Slashdot Mirror
FCC Official Asks Agency To Investigate Ban On Journalists' Wi-Fi Personal Hotspots At Debate (arstechnica.com)
Yesterday, it was reported that journalists attending the presidential debate at Hofstra University were banned from using personal hotspots and were told they had to pay $200 to access the event's Wi-Fi. The journalists were reportedly offered the option to either turn off their personal hotspots or leave the debate. Cyrus Farivar via Ars Technica is now reporting that "one of the members of the Federal Communications Commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, has asked the agency to investigate the Monday evening ban." Ars Technica reports: Earlier, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel tweeted, saying that something was "not right" with what Hofstra did. She cited an August 2015 order from the FCC, forcing a company called SmartCity to no longer engage in Wi-Fi blocking and to pay $750,000. Ars has since updated their report with a statement from Karla Schuster, a spokeswoman for Hofstra University: The Commission on Presidential Debates sets the criteria for services and requires that a completely separate network from the University's network be built to support the media and journalists. This is necessary due to the volume of Wi-Fi activity and the need to avoid interference. The Rate Card fee of $200 for Wi-Fi access is to help defray the costs and the charge for the service does not cover the cost of the buildout. For Wi-Fi to perform optimally the system must be tuned with each access point and antenna. When other Wi-Fi access points are placed within the environment the result is poorer service for all. To avoid unauthorized access points that could interfere, anyone who has a device that emits RF frequency must register the device. Whenever a RF-emitting device was located, the technician notified the individual to visit the RF desk located in the Hall. The CPD RF engineer would determine if the device could broadcast without interference.
Of course given that's the basis on which the USA came into existence in the first place, maybe we shouldn't be surprised if people are still offering that sort of justification... ;)
When you have a large group of people sucking data on their cell phones in an area where they don't usually congregate, it's likely NOBODY will get ANY data to start with. Cell phone networks are usually provisioned for "just enough" capacity under normal circumstances and where they sometimes build in extra capacity in places where large crowds tend to gather regularly, they usually dump the bandwidth available to data into carrying voice as the crowd grows.
So... Even if you had turned on your cell data, it's unlikely to have been very useful once the crowd started to show up and post on their facebook and twitter feeds.
So, pay up if you want WiFi that's going to work you fools.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Fucking journalists. I can't wait till Trump gets in office. Hopefully he'll develop a central news agency that is charged with releasing ALL NEWS to everyone in America, and make it a requirement for anyone that wants to tattle on people (journalists) to have to pay a fee to access this agency's resources, in order to spread the (well edited) "news". He can use that money to pay for more guns/ammo/military vehicles/hunting camps/gas for the police to track down these fucking tattle-tails. Just letting people say whatever they want over WI-FI is just fuckin steeeewwwwpid! Shit costs!!
Which frequencies are you suggesting they use?
Spectrum is expensive and a finite resource for practical purposes and you have to coordinate who's using which ones where and when to avoid interfering with each other. You cannot just decide, say to use the frequencies dedicated to GPS use for high speed long distance data transmission, without creating an issue for the existing spectrum users.
By and large, this is exactly why the FCC and the ITU exist, to manage the spectrum space..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Or perhaps it was just another "national security" concern where they deemed it necessary to monitor communication over the network.
...cause interference and must accept any unwanted interference.
Sounds like the debate/hofstra thinks they have a license for that band and don't have to accept any and all interference like FCC Part15 specifies. I don't think this will end well for them.
I know reporters aren't the most tech savvy, but tethering to a LTE modem via USB should have been fine, right?
There is not a limitless amount of bandwidth to broadcast in a small area. Most of these devices are operating in the same spectrum (since they are WiFi, UHF and SHF). The FCC almost certainly has the exclusive legal right to regulate the radio spectrum, but the organizer of an event should be given some way to coordinate and organize access to the limited resource. That the FCC lacks any way for an event to legally do something that I believe they should be doing. I argue that the FCC needs a form and a fee for this sort of thing before organizers are allowed to restrict WiFi access. And that requests are temporary and limited to santioned events and not for a coffee shop or theme park that wants to gouge customers.
