Why? So we can get a vaguely worded response from a staffer which dodges any commitments? I think petitions accomplish very little. If we thought they do anything, wouldn't we look at the petitions to secede as very serious? Think how lightly we take those? That's how the government sees all of them.

Petitions are even giving a false sense of accomplishment as those people signing it think they have made a contribution to the political process - while in the end achieving absolutely nothing.

Even worse, they allow government to show how engaged and open they are by listening to the voice of the people. All for the cost of having some intern draft sugar coated "everything is gonna be alright" responses.

Media coverage of petitions such as the death start or the Piers Morgan controversy even enforce the perception, that petitions are not more than a bad joke to give "some weirdos" a place to voice their "problems".

Generally, effective petitions need to do two things:

1. Put pressure on a specific person or group of people to make a specific change.

2. Bring attention of an issue to a larger audience (i.e.: the press, a congressmen's constituents, etc)

Having those things goes a long way to making these online petitions useful, but without them you'd just end blowing around a lot of hot air.

1. No pressure is brought (Obama's not even up for re-election, but I wouldn't feel differently if he were) 2. Usually the only people who know about a petition are already aware of the issue (case in point, unlocking cellphones petition on HN)

I don't get why those cellphones are locked in the first place. I have a carrier subsidized phone (Belgian carrier) and this is a phone exactly the same as you could buy on your own. I have a two year contract and if I would cancel it, I'll have to pay the residual value of the phone.

It's possible to buy non-contract locked-to-carrier phones, too. Often those come with prepaid or pay-what-you-use plans. That's when they want to keep you on the carrier, because they want to keep you spending on it.

Some carriers indeed sell non-locked phones when there's a multi-year contract already.

Why not to propose a petition to drop the whole DMCA? Or rather contact your congressmen to do it. Except that there is something useful in it actually - like removal of secondary liability from ISPs. However all the "anticircumvention" provisions there are sheer garbage.

Not sure about that. What about buying phones from a vendor that doesn't locks them instead?

That said, if I buy something I should be able to do whatever I want with it.

Why? I'm not sure I understand the point of any of these petitions. I mean good for people to do something I guess but these petitions seem largely irrelevant. You'd probably be better off calling your congressperson.