DHS Stonewalls On Public Comment About Body Scanners

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DHS Stonewalls On Public Comment About Body Scanners

Posted by timothy on Tuesday November 1, 2011 @02:48AM from the we'll-feel-for-the-answers-instead dept.

OverTheGeicoE writes "On Saturday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center announced that they filed papers in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to get the Department of Homeland Security to start its public comment process. In July the court ordered DHS to take public comment on airport body scanning, in accordance with federal law. The court allowed DHS and TSA to continue using scanners during the comment period. According to EPIC's filing the ruling against DHS became final on September 21 after EPIC's motion for a rehearing was denied. Since then, DHS has done nothing to comply with the order. EPIC wants DHS to release details for their public comment period process within 45 days. DHS is no stranger to the kind of notice and comment rulemaking that is being required of them. Earlier public comment on their Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP), which would have required draconian security on aircraft 10% of the size of a Boeing 737, did not go so well. They received 7400 comments 'vehemently opposed' to LASP in 2008 and 2009 and are still reworking the plan in response to the comments received."

147 of 192 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-01 02:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I know many countries which American's typically write of as commie bastards (ie: most of the world), where people simply wouldn't put up with your TSA nonsense.
1. Re:Land of the free by Chrisq · 2011-11-01 03:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I know many countries which American's typically write of as commie bastards (ie: most of the world), where people simply wouldn't put up with your TSA nonsense.
  I think the problem is that the TSA's survey shows that Americans won't put up with it either - unless its forced on them
2. Re:Land of the free by ByOhTek · 2011-11-01 03:14 · Score: 2
  
  The thing is, other countries wouldn't put up with the enhanced pat downs either.
  Mostly because they'd simply accept the scanners, and the issue would never arise.
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
3. Re:Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  And you would have us do what? Our most effective (historically speaking) means of fighting oppressive governments have involved guns and bloodshed. It's bad but I'm not ready to cap anyone over it.
  For what it's worth, I haven't flown since they came up with their new toys. Freaking rent-a-cops with federal backing...
4. Re:Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-01 03:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I have a co-worker who emigrated from Ukraine in the 90s, having grown up during the time when government bread lines were pretty common. The first thing he was required to do over here was to go to the DPS and get a license so he could drive to work. Being no stranger to dealing with government lines, he assumed he would be able to show up during an off-hour and get through. He was wrong, the line was out the door, and it was quite a shock to him. His comment to me was (insert heavy Ukranian accent here) "I thought things like this only occur in communist countires."
  
  The problem is that every time I read the news about US security theater known as the TSA, all I can hear is his voice, complete with accent, telling me that these things should only occur in communist countries. It's depressing.
5. Re:Land of the free by Brett+Buck · 2011-11-01 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  The TSA and the whole DHS is going to get a well-deserved housecleaning around starting about Feb 2013.
  On the other hand, a lot of these wonderful countries have decided to roll over for terrorism and for the destruction of their own cultures in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism. They don't call it Londinistan for nothing. Sort of like John Kerrys's theory that we should only attempt to limit terrorist attacks on Americans to "acceptable levels". That, and not his fake war hero act, lost him the election.
6. Re:Land of the free by Is0m0rph · 2011-11-01 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  But here we are run by corporations. The TSA's buddies that own the scanner companies need to build their new mansions on taxpayer money.
7. Re:Land of the free by dougisfunny · 2011-11-01 04:15 · Score: 2
  
  That or they wouldn't accept the scanners because they don't work....
  
  --
  This is not the funny you're looking for.
8. Re:Land of the free by LifesABeach · 2011-11-01 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm no fan of the TSA; my opinion is that their usefulness has passed, and they know it. But as to what OTHER sovereign states do to their citizens, it's a rear day when I find myself thinking, "we should do that here in the U.S."
  