Of course I'm ignoring the issue of free speech. Does your right to free speech include running your own WiFi network to circumvent a potentially malicious organization's WiFi?
$200 per head seems about right on price, if I had to hire some consultants to throw together a network for 3 days, then tear it all down, seems like a bargain.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
"Whenever a RF-emitting device was located, the technician notified the individual to visit the RF desk located in the Hall. The CPD RF engineer would determine if the device could broadcast without interference." says it was more than just announcement of a policy.
And if CPD really believes their claims that they can't operate if devices outside their control broadcast in the unlicensed range then I expect to see them join the lobby against allowing cellular service providers to co-opt it with LTE-U ...
There is nothing that says you must allow people to use devices within your premises. while the fees sound excessive and were probably just a money grab I can't see why you think PCC Part15 would apply. It is actually farely reasonable in a wifi area to restrict how many wifi access points people can turn on to prevent interference (that you must accept if it is there).
The "blocking" that was illegal uses RF to kill a rouge access point, intentionally interfering with a licensed use of the spectrum the FCC is tasked to regulate..... This is squarely in the wheel house of the FCC, who's job includes protecting the licensed users of spectrum from interference.
What was done here is put a requirement in a contract that required you to turn off your RF emitters carried into the facility unless the facility engineer approved it's use. This is 100% legal and the FCC doesn't have anything authority to regulate this. In fact, this is commonly referred to as "frequency coordination" and given the large number of possible devices showing up, makes perfect sense to me. You don't want some rouge RF device getting turned on and interfering with Lester's Wireless microphone in the middle of a question. So, you make it part of your contract that ALL RF emitting devices are subject to inspection and approval before they are allowed into the venue and turned on.
So the two cases are not the same and the venue operator has broken no laws.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I've seen the commercial offerings that claim you need to tune the antennas. They seem to have gone a step further and have a dedicated tech for "detecting interference". At best it is a hotspot management tool, usually it's expensive snake oil. Especially on a small area like this, a good set of APs should be able to handle the "load" and have enough power to handle other APs, especially the weak phone ones.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Wikipedia lists Bernie Madoff as one of the university's notable alumni. Discuss amongst yourselves...
Unfortunately, putting any kind of restriction on a part-15 device is exactly "sub-licensing", which you're not allowed to do.
That it was private property is... going to be an interesting argument :)
Perhaps the debate organizers should seek a refund from the network vendor
If you visit my house and your part 15 device interferes with mine, guess who shuts off their device or leaves?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Recommendations?
I can totally understand banning Wifi hotspot access points at big crowded events like this. Just a few dozen in the same area is enough to completely use all available bandwidth in the form of beacons. Performance will suck for EVERYONE, including the venue WiFi.
Why not just use a cable? Most phones support tethering over USB, and it'll even perform better than WiFi hotspot mode because it's a direct cable connection so the only RF you're doing is cellular. I always try to do USB tethering when possible to avoid polluting the airwaves with my needless access point.
It is actually farely reasonable in a wifi area to restrict how many wifi access points people can turn on to prevent interference
Actually it is not reasonable. The federal government through the auspices Federal Communication Commission (aka FCC) regulates all radio transmissions in the U.S. private property or not. The university has no role whatsoever or anybody else with private property. This has been proven through decades of case law. Just because you haul a transmitter device onto somebody's property suddenly give them the right to regulate rf devices themselves.
Secondly, if the university was using certified FCC equipment, it has to be able to accept interference from other equipment operating nearby, which also happens to be regulated by the FCC and not the university.
I really hope the FCC makes an example of the university and ding them with a seven digit fine, which is also under their discretion to do so.
So a liberal East coast institution of learning is trying to curtail the free use of the RF spectrum so that they may increase monetary wealth of the liberal East Coast socialites who hate the evil capitalistic system espoused by the racist candidate Trump? I would have never guessed (sarcasm)
The difference between a republican and a democrat is the way the words are spelt. Both parties want to get rich, rich, rich and enslave the population of the USA. They keep the population duped and believing there is any difference and that it really matters who you vote for. No matter who you wins the election, the citizens of the USA will loose. But this is good business for Fox, CNN and /. so I guess it is all right.
