Slashdot Mirror
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.
if they actually check the comments to see if they're made by American citizens... of course they can't really do that, because there's no guarantee an IP's location, and even if you could there's no guarantee an American IP has an American behind the keyboard.
This is a small step in the right direction. On the other hand, I hope there are people on the other end actively taking the public's view into account, and not just shoving comments lacking $$$ contributions aside...
It would be even better if there were a similar site for bills being considered. I did a keyword search for CBDTPA and got 0 results... hmmm.
~~~
"The slave thinks he is released from bondage, only to find a stronger set of chains" - NIN
Our company is in a very regulated field. We are directly regulated by 3 (state) government agencies and must be tested and certified by one. We constantly go to the physical 'comment on the regulation' meetings. In the 10 years I have been in this industry (underground tank installation, etc..) I have not seen one comment even considered by the agencies. They do what they want, end of story. I am sure that all those online comments will be directed to /dev/null.
Doug
The real question will be: do comments posted on a site like this, which make it easier for comments to be submitted, have the same weight as comments that are mailed in. Some agencies made it really difficul to comment, which meant that only people who cared enough to follow the directions, make 10 copies, and take a trip to the post office were able to comment. When it's this easy to submit feedback on legislation and policy, the tone and quality of the message may be significantly impacted.
Pretty much every response in this thread is 'they wont do anything', 'they'll just ignore suggestions' etc etc..
This isn't the agencies themselves making a smoke-and-mirrors 'include the public' PR stunt, but a whole new agency which needs to show that it exists for a reason. So the new agency will pester the old agencies at our behest, and so far it's the best solution the public has.
Sure, one suggestion from one geek means absolutely SHIT, not just to the government, but to anyone. But when enough people start saying the same things, it becomes a valid viewpoint. And if the public starts having things to say, perhaps the government will listen.
Right now the only people speaking up are the vocal minorities. Hollywood elites like George Clooney can't keep their mouths shut, and actually presume they're speaking for all of america when they go off on some looney tangent.
If nothing else, the public speaking out can perhaps drown out the lunatic fringe who are actually being heard in Congress.
If someone said you should start going to the gym with him, you'd maybe ignore it. But if everyone you meet starts calling you Fatty Fatty Four-Eyes, you might reconsider that econo-sized bag of cheet-os for breakfast.
So maybe this wont change the world, but so far whining as ACs on slashdot hasn't either.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
It has been many many years since any politians could be considered public servants. And government does very little to serve the "will of the people". And like was said before elections are heavily influenced by people with money, so my questios is why do we need congress? One of the ideas behind the body was that it would be too hard for everyone to get together and participate in governing themselves so we need a small group of elected people to do it for us. Well now electronically it would be a small matter for people to get involved and propose, debate and vote on new mandates. Granted there would be rampant security conscerns, but it could be dealt with. All that would be needed is a small elected body to control the website and make sure things runs smoothly. Of course to make these kinds of changes to the constitution would take an act of congress...and who's going to vote themselves out of the job? Oh well...I guess we live with misrepresentation and corruption.
-- Insert wisdom here:
I suspect they'll have the same incentive they have today to listen, which will be rather high if people start making the same case Congressional representatives and Senators. Trends -- many people saying the same thing over and over -- count much more than one brilliantly insightful email.
Second point: Most people aren't "techno-geeks", so mail about issues near and dear to only those folks may have no more impact than mail from, say, orthodontists. Patient, polite and lay explanations explaining the technical holes in regulations impacting this industry, or illuminating unforseen damage to the public, are more likely to do some good.
Third point: Pay attention to proposed regulation. Screaming bloody murder when the regulation comes into force is a bit late.
Fourth point: People with money do influence who runs for office and how those candidates behave, but they still only have one vote. The real currency of politics is the vote. Geeks have all the tools at hand to create their own Internet-based voting bloc.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
no, how long before it becomes a victim of the /. effect.
Now seriously, How will they regulate non-national posts? (Just to clarify, Im not from the USA)
Or how will they take a foreign opinion posted there?
I mean, what would you think of foreign opinions
?. This is an, I would like to think a as, international site (/. , that is) and people from all the world can posts their meaning here.
Just wondering.
errera hunamum ets
You forgot a rather large flaw in this system, accountability. It appears that just about anyone from anywhere can submit a comment. Quite frankly, non-US citizens should not be allowed to post comments. Along these lines, there appears to be little in the way of methods to avoid abuse of the system by people submitting multiple comments under different pseudonyms. I have to identify myself when I vote, I see no reason why we shoudl not be required to identify ourselves when we comment on laws and regulations.
Another shortcoming woudl be the ability to simply voice your opinion as to whether or not you think some of these regulations are good or bad. It would be nice to see some sort of polling system to determine the initial efficacy of the act. If 98% of 5000 people think the act is a bad idea, perhaps the act should be reviewed, even if nothing is ultimately changed.
First, this site is for federal regulations: rules promulgated by federal agencies that have been given power by Congress to pass these kinds of rules. These aren't laws passed by Congress, so you won't be seeing the DMCA on it. (But yes, these are laws in the sense that they have the force of law; you have to follow them.)
Second, federal agencies to some extent already do this, and it works. My experience is with the SEC, which is admittedly always pretty on the ball for a government agency. For many years, the SEC has had an RFC procedure for its proposed rules. (In the past decade or so, it has accepted comments electronically.) It solicits comments for a period of time, and then publishes them all. For the most part, law firms, accountants, companies, and academics will respond, but it's not uncommon to get comments from random unidentified people that aren't practicing lawyers, accountants, etc. Usually, and naturally, comments from the public are a lot more practical and a lot easier to understand, and yes, the SEC will consider them too (sometimes the SEC, in later releases, will quote the commenter, and more than a few times where Joe Shmoe gets a quote -- I suppose it's because they want individual investor perspectives, but rarely get them, so they get excited when one actually writes in).
What about all those abroad who are affected by US foriegn policy? How about the 1.5 million dead civilions who have died to to lack of medical aid and food due to the sanctions that have been in place against Iraq since Desert Storm? Or the Mexicans who aren't informed that they have a right to talk with reps from thier country before they are condemned to death on US soil? American policy affects just as many people living outside the US as it does those living inside, and in those cases I think they should be given the chance to be heard.
To each his own as long as I've mine