  As for using the term
  
  commie bastards
  , the current term is "Pithedic Commie Bastards.", or one can use the acronym PCB. Update databases, if required.
9. Re:Land of the free by ByOhTek · 2011-11-01 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Who do you expect to do that housecleaining?
  If the republicans win, we'll have the people who installed these groups in the first place.
  If the democrats win, well, we can see how much (zero, for those living under a rock) they've done to alleviate the issue so far.
  I can only assume you are moving to another planet by that point. So, I have to ask, since there are no others in this system, where is your space ship, and how do I get a ticket?
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
10. Re:Land of the free by cayenne8 · 2011-11-01 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting anecdote about the lines, and that mistake may make sense if you aren't from the US, but if you've been in the US for a while, and can't figure out when to go to the License Bureau to get short lines, that's your problem, not the systems.
  I dunno where you live...but pretty much any where I've lived where I have to deal with the DMV (license renewal, new tags, etc)...I pretty much plan for most of the day to be shot, certainly half of it easily.
  I've tried going early, midday, afternoon...I've gone various times of the month and various days of the week...and I've never found that I didn't have to wait a significant amount of time.
  It is my interaction with the DMV, that really makes me cringe when people around me say they want govt. in charge of doling out their health care and services....I imagine going into cardiac arrest....and them denying me entrance because I didn't have a number or filled out the wrong form.....
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
11. Re:Land of the free by cayenne8 · 2011-11-01 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm no fan of the TSA; my opinion is that their usefulness has passed, and they know it. But as to what OTHER sovereign states do to their citizens, it's a rare day when I find myself thinking, "we should do that here in the U.S."
  As for using the term
  commie bastards
  , the current term is "Pathetic Commie Bastards.", or one can use the acronym PCB. Update databases, if required.
  there...FTFY....
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
12. Re:Land of the free by ByOhTek · 2011-11-01 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  (1) avoid DMVs in "lower rent" districts of town - they tend to be more crowded
  (2) Don't go Saturday (very busy), Tuesday or Thursday (presumed to be quiet days, so everyone shows up then).
  Early morning is usually pretty good, lunch is bad (people try to get in on their breaks. Things start to quiet between 1 and 2 pm, and pick up again between 3 and 4pm (end of work shifts).
  There are two locations in particular where I live, where I'll have a half an hour wait if I go during a busy time, and any other time, usually less than 10 minutes.
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
13. Re:Land of the free by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2011-11-01 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct that we are stuck with this forever, because the Republicans will pillory on the nightly news anyone foolish enough to suggest that we *shouldn't* live in a "show us your papers" society, and would also do their patented "hold my breath until I turn blue" act should a bill actually be introduced.
14. Re:Land of the free by cayenne8 · 2011-11-01 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting..where do you live?
  I've never ever SEEN a DMV that was open on a Saturday....only week days where I have lived.
  And again, per my earlier post..I have tried it on most all of the various combinations of weekdays, during a month at various times of day.
  I usually just take a vacation day, get there early, and hope if things go right, I'll be out in time for a late late afternoon lunch.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
15. Re:Land of the free by bberens · 2011-11-01 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  When was the last time someone flew some planes into a few of the tallest buildings in your country in the middle of your most densely populated city? I'm as opposed to the TSA as the next guy but it's important to put what Americans "put up with" in context. I think it's pretty well understood by most people who take the time to consider such things that it's largely security theater.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
16. Re:Land of the free by tompaulco · 2011-11-01 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Where I live (Oklahoma), the DMV has been outsourced to private enterprise, who have to compete with one another, so the lines are relatively short. However, the paperwork challenges are still in full force. They will not issue you a tag if you do not show up in the states database of insured motorists, but yet you still have to bring an extra paper copy of your insurance card and surrender it to them.
  Also, they charge extra if you use a credit card which is not allowed by any vendor that I know of other than state agencies.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
17. Re:Land of the free by bberens · 2011-11-01 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  No one, I repeat no one is going to make cuts at the DHS. Even if they only cut obviously wasteful projects/programs no one is willing to be the guy who cuts DHS before we get attacked.. and we'll get attacked, it's just plain statistics.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
18. Re:Land of the free by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-11-01 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Go to one in a smaller town. When I am doing tab renewal the DMV in the larger town I live in is usually busy but I just go over to the next town where they have only limited services. Since it is a smaller town and they offer fewer services almost no one is there and there are always 2 clerks so it is just walk right up.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
19. Re:Land of the free by bberens · 2011-11-01 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  I've always found communists to be quite pithy
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
20. Re:Land of the free by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-11-01 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I assume that you believe that Ron Paul will some how become president, or that the libertarians will some how manage to takeover both the house and senate the greens would probably do the same thing but I don't follow their party platform closely. While personally leaning to the libertarian side of issues like this I still don't see any of the mainstream candidates planning to do anything about this. It gives them too much power.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
21. Re:Land of the free by dgatwood · 2011-11-01 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Who do you expect to do that housecleaining?
  Given the rising level of discontent? My guess would be whichever leaders are still alive after American Spring.
  For about the last decade, I've been saying that I expect to see an armed overthrow of the U.S. government in my lifetime. It's not a pleasant thought, but it is nearly inevitable; the aristocracy has simply become too powerful relative to the plebes. If history has taught us anything, it is that you can't allow that sort of a wealth and power gap to grow too big, or else the French Revolution happens.
  Just saying.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
22. Re:Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-01 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like the Scandinavian countries, which score better than we do on socioeconomic mobility, economic disparity, public health, subjective well-being, and deal with terrorist incidents in a mature fashion by *not* succumbing to fear and curtailing civil rights? Are those the commie bastards you're talking about?
23. Re:Land of the free by LibRT · 2011-11-01 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  I currently live in Toronto, where they've privatized a lot of the offices which provide government services - they're all over town and are run independently. Having misplaced my license a while ago, I expected to lose half a day or so getting a replacement. Instead, I waited less than 3 minutes, paid $10 and I was out of there in less than 10 mins. It was quite startling, actually, compared to the usual government run operations.
24. Re:Land of the free by LordLimecat · 2011-11-01 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  His complaint was about the size of a line, and you are extrapolating to mean that our government is as onerous as that of a communist country's? Am I reading your post correctly?
25. Re:Land of the free by Curunir_wolf · 2011-11-01 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like the Scandinavian countries, which score better than we do on socioeconomic mobility, economic disparity,
  Bah! Meaningless. Ranking countries by "economic disparity" puts North Korea on top. "Socioeconomic mobility" is only for the natives, brown immigrants aren't included.
  
  public health, subjective well-being,
  "public health" means they aren't afraid of condoms and their food isn't controlled by sugar tariffs, corn subsidies, ADM, Monsanto, and their doctors visited by hot babes pushing the latest patented poisons from Pfiser and Merk. "subjective" well-being = "I don't know how unhappy I am because everybody else is miserable".
  
  and deal with terrorist incidents in a mature fashion by *not* succumbing to fear and curtailing civil rights?
  
