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.
Now we'll get Slashdot articles linking to places on regulations.gov, and we can make a difference.
Although, I'm not sure what their incentive will be for listening to the public. They're insulated by two different elected branches of the government, and elections, while they happen once per year, are heavily influenced by people with money.
Perhapse the solution would be to get a lot of people involved with it. Not just Techno-geeks, but old-time Ham enthusiasts and other occupation-specific people.
What's this Submit thingy do?
I guess this is needed since writing to elected officials only produces auto replies... so hopefully this does more to represent the will of the people.
But the cynic in me thinks the millions that lobbys spend will cancel out any good this site does.
Not that I want to make a habit of multiple posting within a subject, but I just noticed this:
..."
...and decide to route EVERYTHING through the dang EPA (!), and withhold all public commentary for an entire DAY before sending it off to whom it was actually addressed via the website? Where it will no doubt languish further before actually being SEEN by someone knowledgable on the respective subject?
From the site's Privacy & Usage page: "An interagency partnership, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in association with the Food and Drug Administration, the National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register, and the Government Printing Office, operates this website....
"...The electronic comments you submit directly through the Regulations.gov website are temporarily maintained by EPA before being forwarded once per day to the proper agency. The agency receiving your comment is considered the official custodian of the comment. Your comment will not be considered until it has been properly received by that agency
WTF? They spent who knows how much taxpayer money to develop and implement a system for public comment, a system that can handle INSTANTANEOUS communication, that as such could expedite timely commentary and consensus...
Ya ya I know me complaining isn't going to do anything, and I still think it's a good idea. But goddammit! What the hell does the EPA have to do with most of these regulations? Who made them the comment-censoring police? And I can almost understand red tape being implemented retroactively, but what's with building it in - it makes a the site seem like a big honking red herring.
~~~
"The slave thinks he is released from bondage, only to find a stronger set of chains" - NIN
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It seems like a noble gesture but unless they post the comments how is somebody else able to see another's view point? This would be useful for building up information and one-stepping-up existing comments and information.
And how do we know the comments don't go straight to /dev/null unless they are posted.
It would be interesting to see of comments on the proposed changes to the Privacy Act, tho a little offtopic.
You've just discovered one of the most effective means of controlling a large group of people: Listen to them, but do as you please.
Freedom of speech isn't defended because our government believes in the rights of the individual, but rather because it's an effective technique for diffusing the anger of the political minority. Remember the WTC protests? What about the peace protests? Did they change our foreign policy? Were they even considered?
Has political protest ever made a difference in American policy? The short answer is no. Rather, allowing political speech is the means by which politicians keep us busy while they conduct business as usual.
Historically, democracies have been ruled by the rich and popular. Historically, monarchies also have been ruled by the rich and popular. The difference? In democracies, the people believe that they are free; in monarchies, they know better...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Okay, not exactly, but think about this. The basic linchpin of the open source movement, is the fact that many eyes make shallow flaws. To put it another way, if ten thousand people are pouring over the codes... ONE of them is bound to find the bug, and come up with a way to fix it. If enough people do this, it becomes very likely that we target and exterminate every single flaw in the code.
Extrapolate that into bills put up for review. Publish the bill on the internet, and encourage everyone interested to pour over the document with a magnifying glass, comment on any percieved flaws, and make suggestions to fix them. Log every comment to a public document, and let everyone have a look, and a say. Make those logs, in themselves, a legal document, every change watermarked by date, time and individual, not to be tampered with later, so people can say "I told you so".
Just like with an open source project, some people end up being very articulate, insightful, and handy, while others proudly display that the ability to type and to think are not always in synch with each other. There should be some method for people to moderate the comments, so that the cream rises to the top.
It becomes the congressmans ( project leader's) job to sift through the mountain of comments, and comments about comments, and glean the good from the bad. He then takes those comments and revises the proposed bill.
This new way of creating a bill may end up with a hundred drafts, or even a thousand drafts, before it reaches the floor to be voted on.
The benifit is simple, and follows the same linchpin. If ten thousand eyes are pouring over the proposed law, it's a good bet SOMEONE spots, explains, and proposes a fix for the loophole, or unintended consequence. And, if every proposed bill has to be made available for public scrutiny, it becomes very hard to pull a fast one.
Rules would have to be made on things like how long must a proposal be made available, exactly how this is to be accomplished, how and where is the log archived, format, protocals, etc... I'm thinking a six month period where every law undergoes this scrutiny, and if the congressman wants to, it can be extended another six months.
Now what I'm wondering is if this will be a self-selecting method for fuzzy-logic programs the federal government keeps hyping to identify people who oppose certain vaguely-terrorist-related legislation and policies.
Makes you wonder - if it's out there and on a public government site, sure seems open to that level of scrutiny.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
I notice the FTC is not on the list, so there goes any possibility of finding out what kind of SPAM laws there are, or new ones being proposed.
This site is so incomplete and sparse, that I hardly think it's of much use.