Sort of. I may not be allowed to regulate your Part 15 device (e.g. emission levels, etc.) but I can tell you not to bring it onto my property. There are absolutely private establishments which prohibit you from taking a cell phone, laptop, or just about anything else inside. There is no guaranteed right to bring anything you want onto someone else's property. Even guns, a right specifically enumerated by the constitution, can be prohibited from a private establishment.
This. The FCC is important, RF regulation is important as spectrum is a shared resource and is not contained by walls, geographic boundaries, etc. Someone needs to be in charge of preventing interference and encouraging research of effective use of a limited resource.
Side rant, I think it was a poor choice to raise a bunch of money by starting the sell spectrum to cell providers in the 90s instead of licensing it to them as had been done before and is still done for most frequencies. The FCC has effectively ceded regulatory control of huge chunks of spectrum so now a lot of power is concentrated into a few companies that own spectrum and it's not necessarily in their interest to pursue certain RF research or new RF technology and we have no societal via governmental way to force transitions to new technology. Imagine if TV stations owned their spectrum, we might never have been able to force a HD digital transition.
That's hard to get done for a one-off event at a university.
*sigh*
I work as a freelance technician for the networks, but I was not at this event.
At $200 the big media outlets won't care and probably already had made arrangements to have their own access point. What it will curtail is every Joe and Jane internet blogger live streaming the debates with a smartphone. I'm not opposed to bloggers, many are former journalists who have been downsized. They do a pretty decent job. Decent reporting and writing and a basic understanding of the business.The $200 fee will stop the others who have 8 followers and play journalist because it makes them feel important while the stream the event to their Moms.
That being said, Marriott got a wrist slapping from the FCC for blocking WiFi signals. https://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited
It was slightly different in this case because they did not actively block the signals. But sub-leasing part 15 devices is a not allowed. If it gets pushed, the FCC will probably tell them they were wrong and make them refund the fees. Protesting on the day or not complying are not viable options either, your credentials get yanked and/or the Secret Service puts you on their no-go list. Both bad for your career. When covering the POTUS and elections, you play by the Secret Service rules or go home, even if the are arbitrary and overreaching at times.
On a related note, every major event that I have worked, has a local RF coordinator who works with the accredited media to coordinate all the radios at the event. Most modern wireless microphones are frequency agile and can be quickly adjusted in the field. When unexpected devices show up, they are tracked down and the offending device is brought into compliance or the party is excluded from the event. The frequencies involved are different, but I could see how one "accepted practice" of spectrum control gets carried into the WiFi realm by managers who are greedy or naive about it. It could be a bit of both.
But they weren't preventing people from bringing the devices onto their property.
Instead, they were sublicensing the spectrum that the devices were using.
INCORRECT. They are not putting a restriction on the devices operation, they are forbidding you from using the device. A restriction would be sub-licensing and not allowed. Not allowing their use at all is actually fine.
I can't regulate your device, but I can say you may not use your device. subtle but important difference.
Hofstra spokesweasel, Karla Schuster: "The Rate Card fee of $200 for Wi-Fi access is to help defray the costs and the charge for the service does not cover the cost of the buildout. For Wi-Fi to perform optimally the system must be tuned with each access point and antenna."
What a load of bullshit. Hofstra had a monopoly and knew they could charge whatever they fucking well wanted and get away with it. "Help defray costs" my ass. Someone should use FOI to expose Hofstra's Wifi budget then we can see if they were profiteering.
They were doing no such thing. They were flat out forbidding the use of the devices. perfectly ok, restricting how they use the devices would have been sublicensing.
...and there's the thing. It's the FCC's job and purview to regulate the airwaves--not the venue's. The venue's cited reasons are bunk. Putting everyone on the same (their) SSID will not magically increase the bandwidth available.
$200.00 is a suspiciously nice round number for something that's supposed to only cover costs.
Those posters saying "$200 per head sounds rights" are talking with their anuses. If OP said it was $400 or even $2K per head you can bet they would be saying the same thing. Maybe they're Hofstra PR attempting damage control. The Commission on Presidential Debates hasn't commented either on the "rule" Hofstra claims they were enforcing so makes me wonder if Hofstra didn't make the whole thing up as a ruse.