  "curtailing civil rights" is pretty hard when the bar is already so low. As far as succumbing to fear - those Scandinavian countries long ago instituted a policy of unlimited appeasement to all terrorists. It's what their so-called "multiculturalism" is designed to do.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
26. Re:Land of the free by sexconker · 2011-11-01 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  When was the last time someone flew some planes into a few of the tallest buildings in your country in the middle of your most densely populated city? I'm as opposed to the TSA as the next guy but it's important to put what Americans "put up with" in context. I think it's pretty well understood by most people who take the time to consider such things that it's largely security theater.
  No, context is not important. Giving up freedom for security is badnewsbears every time.
  Every time.
27. Re:Land of the free by flanders_down · 2011-11-01 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Well, said.
  The largest difference, now, being that those doing the uprising already have decent training courtesy of Uncle Sam. Have you ever wondered how many SF veterans there are?
  Plenty ;-)
28. Re:Land of the free by gambino21 · 2011-11-01 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  If by "these devices" you are referring to the body scanners, they were first installed in a few airports under Bush, and the roll-out has just continued during Obama's term. I'm not sure what you mean by "dem TSA" and "dem DHS" since those are not elected officials and they don't seem to have changed much from Bush to Obama and from Dem to Rep congress.
29. Re:Land of the free by ewibble · 2011-11-01 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Although it is sad when anyone dies, and I wish 9/11 never happened, people need to have a little perspective:
  in 9/11 2,977 people died in 2000, 65,313 people in the US died of Influenza and Pneumonia (nowhere near the biggest cause)
  between 1968-2006 3,227 died that's 85 per year, although it would be best that nobody died of either its no reason to give over rights for the sake of security
30. Re:Land of the free by glaqua · 2011-11-01 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Well, waiting until the rights you have left are similar to the rights they have in china before you complain might not be the best strategy.
  I am always amused by the sentiment that Americans still live in the land of the free, because the government does not abuse you as badly as they do in china. Eventually, they will be as bad, and people will still say "yeah, but we are doing it for a good reason... like safety or liberty or protection of democracy"
  I too expect armed insurrection in the USA in my lifetime.
  Because people wont press for change until armed insurrection is the only solution left available to them.
31. Re:Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-01 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Bah! Meaningless. Ranking countries by "economic disparity" puts North Korea on top.
  You are either misinformed or lying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality. Or did you mean another metric? I'm sure none of them are perfect, but that's no reason to reject a useful tool.
  
  "Socioeconomic mobility" is only for the natives, brown immigrants aren't included.
  Citation needed. The metrics I'm aware of do not make this distinction; a citizen is a citizen. Or are you talking about illegal immigration? Personally I don't see any reason why illegal immigrants, or for that matter people on work visas, should have comparable economic mobility to citizens.
  
  "public health" means they aren't afraid of condoms and their food isn't controlled by sugar tariffs, corn subsidies, ADM, Monsanto, and their doctors visited by hot babes pushing the latest patented poisons from Pfiser and Merk.
  Yes, and the fact that anyone can see a doctor *clearly* has nothing to do with it. When there is such a clear association of health metrics and socialized medicine (in reasonably capitalist countries), you have to wonder.
  
  "curtailing civil rights" is pretty hard when the bar is already so low. As far as succumbing to fear - those Scandinavian countries long ago instituted a policy of unlimited appeasement to all terrorists. It's what their so-called "multiculturalism" is designed to do.
  Unsubstantiated allegations are not evidence. How exactly are they "appeasing" terrorists? The most famous recent terrorist incident in any Scandinavian country (by a right-winger, not surprisingly) was handled extremely well IMO. Nobody went crying for Big Brother to save them.
32. Re:Land of the free by LordLimecat · 2011-11-01 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Well, waiting until the rights you have left are similar to the rights they have in china before you complain might not be the best strategy.
  
