefully they can get it done as opposed to agreeing with it. We’ll see what happens…

By: KevinRaposo

KevinRaposo — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:45:00 +0000

That’s a good point!

By: l337n00b

l337n00b — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:20:00 +0000

Maybe someone needs a different angle on this problem. We all know future wars are going to be cyberwars, right? So computers are weapons. Second amendment!

By: l337n00b

l337n00b — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:20:00 +0000

Is their job to say, “Oh yes, we agree”? Because that’s all they’ve done.

By: KevinRaposo

KevinRaposo — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:06:00 +0000

Well it’s good to see they that the politicians are finally doing their job!

By: lafave

lafave — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 14:17:00 +0000

Corporate money matters when you want to retire to the speaking circuit a la Clinton.

By: donovan acree

donovan acree — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 13:46:00 +0000

Sounds like some people in congress have a great angle here. They pledge ‘support’ to allow unlocking phones. As a result they will receive truckloads of cash from the cell carriers to make sure that support remains only support.

By: Scott Wetterschneider

Scott Wetterschneider — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:30:00 +0000

Whoa, whoa, hold on. This isn’t about phones. It’s about owning ANYTHING we buy. Phones are computers. We need protection to be allowed full access to any computer we buy and by logical extension should own. We also need protection to “allow” us freedom to lend books, sell 2nd software, refill printers, backup media, bypass region-locks, access laws and ordinances.

By: Eric0142

Eric0142 — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:08:00 +0000

Congress. He’s their Librarian.

From a NY Times piece on the issue: “Because the Library of Congress, and therefore the copyright office, are part of the legislative branch, the White House cannot simply overturn the current ruling. But both the White House and the F.C.C. urged Congress to take up the issue.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/technology/fcc-urges-a-right-to-unlock-cellphones.html?_r=0

By: Boundegar

Boundegar — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:07:00 +0000

Lobby money doesn’t matter when you can’t run for reelection.

By: Bangorian

Bangorian — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:00:00 +0000

I’d be more interested in seeing some action than in reading that they are in support of someone taking action. If the Librarian of Congress has the authority to ban unlocking, then surely someone has the authority to tell said Librarian to shove off, right?

By: Florian Bösch

Florian Bösch — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:13:00 +0000

How dashing, how unprecedented, nay revolutionary, endorsing a viewpoint taken up by pretty much every single one of their constituents regardless of political affiliation. It could threaten lobby money though… don’t forget the poor lobbyists, they’re a constituency too! Oohhh the lobbyists are so poor, would nobody think of the lobbing minority ffs!? Don’t forget, corporations are people too. They should not be discriminated against. Will nobody think of poor abused monopoly holding corporations? What has the world come to?

By: EH

EH — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:51:00 +0000

Yeah, they’re really sticking their neck out on this one.

By: MythicalMe

MythicalMe — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 06:44:00 +0000

This would be good news, if Obama wasn’t mired in other problems now. I think that the President would get behind this as a less objectionable than copyright and patent reforms.

Personally, I would rather see industries stop using DRM and data locks altogether.

By: twianto

twianto — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 06:04:00 +0000

White House advisor R. David Edelman has now issued an official response pledging support for the freedom to unlock not only mobile phones, but also tablets. White House advisor R. David Edelman has now issued an official response pledging support for the freedom to unlock not only mobile phones, but also tablets.

Okay, but there’s one thing that isn’t addressed in the blurb: has White House advisor R. David Edelman now issued an official response pledging support for the freedom to unlock not only mobile phones, but also tablets?

Enquiring minds want to know.

By: C W

C W — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 05:57:00 +0000

Is this potentially the only useful thing to come from internet petitions yet?

By: SedanChair

SedanChair — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 05:48:00 +0000

Talk is cheap. It was cheap before Obama flooded the market with talk and drove down the price, and it’s even cheaper now.

By: The Rizz

The Rizz — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 05:45:00 +0000

What? What?

By: Goodsq

Goodsq — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 05:28:00 +0000

Solution is simple – don’t carry phones, or smart phones. Don’t be on internet, or use computers :-)

By: Allen Bukoff

Allen Bukoff — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 05:23:00 +0000

there’s an echo in here. in here.