FCC is investigating. FTC should look at this too since bundling and deceptive trade practices is illegal.
Because a presidential political debate is a public function from which reporters are expected to file stories as part of their editorial function, Hofstra has no business preventing people from using their own cellular communications and should be massively spanked for this action. Besides, it's a university, with a crapton of money rolling in from those huge tuitions, not a hotel trying to run a business - though the FCC has already ruled that convention hotels can't do this either..
What part of "you must use our wifi network or nothing" do you not understand to be "restricting" their use?
That is not restriction/regulation of use. The specific is "you may not create a wireless access point here", perfectly acceptable and a common requirement in government departments, business and security locations throughout the US. e.g. we have the exact requirement where I work here, you may not enable any wireless access point and must use the provided wifi service. Done for security reasons.
They were doing no such thing. They were flat out forbidding the use of the devices.
That's what "licensing a spectrum" is! Only approved devices are allowed to use this (part of the) spectrum. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Want to use this part of the spectrum? Pay a $200 license fee.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Bandwidth auctions are only selling off a LEASE of that spectrum in the first place.
Auctioning is a good way to allocate limited resources. The significant expense highly discourages carriers from buying anything they won't extensively use (leaving it open for smaller organizations) and have also encouraged the FCC to open up more spectrum to get in on some more of that big cash.
It's money from the cellular carriers that has been paying for developments of 3G and 4G technologies, and is continuing with a surprisingly fast push to work on 5G.
And again, the huge expense of buying new spectrum in an auction is encouraging cellular carriers to "densify" their networks, instead of just expanding their bandwidth.
There's been no need for the government to force carriers to start shutting off their 2G networks and rolling out 4G. There's competition in the market, and tighter integration between sender and receiver. TV networks could never have hoped to force their audience to upgrade their all their TVs, but cell carriers can and regularly do.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
They should put a 10dollar a minute charge on breathing air too. And fine people who bring in their own oxygen tanks.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Here's a concept absolutists and libertarians have a hard time grasping. What people accept depends on the circumstances.
Want to ban electronic devices in theaters? Fine. Screens interfere with other peoples' enjoyment so it's generally accepted. Ban voice calls on airlines? With connectivity existing now there is zero technical reason for this but people accept and even encourage it for other reasons (they use tech as an excuse, which pisses me off, but I understand their motivations for not wanting some self important blowhard yakking next to them for 3 hours)
On the other hand, unreasonable bans are met with hostility and legal changes to your precious private property rights. In my state, overreaching employers lost the ability to stop employees from having legally owned guns in their cars on their precious private property for instance. Act like children, be treated like children. Ban stuff to make money or to act like a corporate weasel, expect pushback. Sometimes hard pushback.
It's the same reason people accept crowd control measures and restrictions on where they can go, even technically illegal ones, when an actual emergency is going on near them. Yet they tend to get upset when it's for a made up reason like to stop a peaceful protest. In the real world a lot depends on circumstances.
Me. In accordance with part 15, because my device obviously causes interference. And until it does, stfu.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That changes if you host a nationally televised debate with major political impact on the nation. And then try to tell the media they can't connect to the internet to report their information unless they pony up your $200 extortion fee. Your private residence and a public forum hosted on a privately owned campus are two very different things. You open your doors to the public your "private property" rights are significantly reduced. Yes you still have some, but comparing it to your house is not a valid comparison.
On their property, Hofstra certainly has a right to say "No WI-FI Hot Spots Permitted", just as they have a right to post "No Guns Permitted".
If you do not wish to comply, move along or face trespassing charges.
Want to talk about profiteering? Try plugging in a projector in a meeting room or running an extension cord from the wall to your laptop.
Watch the IBEW folks come running at you screaming!
I don't know if it was legal or not, right or not, or whatever. I do know that at least one FCC commissioner is going to be at each debate, each convention, and any major party or inter-party event; so it really pays to make sure all your i's are dotted and t's are crossed.