  I am always amused by the sentiment that Americans still live in the land of the free, because the government does not abuse you as badly as they do in china.
  Neither of which is what I said. I was attacking GP's insistence that other countries are so much more free than ours, when we live in one of the freest in the world. I fully agree that it is necessary to preserve what we have, but pretending that we dont have any freedoms takes the discussion down a ridiculous path.
  In order to have any kind of productive discussion, people need to be grounded in reality, which is that we have a number of problems in this country, not least of which is that the government (as always) has a tendency to buck against the restraints placed upon them; but nevertheless we still enjoy a huge number of freedoms. What other country in the world has a provision allowing citizens to keep weapons for the express purpose of non-governmental military use?
  Again, I recognize issues with our process, and our government. I enjoy seeing discussion on how to fix it. And I sincerely hope people will pay attention during the upcoming election, and remember how significant their vote is-- that voting isnt about "who gives me the most stuff" but "who will best lead and defend our country, and preserve the freedoms we have worked for for so long". I just want the discussion to be realistic, and not an unproductive railing about how awful we have it in the US.
33. Re:Land of the free by nedlohs · 2011-11-01 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ditto this.
  A couple of years ago I went to the local DMV at http://maps.google.com/maps?q=90th+St+%26+Bergenline+Ave,+North+Bergen,+NJ+07047 which I admit doesn't look "low rent" given the location. But it covers a "low rent" area. I arrived soon after opening (first mistake I guess) and was greeted by having to line up outside, because the people didn't fit inside, in the snow. Followed by grumpy people behind the counters.
  I recently went to this one: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=%5B3189-3199%5D+Us+Highway+1,+Lawrence+Township,+NJ+08648 Which again while the location might not indicate so is in a wealthier area. There I rocked up on Saturday was handed the form I needed to fill in and given a number. The number was called before I had finished filling out my name on the form.
34. Re:Land of the free by ewibble · 2011-11-01 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike 40-50 people in the us are killed by lightning only 10% of people struck so lets say 400 people are actually struck.
  from 1968-2006 an average of 85 (3227 total) people died from terrorist attacks in the US. So more people are struck by lightning. Less are killed but if you remove 9/11 from the equation where 2977 people where killed 6.6 people where killed per year. 26.8% deaths from lightning strikes happen in Open field, park, playground, etc. that's 10 better ban parks, they are more dangerous than terrorism
35. Re:Land of the free by LordLimecat · 2011-11-01 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  To clarify "dem TSA" and "dem DHS"-- I mean DHS and TSA folks who are appointed by a democrat.
  You are correct in that the folks who implemented them were appointed under Bush. However, Im still not sure you can clearly say that it was "republicans who did it", since AFAIK Obama would have had the power to prevent their roll-out, as he is the head of the executive, under which both DHS, and by extension the TSA, fall.
36. Re:Land of the free by slippyblade · 2011-11-01 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  I would almost agree with you except for a couple of points.
  1) For MANY people, flying is a requirment. Whether it is for work or other reasons, flying is the only feasible method of travel.
  2) The only people they are protecting is themselves (via union supported wages/benefits/hours) and the manufacturers of the useless and easily abused scanners that they STILL will not release rad information on.
  3) If it was so important to have the TSA why are they only in certain places? The airport where I live uses 4 terminals. Only ONE of those terminals has a TSA presence.
37. Re:Land of the free by gujo-odori · 2011-11-01 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Odds of being struck by lightning in an 80 year lifetime: 1 in 10,000
  Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year: 1 in 775,000
  (http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm)
  Odds of dying in a terrorist attack on an aircraft: 1 in 25,000,000
  (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646963713065116.html)
  So, even if the terrorist number is too big and we lower it all the way down to 1 in 1,000,000 arbitrarily, I guess it's still safe to disband the TSA now, or at least drastically alter it.
  Come on, we all (well, most of us) get in a car and drive to work or school every day. About 30,000 Americans die every year in traffic accidents, yet we buckle up and off we go without a thought. Every day in the United States, road rage incidents (some involving shooting) take place, yet off we go in our cars. And yet we want ever more scrutiny by the TSA and ever more invasive approaches. They seem to have forgotten (as all the government has) that this is a democracy, and We, The People, call the shots.
38. Re:Land of the free by Coren22 · 2011-11-01 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Is riding the train and driving a car a privilege too? How about walking down the street? All of these have had instances of the TSA doing inspections/patdowns recently.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
39. Re:Land of the free by Curunir_wolf · 2011-11-01 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  You are either misinformed or lying
  And your evidence is a list without North Korea included, that states specifically that it's not really good for comparison across countries? It's not a useful tool because it says nothing about quality of life. What good is it to have less "disparity" if most people in the lowest quintile are starving? Or - if even the poorest have adequate housing and food, why is it a problem?
  
  Yes, and the fact that anyone can see a doctor *clearly* has nothing to do with it. When there is such a clear association of health metrics and socialized medicine (in reasonably capitalist countries), you have to wonder.
  Cherry-picking statistics is not convincing, nor is comparing one place where no one requiring medical attention is turned away to another place where no one requiring medical attention is turned away. Claiming that it makes a difference because of who the payer is for the indigent or because there is a centralized system for rationing care makes a difference in general population health doesn't hold much water.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
40. Re:Land of the free by bberens · 2011-11-01 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  I think most people are misunderstanding me. I don't support the TSA feeling up grandma. I'm saying that people put up with it because they are scared. If I recall correctly the Germans did a lot of really bad stuff *during* WWII because of fear.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
41. Re:Land of the free by Algae_94 · 2011-11-01 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  My only problem with the Tea Party is that they run as Republicans. If they really have a philosophy that is so different from the two major parties, why do they run on the ticket of the Republicans. I know starting a new party and running third party makes it a lot harder to win elections, but you can define your positions much clearer and separate from those you disagree with. Or is the goal to reform the entire Republican parties ideals and positions from the inside?
42. Re:Land of the free by gambino21 · 2011-11-01 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  I certainly agree that both parties are at fault for both the original setup and the continued rollout of the scanners and other counter-productive TSA policies. I thought that was the general point of the earlier post, that whichever party is elected it's unlikely that anything significant will change in the TSA or DHS, unless we somehow manage to elect a Ron Paul or some thirdparty candidate.
43. Re:Land of the free by Vegeta99 · 2011-11-01 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  The last state I lived in never handed you the form ahead of time. Arizona does, but it's certainly not sufficient to keep you occupied. They should give you a crossword, too.
44. Re:Land of the free by arkenian · 2011-11-01 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  >
  For what it's worth, I haven't flown since they came up with their new toys. Freaking rent-a-cops with federal backing...
  So I want to be clear that I am NOT a supporter of the TSA per se, and certainly not the body scanners. That said . . . I remember when it WAS rent-a-cops at airport security, and overall I think the TSA does a better job. I'm not saying they do a GOOD job, just that they are more consistently trained, more polite, and more competent than the airline-purchased lowest-bidder rent-a-cops I used to deal with in the 90s. Just to be clear, this is not a high bar to exceed, and the security theatre is obnoxious. But at least in the last couple of years its gotten fairly consistent.
45. Re:Land of the free by Bucky24 · 2011-11-01 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Where I live (Oklahoma), the DMV has been outsourced to private enterprise
  That... is very disturbing. Though I guess the competition is good for the customer...
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
46. Re:Land of the free by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2011-11-01 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's a right that the government impinges on at will.
  
