US Opens Portal for Online Comments on Regulations

Judg3 writes " My most recent newsletter from the Center for Democracy and Technology included a link to the newly unveiled Regulations.Gov site that allows individuals to more easily find and comment on proposed rules being considered by federal agencies. Comment on proposed rules ranging from the Secretary of Defense, Coast Guard, Veteran Affairs Admission, to even the Post Office." Here's a newsletter about the site.

Comments

Input requested on "hacker" sentencing

[doorbot.com]

There was a short article on SecurityFocus a few weeks ago... US lawmakers are requesting input from the community regarding "hacker" sentencing. Hopefully the deadline for submissions hasn't passed yet:

online.securityfocus.com/news/2028

Guidelines here:

www.ussc.gov/FEDREG/fedr1202.htm

Written comments..eew

[hfastedge]

I just navigated the site:

Heres one for example:

How to Comment: Submit a Comment on this Regulation
Written comments (preferably in triplicate), regarding both the substantive aspects of the proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand, may be submitted to the U.S. Customs Service, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Attention: Regulations Branch, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229. Submitted comments may be inspected at the U.S. Customs Service, 799 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Heres a slightly less archaic link off that regulations.gov site

Submit a Comment on this Regulation
Comments should be submitted to Karen Walker, Chief, Retailer Management Branch, Benefit Redemption Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia, 22302. Comments may also be datafaxed to the attention of Ms. Walker at (703) 305-1863, or by e-mail to karen.walker@fns.usda.gov. All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia, Room 408.

BUT im not trying to stir any emotions here, I think that this website will see all these out of date agencies work towards getting themselves fully online. AND hopefully recognizing a gnupg certificate with a high trust rating as BETTER than some bullshit signature on paper (+ the added costs of: snail mail (TTL of like 30 days) AND the time cost of going from print-> electronic (that is once it reaches the org after the snailmail)).

I've had to deal with this bullcrap lately because of moving related circumstances....

Use it!

[sulli]

Comment on the proposed Do Not Call Registry. (I support it!)

fine idea, but missing the umph.

[bartolah]

this is a fine idea in theory, in fact I rather like it. But it has two crippling flaws:

1. you should be able to see other comments on the regulation, add to or detract from them, perhaps even vote on them. as of now - you submit and it goes, well, where? some inbox somewhere that's never checked?

2. which leads me to number 2 - like sending mail to your congressman - there's no guarentee it's ever read. unless you're funding a campaign or cosying up to the regulator/agency in question - is your opinion even going to be looked at.

Given those flaws very few people, probably thousands - but still few, will use this site. It could be done much better. But, like so many things the government does, it won't.

Revocation of Airmen Certificates

[Shadow Wrought]

I checked out the FAA section and the very last bit of proposed rulemaking was one whereby the FAA would suspend an Airmen Certificate if the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) deemed that person to be a security threat. And once again under the current regime, it is guilty until proved innocent. Once you have been listed as a security threat, you have to prove that you are not to get your certificate back. They do not have to prove that you are indeed a security threat, only that you are suspected of being such.

And just what constitutes someone as a security threat? Why the TSA says so, thats what. This is one that I think needs some deserved comments.