Judging from one of the University's tech support pages, HU has an open, free, guest wifi network available to anyone without registration. Why wasn't this network made available to the journalists without a $200 charge?
Further text quoted below is from this link: http://www.hofstra.edu/about/it/itscs/itscs_wireless.html
HU GUEST
The 'HU GUEST' network is available to university guests and can be used by Hofstra students and employees to connect wireless devices that are not capable of connecting to 'eduroam' (i.e. devices that don't support WPA2-Enterprise encryption).
Hofstra students and employees can connect their wireless devices, which are not capable of WPA2-Enterprise encryption, to 'HU GUEST'. Game consoles, mobile gaming devices, Apple TVs, Rokus, older Kindles and Nooks can all be used on the 'HU GUEST' network with no registration required. If you have a wireless device that will not connect to 'eduroam' or 'HU GUEST' please contact support using the contact information in the upper right corner of this page.
University Guests: Any device with web browsing capabilities can be connected to 'HU GUEST'.
Just a few dozen in the same area is enough to completely use all available bandwidth in the form of beacons.
BULLSHIT
They were prohibiting the use of a type of device. I see nothing about bans of Bluetooth or ZigBee using the 2.4 GHz range.
I've also seen no reports of sending de-auth packets, which is exactly what the FCC can enforce.
An institution saying "If you shout during the debate from the audience, we will escort you out" is not a ban on free speech.
Likewise, saying "If you bring your own access point, you we will escort you out" isn't licensing the 2.4 GHz spectrum.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Now we got the FCC and the press making a fuss. Quick, think up some reasons why we have to charge $200 for WiFi.
If you're hosting an event such as this, you should anticipate and plan for the needs.
Go to a sporting event, like an NFL game, and see how 60,000+ fans tax your RF environment. You solve the problem.
Hofstra could have handled this better, or the Debate Commission could have. The method they chose is subject to some criticism, isn't it?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Hofstra could have handled this better, or the Debate Commission could have. The method they chose is subject to some criticism, isn't it?
I think not. What they did was reasonable and it wasn't like all the reporters didn't know what the deal was. Not to mention Hofstra was only following the contracted agreements they had with the Presidential Debate commission....
My guess is somebody got a bee in their bonnet about something and thought they'd get their 5 min of fame out of it. After all, it was pretty likely all the reporters who had to pay the $200 where a bit miffed at the cost, not knowing how much this kind of thing actually costs to set up, and would love to be in the news themselves by reporting on this. Journalistic standards have sunk that low... If you cannot find a story, just make one.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"The university has no role whatsoever or anybody else with private property."
The same argument could be made that places can't ban smoking because the cigarettes are someone's private property.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
this requirement, then it sounds like the reporters should pass the bill on to the Commission. The members of this commission are the same fine individuals who always decide for us that we shouldn't hear the voices of any third party candidates. So, now I learn that they don't want me to hear live data that doesn't pass through their own network. I wonder what they'll decide I shouldn't hear next.
I build large wifi networks for resorts. They only work if you dont have a bunch of rogue access points blanketing the area with noise. I wont bother building one if there is no commitment to eliminate un-official AP's because the customer whines about slow inet or deadzones.
this is no different, you cant have a hundred personal hotspots fire up and expect the wireless network there to function. tho i dissagree with the cost... thats an obscene amount. 10 bucks tops, bandwidth limited of course.
I've dealt with the inept folks of SmartCity many times, and can say with 80% certainty that this was simply a money grab. "don't use your personal hotspot which is free, use our service that we are charging for."
No. You are inventing new definitions to suit your views.
They are not licensing your use of the spectrum, they are restricting your use of your device while on their property.
The FCC doesn't give them that right.
If you're hosting an event such as this, you should anticipate and plan for the needs.
Go to a sporting event, like an NFL game, and see how 60,000+ fans tax your RF environment. You solve the problem.
Hofstra could have handled this better, or the Debate Commission could have. The method they chose is subject to some criticism, isn't it?