  --
  <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
47. Re:Land of the free by Larryish · 2011-11-01 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yall sound like one 'em Commonists yourself.
  I bet you even named all your kids Conrad, didn't you?
  And they all walk around a-goin' "Hey Conrad, how's it goin' Conrad?"
  Commonists make me sick.
48. Re:Land of the free by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-11-01 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  That or they wouldn't accept the scanners because they don't work....
  When the rate of true positives is practically nil, it doesn't make a difference to the public's perception. No terrorists attacks equals no reason to doubt the effectiveness of the security.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
49. Re:Land of the free by Sperbels · 2011-11-01 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  They put up with it because they have to if they want to fly anywhere. Period. But it's not inconvenient enough for them to actually do more than do a little complaining. Therefore...nothing will change.
50. Re:Land of the free by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-11-01 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  I have a co-worker who emigrated from Ukraine in the 90s, having grown up during the time when government bread lines were pretty common. The first thing he was required to do over here was to go to the DPS and get a license so he could drive to work. Being no stranger to dealing with government lines, he assumed he would be able to show up during an off-hour and get through. He was wrong, the line was out the door, and it was quite a shock to him. His comment to me was (insert heavy Ukranian accent here) "I thought things like this only occur in communist countires."
  It's a very common line of thinking for people who grew up in the USSR and emigrated right before or immediately after it collapsed (i.e. they didn't see much of the brave new world that followed). A lot of folk back then thought that literally all societal problems stem from socialism and central planning, and that, once you privatize everything and implement democracy, things would magically start working flawlessly: you'd have plenty of good food in the stores, trains would run on time, etc - "because it's like that in America".
  I think it was an interesting case of reversal - basically, government propaganda consisted mostly of telling people how awesome it is to live in USSR, and how awful it is to live in capitalist countries, most prominently U.S. By 80s, it was already profoundly clear to pretty much everybody that life in USSR is not awesome - which led directly to its collapse. However, people then assumed that, since propaganda lied about that, then it must have also lied about all the nasty things it said were going on in the West, like unemployment or racism or poverty - and that the way to get the proper picture was to take that propaganda claims, and reverse them. E.g. if it says that there are many poor and homeless people in U.S., then surely everyone there is rich and has their own home. Hence the very unrealistic expectations.
  End result is that a lot of people left for the West in that period, expecting some kind of paradise on Earth- and were often disappointed. Then again, most of those who stayed were disappointed as well - they found out that, while extreme free market reforms do mean that there is great food in the stores alright, they don't guarantee that you (and 90% of the population) are going to have the money to buy it...
51. Re:Land of the free by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-11-01 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Ranking countries by "economic disparity" puts North Korea on top.
  
  I'm pretty sure that the country where your average person subsists on 500 grams of rice daily, while the Glorious Leader owns several dozen sports cars and a private armored train, is going to rank particularly high on economic disparity list.
  It would rank even lower if you treat the country itself as a personal fief which it, effectively, is, and which is leased out to citizens in exchange for their productive work.
52. Re:Land of the free by kmoser · 2011-11-01 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  As opposed to the health care system we have now, where insurance companies routinely deny claims even if you filled out the form correctly.
53. Re:Land of the free by dbIII · 2011-11-01 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  Lenin had a name for those with very similar ideals to the Tea Party - the anarchists of the Black Army. Useful Idiots.
  Politics is like a circle in that if you go off the far side of crazy from either communism or fascism (both extreme enough as it is) you end up with very weird anarchists that can only be defined by what they are against.
54. Re:Land of the free by 0111+1110 · 2011-11-02 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  but if you've been in the US for a while, and can't figure out when to go to the License Bureau to get short lines, that's your problem, not the systems.
  No. His point remains because the shorter lines at the DMV are a very recent development. At least in my state. If you just go back as little as 10 years there was no way to avoid 3+ hour lines. Now you can do a lot of things online that you used to have to go to the registry for.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
55. Re:Land of the free by 0111+1110 · 2011-11-02 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think it was fear that motivated the Germans in WWII? I don't think fear is a plausible motivation for attempting to take over all of Europe and exterminate entire races of people just because you don't like them.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
56. Re:Land of the free by 0111+1110 · 2011-11-02 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Tea Partiers are not anarchists. They are just old school Republicans. You know like Ronald Reagan Republicans. Perhaps you are thinking of Libertarians. Or, more to the point, Anarcho-Libertarians. Anarcho-Libertarians can genuinely be described as anarchists without straw man building. Tea Party supporters cannot be. They are just old fashioned republicans who don't agree with where the Party is headed. Many Democrats seem to have a similar problem. Not every Democrat agrees with the mainstream Party either. I think both groups should split off and form their own parties.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
57. Re:Land of the free by dbIII · 2011-11-02 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  They are just old school Republicans. You know like Ronald Reagan Republicans
  You mean the new batshit insane ones that think it's OK to sell explosives to guys that blow up US Marines? There's nothing "old school" about Reagan - now get off my lawn.
  The sad thing is the teabaggers resemble the Royalists more than the Rebels back when the the Tea Party happened. They are anarchists that want to be little petty aristocratic warlords that have no government to tell them how to treat their employees/slaves.
58. Re:Land of the free by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-11-02 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Income of the government is itself a pointless metric - you have to look at where said income goes. OWS is on Wall Street precisely because that's where that money ultimately ends up (or at least a big chunk of it).
59. Re:Land of the free by Devoidoid · 2011-11-02 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  He didn't say Tea Partiers are anarchists. He said they are Useful Idiots..
60. Re:Land of the free by Pence128 · 2011-11-03 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  No one's complaining "we have no rights." GP's points are that some US Americans are all to quick to label anyone other than themselves as "socialist" or "communist" and that many of those "communist" countries wouldn't be so quick to throw away their rights.
  
