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.
can't seem to find that Paypal link anywhere...
How long before someone whips up a perl script and starts crapflooding the Senate? We might finally get some decent legislation for a change.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
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?
Now all the newbies can send their comments on that "new regulation" where they're going to tax all E-mails sent over the Internet, right?
You call this a signature?
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.
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.
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
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
The comment feature rules. Because you know how everything anybody ever posts on there will always be sagely reviewed and taken into the fullest of considerations. I'm thinking of quitting my job and just trolling and writing flames on there all day.
Vote with a bullet.
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.
Let me guess: Step 1: Open a portal for comments from the public Step 2: Get massive amounts of Pr0n come-ons Step 3: Determine that the public wants viagra. Step 4: Get censored by Ashcroft. Step 5: Cat everything to /dev/null
-+- SIGSEGV -+-
Lagito ergo expectabo
Wow...
They already ignore my calls, emails, & letters...
Now they can ignore my posts as well!
As if they are actually going to do anything with this board... They'll have an auto-responder set up to make you think they read your post and that they actually care about the little people (ie the ones that don't fund their campaigning).
Oh well...
I'm sure some bafoon will think it's doing some good
Oh! And this one time, at band camp...
...but now there's a government website where I can be ignored by professionals, 24/7! I'll never have to wander about looking for people to completely ignore me again! And look, every time I'm ignored I get this free docket id absolutely FREE!
Incidentally, why does the Food & Drug Administration make regulations about pacemakers and medical X-rays?
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
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!!!!
The Senate and House aren't on the list. They're legislative, not regulatory, bodies.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Heres one for example:
Heres a slightly less archaic link off that regulations.gov site
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....
-- -- --
Help my mini cause: My journal
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:
Comment on the proposed Do Not Call Registry. (I support it!)
sulli
RTFJ.
...Something that could assemble stock phrases and paragraphs in different orders, so as to generate thousands of emails that all make the same point, but with creative variations in wording so that it doesn't look like an organized letter-writing campaign?
With, of course, creative but convincing variations in the writer's name and email address.
It shouldn't be much harder than Eliza, or one of those joke "buzzword generation" tables where you select a phrase from each of three columns....
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
If you combine last weeks story on suing annoying trolls with this story, it looks like we found a way to pay off the deficit, and possibly repeal income taxes.
I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
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
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"
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.
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.
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.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
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.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
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
From my 2600 member DoWire e-list on politics and technology: http://e-democracy.org/do
1 046
...
4 69-2003Jan22.html Can anyone find a press release online about the new site?
r esearch.htm
- 3.cfm
e @tc.umn.edu/msg 00515.htmlc .umn.edu/msg 00586.htmli nd0205&L=do- wire&P=R273
Some Clift Notes Suggestions
A couple of quick suggestions, the Topical Guide to Regulations and Services should be a profile link from the home page. It is much more than a Related Link. I'd also change the phrase "Search Open Regs" to "List Proposed Regs" that is what what clicking there conveniently does. On the home page, unless you read the full text at right you wouldn't know that the selection tools on the top banner will list proposed regulations - I thought was getting access to existing regulations. I'd switch "Find Regulations" to "List Proposed Regs" and simply say "Search Proposed Regulations" for the search option.
Now my main "what's next" suggestions:
1. What's Popular - Ensure that site usage creates automatic pathways to "What's Popular" lists for all users.
If X proposal is generating high amounts of aggregate traffic or a daily or weekly surge in new traffic, use that data to generate dynamic directories _across the whole of government_ to the information most people are looking for that day/week/year.
This is already being done by the excellent Department of Transportation e-rulemaking web site: http://dms.dot.gov/reports/topdock_rpt.htm This is how people find good shareware all the time: http://download.com.com/3101-2001-0-1.html And how we know what is hot on Yahoo News: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index2&cid=
Comment statistics should also generate a public display listing the proposed regulations receiving the most frequent comments.
2. Public e-access to public e-comments - I understand that this is a future goal of this effort. I don't know if this is written down anywhere, but key government officials have indicated to me this is a goal.
This is huge. For the first time the business of interest group influence on proposed regulations will gain _timely_ transparency. For the first time across government (the DOT system allows you to see comments already), official decision-making process will have an online interface that will allow the public to then further comment on other public submissions. Let's help the government do this right and then share this version of highly structured online consultation with governments around the country/world.
3. What's New - Personalization and e-mail notification are the most politically powerful tools available for e-government today. Notification doesn't change what information becomes public, so this is more a technical choice.
Information only has value in the political process if you know about it when it can be used to influence a decision, a decision-maker, or the public. It should be a fundamental right of all Americans to track a set of keywords, agencies, or other factors and be notified via e-mail when something of likely interest is newly available on Regulations.gov.
There could be volume restrictions per user to balance the server demand and provide equitable service. This would prevent putting put all the "value-added" commercial tracking services the big lobby groups use from going out of business. Those businesses will politically stop anything that provides too much convenience to those who are willing and able to pay big bucks for any political advantage.
If the UK government can use these tools, why not us? http://www.info4local.gov.uk/emailalert.asp Also, check out the features of these sites: http://www.itpapers.com and http://www.bitpipe.com
End of my main comments
Folks at CDT also have comments on what they would like to see next: http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_9.03.shtml
Here is the a news item from the Washington Post on this: U.S. Opens Online Portal to Rulemaking Web Site Invites Wider Participation in the Regulatory Process http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30
Something related: Congress Plans to Slash E-Gov Funding http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/1573661 (Adding more e-regulation features will cost money, hey Congress, help us out here and invest in your own online public services as well.)
A number of very recent articles and presentations by the number one academic e-rulemaking guru, Stuart Shulman: http://www.drake.edu/artsci/faculty/sshulman/NSF/
For commentary on rules, regulatory reform in general: http://www.ombwatch.org/regs http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/risk/rsk
Past DO-WIRE posts on e-rulemaking:
http://www.mail-archive.com/do-wir
http://www.mail-archive.com/do-wire@t
http://mail.tc.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=
Steven Clift
Democracies Online
http://www.e-democracy.org/do
http://www.publicus.net http://www.opengroups.org
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).