Funny you mention WiFi at sporting events last month I went to a baseball game in Seattle with my father and the Free stadium WiFi was faster than the internet speed I get at home.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
INCORRECT. They are not putting a restriction on the devices operation, they are forbidding you from using the device. A restriction would be sub-licensing and not allowed. Not allowing their use at all is actually fine.
Really?
http://www.govtech.com/policy-...
https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-...
The WiFi bands are unlicensed and users *must* accept interference from other users. The FCC already went through this with the Port Authority when they tried to ban their tenets from offering WiFi services.
http://www.govtech.com/policy-...
https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-...
I didn't vote for these laws, so I don't have to abide by them... So does that mean that the residents of New Jersey don't have to obey the laws of New York when they visit the Big Apple? For the record, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of a non-citizen of the USA about not paying taxes quite early in the days of the Republic. Funny that...
The colonists in America were there by agreement with the sovereign power - Britain - and so should have obeyed its laws. The refusal to do so had disastrous consequences for African Americans, who were probably enslaved for an extra 30 years, given that slavery was abolished in the British Empire in the 1830s. And then of course the Germans had to be defeated TWICE because the Americans were free to play at isolationism until the consequences of their doing so finally got through to them.
Isn't thinking things through fun?
Probably America ; probably someone else's problem.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Keep in mind, the colonists were British citizens, and had all the rights that entails. When Britain ceased treating them as citizens, well, the Declaration of Independance covers the response, it's legal and philosophical justification, and lists the grievances that motivated it.
'The Constitution's "Full faith and credit" clause, Federal Supremacy, and a "law of the land" legal tradition is how the "New Yorker in New Jersey" issue is handled.'
Very cute; so because it is now catered for under current legal doctrine, the clear issue is put to bed. Whereas the clear legal doctrine of the day - that the Crown in Parliament was the supreme ruler of the territories of the Crown - is not acceptable. Funny that.
"There's also the matter of the Social Contract, binding everyone to the outcome of a vote. Britain broke the contract, rescinding rights already possessed and imposing laws from afar, cutting the colonists out of the decision making process."
At the time Britain made no particular claims to be 'democratic' with 'rights'. The 'rights' were only ever what the law defined by the Crown in Parliament granted - or took away. What you are appealing to - the 'Social Contract' theory - was a new, self serving belief that suited the rebels of the day, along with their support for chattel slavery. It may well be progress that Lockean Social Contract theory has become more popular and chattel slavery less, but BOTH are disputable political / moral theorems.
"Keep in mind, the colonists were British citizens, and had all the rights that entails."
Hmm - dubious. Given the undemocratic nature of the Parliamentary electorate of the time, their rights were quite circumscribed.
' When Britain ceased treating them as citizens, well, the Declaration of Independance covers the response, it's legal and philosophical justification, and lists the grievances that motivated it.'
It offers a figleaf of self justification based on a conveniently self serving modern political philosophy. Marxism is equally a modern political philosophy; most of us wouldn't want to live under an implementation of that, especially one of the Leninist school.
I note you ducked: 'For the record, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of a non-citizen of the USA about not paying taxes quite early in the days of the Republic. Funny that...' as well as my little rant about the consequences of the American rebellion. The most important lesson from history is that we all have skeletons in our cupboards, and there are very few unambiguously positive events in history. Failure to recognise this is a form of idolatry, and like all idolatry, will lead you away from the truth.
As my time is still limited, I'm going to start by saying that yes, they were not just breaking the law, they were committing high treason and knew all too well the consequences for them and their families when they signed the Declaration. The conditions under which the Crown was placing the Colonies had become intolerable, amounting to tyranny. They presented a long list of unredressed grievances and explained how they amounted to a violation of the very purpose of government, thereby invalidating its power over them.
So yes, they broke the law in grandiose fashion. They explained exactly why they were breaking it and that as the law was unjust it was inherently invalid and had to be broken.
And please do keep in mind that the Enlightenment perspective towards government that underpinned the Declaration also held sway in Britain. Also, the Social Contract was Rousseau's, not Locke's. It was also a criticism of Hobbes' and Locke's view of social development. .
The conditions of African Americans in some of the slums of the modern USA are intolerable. But to describe the rule of the British in the 1770s as intolerable is just silly.