  --
  404: sig not found.
Great by adeft · 2011-11-01 02:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is a great start. I'm not familiar with the process. If they document that everyone hates the scanners, will they actually be removed?
1. Re:Great by bluefoxlucid · 2011-11-01 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  This is totally epic, in any case. I do know that if they continue to fail to comply, some judge will eventually start hanging people.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
2. Re:Great by ByOhTek · 2011-11-01 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Welcome to America. You must be new here.
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
3. Re:Great by bluefoxlucid · 2011-11-01 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  I've been watching the legal system for quite some time and I've noticed that when a judge tells you to do something and you don't listen, eventually they want to know why you aren't doing what they told you to do. It's also not helpful to tell a judge he doesn't have the authority to hear your case, or really any other range of stupidity that tends to piss people off in general.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
4. Re:Great by hedwards · 2011-11-01 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Hanging no, but it wouldn't surprise me if the judge started holding officials in the DHS in contempt of court. What's great about that is that there isn't any appeal process for that, so they'd have to straighten up and fly right, or spend time in jail until such time as the judge either lost interest or they decided to comply with the order. I suppose they could get fined, which is more likely, but judges only have finite patience for this sort of disrespect.
5. Re:Great by AngryDeuce · 2011-11-01 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  If they document that everyone hates the scanners, will they actually be removed?
  With the insane amount of money the contractors (mostly ex-DHS and TSA officials that initiated these programs and then switched sides to cash in) are making building, installing, and training people on the use of these machines, I doubt it very highly.
  It's the same problem as with the financial regulatory bodies in the United States. The Banks and the FEC regularly trade people back and forth; for all intents and purposes, they're on the same team. They go to $1000 a plate fundraisers together, they all owe each other favors. This would be the equivalent of police officers openly palling around with prostitutes and drug dealers, but the vast majority of Americans don't even know.
  It's the same with the DoD and defense contractors, and the TSA and security contractors. They are all in collusion, they get their friends to make the laws or spearhead mandates necessitating new equipment, the friends bide their time for a year or so, and then resign, get a job with the "private" contractors, and make a fortune. I mean, how much money has Dick Cheney's friends made as a result of the War on Terror? How much has Dick made himself??
  More people are starting to wake up to this nonsense, finally. What they do with this information remains to be seen...but short of open revolution and a fundamental threat to their existence, we're not going to see any changes from within. The only people that have the power to make these changes all directly benefit from the current way things are done. It's the same as expecting congress to vote to cut their own pay or benefits. WILL NOT HAPPEN.
6. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-01 03:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It works like this:
  In the ordinary legislative process Congress passes a narrowly defined law and spells out how the executive branch ought to implement it. E.g. Congress writes a law which says that murder is a federal crime, and the FBI is imbued with the authority to investigate it.
  In the modern legislative process, where the nuts and bolts of many issues are far more complex, Congress passes a broadly defined law that imbues the executive branch not only with the authority to enforce its provisions, but to interpret and set those provisions themselves. E.g. Congress passes a law that says the executive branch has the authority to regulate the release of toxic chemicals by factories through the EPA, then the EPA sets up the rules for maximum allowed quantities of sulfur released into the air, or levels or acceptable lead groundwater contamination, all without any additional input of Congress. These rules can be changed either by a direct act of Congress that more narrowly defines them, or an executive order from the President.
  Usually, the federal agencies tasked with regulating in this manner devise a set of rules, regulations, and policies in accordance with the limits of the authority granted to them by law, and publishes those rules in something called the Federal Register for a set period before they take effect. Part of this process is to allow for and solicit Public Comments from relevant industry groups, public advocacy groups, citizens, public officials, and generally anyone else willing to take the time to write in, as well as to more fully evaluate and predict the impact of the new rules. The idea here is that if the agency ignores public comments and the results of cost-benefit analyses that oppose them, it becomes a political liability. E.g. If the pharmaceutical industry's overwhelming input on some new rules regarding the nuance of product recalls are ignored by FDA, you better believe that the industry will start spending its money lobbying Congress to codify their version of the rule in an amendment to the bills that govern the FDA, or the office of the President to replace the head of the agency or issue an executive order or memorandum to change the rule, or failing that, go straight to the public to get them to vote people into office who will be more amenable to their version of the rules.
  In the present example, DHS is authorized by law to maintain airport safety through the TSA, and has adopted as one of its policies the use of body scanners to screen passengers, setting its own rules for things like acceptable maximum dose levels and guidelines for privacy maintenance. According to this article, they have not opened this policy up to public comment, despite being ordered to do so by the court (although the court did not issue an injunction against the policy, in deference to DHS' case that they will be vindicated as an important component of security).
  In cases like these, it's tough to force a change in rules. There's no solidly opposed industry group waiting to throw their money into a campaign to change the rules, as the airline industry is either too cash-strapped or too scared to do anything about it. So groups advocating on behalf of the public are the only real opponents, a fact which has the DHS feeling pretty good about its chances of not having to change a thing.
7. Re:Great by Dragonslicer · 2011-11-01 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  The Banks and the FEC regularly trade people back and forth
  Well that explains a lot.
8. Re:Great by residieu · 2011-11-01 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's true when "you" is a common citizen. Why "you" is an arm of the Federal Government, or the Executive Branch in particular, there's not a whole lot the courts will do if they are ignored.
9. Re:Great by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-11-01 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately the process is probably more important than the results in this case. Eventually they will have the public comment period where everyone will tell them a billion and a half reason why this sucks and then they will go and do the sham review and say that the problems are unfounded and just implement the system. I really need to write my congress critters about the DHS/TSA again but they never seem to respond or if they do it is with a form letter stating that they support the security and safety of the US and its citizens.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
10. Re:Great by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-11-01 04:08 · Score: 2
  
  I believe there was a Supreme Court case in the 1800s where the court ruled on something and the president said something like:
  "Now let them try to enforce it"
  But basically all enforcement activities fall to the executive branch. Now if the executive branch won't enforce court ruling or laws then we the people have to vote them out of office or the legislative branch needs to start impeaching some people. Good luck trying to get the legislature to impeach the president over this, although there are a bunch with Rs after their names (possibly some Ds as well but they would be very few) who are looking for an excuse to impeach Obama. They even made a stink about this when Obama said he wouldn't be enforcing parts of DOMA.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
11. Re:Great by LifesABeach · 2011-11-01 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think the Judge would have to reach down deep and grow a pair for that. But I'd watch the court room interaction on Pay-Per-View anytime DHS is on the carpet for their nonsense.
12. Re:Great by Insightfill · 2011-11-01 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I believe there was a Supreme Court case in the 1800s where the court ruled on something and the president said something like: "Now let them try to enforce it"
  That would be Andrew Jackson, defying the Supreme Court, leading to the infamous "Trail of Tears"
13. Re:Great by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-11-01 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks I knew someone here would know what I was talking about and be able to refresh my memory.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
14. Re:Great by amRadioHed · 2011-11-01 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  It appears to you that way based on what? There is nothing unusual about the use of Executive orders under Obama. In hist first two years he used executive orders as frequently as Bush. They both average 36 a year based on this data.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
15. Re:Great by Shagg · 2011-11-01 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  ...and we can hope for the next guy in to do better.
  You're joking, right?
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
16. Re:Great by MasaMuneCyrus · 2011-11-01 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  As much as I would love Obama being a one-termer, I am more terrified of those who would replace him from the GOP.
17. Re:Great by cayenne8 · 2011-11-01 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  As much as I would love Obama being a one-termer, I am more terrified of those who would replace him from the GOP.
  Right now...I'd vote for a small soap dish with no personality over Obama.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
18. Re:Great by Bucky24 · 2011-11-01 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct. The difficulty is getting a judge to tell them to do it.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
19. Re:Great by Bucky24 · 2011-11-01 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  I hear that one is running as a third party....
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Regulators vs. legislators by LehiNephi · 2011-11-01 02:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Folks, this is exactly what you get when your elected representatives delegate regulation to appointed bureaucrats. I've said it before, and it bears repeating: if a regulation is important enough to enact, it's important enough to have the legislature go on record passing it, rather than letting political appointees create rules which have the force of law. Unelected = (largely) unaccountable.

--
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
1. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-11-01 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  I have not seen you post that before, but I agree whole-heartedly. I believe that a large part of what is wrong with modern politics is that Congress delegates too much of its authority to unelected bureaucrats.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
2. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by JoeMerchant · 2011-11-01 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  I was just thinking about this, and the other thing that's lacking in transparency is granularity of the vote. I think a big step toward reform would be to require bills to address small, identifiable subjects, like a single tax incentive program, or even a single element of a single tax incentive program. Then, when you're doing your TurboTax on April 14th, you can right click on the line item for the snow-pea farmer special incentive 75% deduction for the first $200,000 of income, and see how your representative and senators voted on that particular item, the item you cared about, and get some sense of whether or not you want to vote for them again.
  As it is now, it's impossible to decipher what your incumbents have really done, without listening to a bunch of biased analysts who themselves are still mostly clueless.
3. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by cvtan · 2011-11-01 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is: Elected= Idiotic OR (largely) accountable to someone (but not us).
  
  --
  Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
4. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-11-01 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  There are some basic rules that I think people need to keep in mind for making a democratic government work. The first is that all issues should be decided at the most local level of government that can conceivably address the issue (for example, all education issues should be resolved at the local school board level). The second is the First Rule of Voting, "When in doubt, vote the Ins out." That means that voters should vote against the incumbent unless there is some very specific reason to return them to office. There are very few reasons to vote against the challenger. One should instead either vote for or against the incumbent (and only for if there is some very special circumstance).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
5. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by dkleinsc · 2011-11-01 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  There are several arguments in favor of the unelected bureaucrats making those sorts of decisions:
  - Congress only has so much time available, so that means that fewer decisions can get made. If, for example, you had to get a bill passed every time you wanted to figure out whether a new mining technique was a good idea, it would make the technological development of the field much slower, and fetter the market even more than unelected bureaucrats do.
  - Congressmen aren't experts in a particular field. Using our mining example again, chances are very good that not one of the congressmen on the committee that handles mining issues knows a darn thing about mine engineering, the environmental impacts, the health costs, or the economic drawbacks and benefits. They can call as witnesses experts in those fields, of course, but they will likely end up in the situation where expert A says we should regulate while expert B says we shouldn't, and Congress is no more enlightened than they were before the hearings.
  - Congressmen have to worry about being reelected. That means they will have a lots of difficulty making decisions that are unpopular (especially among campaign donors) but scientifically correct. For instance, a bureaucrat might say "You can't build that kind of mine here because it puts too much mercury in the water supply of a major city." That decision will cost jobs, and thus likely be unpopular, but at the same time may be correct, because the excess mercury will cost way more in medical problems than the mine can bring in as investment.
  - Laws trump regulation, so if Congress cares to overturn a regulation they can do so.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
6. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by hedwards · 2011-11-01 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  I take it your a libertarian, because the effect of doing that would be to almost completely shut down the government. I'd rather have career civil servants making most of those decisions as they're typically there through multiple administrations and are more likely to have some idea as to how to write the regulations. Plus, since they aren't directly beholden to one party or another, it's somewhat less likely for corruption.
  That being said, it's not perfect, and I know there are times when public interests are set aside for corporate ones, but that's going to happen, I'd like to see some evidence that allowing civil servants handling the details is going to be any worse than allowing politicians to do it.
7. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-11-01 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  If they don't understand it, why are they passing laws on the subject? I would be willing to consider a system whereby they hired experts to write the laws they vote on. Those "experts", however, should work for the Congressperson, if an when the Congressperson gets voted out of office, those "experts" would be out of work.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
8. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-11-01 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  But then how could some representatives bribe others by adding subsidies for spinach in a war funding bill. I really wish that stuff like this was a joke but it isn't.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
9. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by h4rr4r · 2011-11-01 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  They would have more time available if they tried going to work. What other job pays for the full year but only makes you come in 1/3 of the normal work days?
10. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by JoeMerchant · 2011-11-01 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  The first problem is that the system requires the Legislators to pass the laws that would regulate themselves... the Founding Fathers were pretty good, but I think this is a big flaw in the system.
11. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by DarkOx · 2011-11-01 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  I agree and have posted before as well. Omnibus bills are essentially undemocratic. It lets a few privileged legislators who by no virtue other than having been there long enough to get committee appointments, silently slip cronyism into legislation the public won't notice until its much to late.
  Legislation should be atomic, and stated as succinctly as possible. We should amend the Constitution to require that all items touched upon in a legislative act be clearly and directly related in a way understandable by a common citizen. That way an act could be struck down by a court if the DOJ cannot convince a judge, that say a farm subsidies for soybeans are not directly related to highway funding; the highway bill could get challenged and stuck down.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
12. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by honkycat · 2011-11-01 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Being in session in Washington is only a small component of their job.
13. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by DarkOx · 2011-11-01 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  If, for example, you had to get a bill passed every time you wanted to figure out whether a new mining technique was a good idea, it would make the technological development of the field much slower, and fetter the market even more than unelected bureaucrats do.
  That's the trouble with what has happened to this nation right there. Trying a new mining technique should not require an act of government!
  If you own the land, and can find people to work the mine that should be that. If you harm someone else property near by well they file a civil suit against you. If it turns out to be a big issue that come up repeatedly then and only then should congress take an interest in it.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
14. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-11-01 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Congress only has so much time available, so that means that fewer decisions can get made.
  Okay, you convinced me it was a good idea right there.
  
  If, for example, you had to get a bill passed every time you wanted to figure out whether a new mining technique was a good idea,
  Why should the default assumption about any new idea be "it's a bad idea"?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
15. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by fotoflojoe · 2011-11-01 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you in principle, but the example of your first rule is not such a good one. If all education issues were resolved at the local school board level, schools in Alabama would still be segregated.
16. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by fahrbot-bot · 2011-11-01 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  see how your representative and senators voted on that particular item, the item you cared about, and get some sense of whether or not you want to vote for them again.
  
  You're assuming our representatives want to be accountable... All they care about is getting (re)elected and/or ensuring the other party isn't.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
17. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-11-01 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't say that it needs to be atomic but the crap they put in bills should at least be germane to the main topic. I would settle for germane even though I would still like single item bills. Here in Minnesota we have a law that requires amendments be germane to the main issue of the bill and courts have struck down laws because of it. The most recent example of which was the current MN carry law. The problem is that it still requires a judge and there are probably things that they they wouldn't strike down. When the first version of the current MN carry law was struck down it was pointed out that the current pay rate of state judges in MN were also set in a similar fashion and thus should also be struck down. There was lots of talk that someone should file a lawsuit and I don't know if anything was ever done on that issue but I doubt a judge would strike down that part of the law.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
18. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-11-01 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately the rest of their job seems to be kissing the right asses to get campaign contributions while ignoring their constituents.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
19. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-11-01 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  I do not believe that you are correct. While it would have taken longer, the schools in Alabama would still be desegregated by now.
  However, on a more basic level, I would argue that segregation is not an education issue, even when it takes place in the schools. Government ordered segregation is a violation of the equal protection clause and of the freedom of assembly clause.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
20. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by MasaMuneCyrus · 2011-11-01 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  This would be a case where the issue of segregation could not be solved at the local level. If possible, it could be solved at a state level. If the state continues to ignore the issue, the next-most local level would be a federal mandate for the state to desegregate. The principle of solving things at the most local level possible still stands.
21. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by Captain+Centropyge · 2011-11-01 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Sooooo... we're supposed to let the corrupt bureaucrats just sit there in office for life, without term limits? And let them continue to make decisions that the public, the people they are SUPPOSED to represent, do NOT want?
  
  {sarcasm}That sounds really smart! Yes. Let's just let them be. They've been in office for 20 years. They MUST know what they're doing. Yup. {/sarcasm}
  
  Oh, they know what they're doing. They're either taking corporate money from lobbyists to make decisions based on what those corporations want, regardless of what the rest of the population's wishes are. Or, they're doing what they think is best for the country. In case you hadn't noticed, most politicians do NOT work for the people anymore. They suck up to us and get us to believe that they do what we want, and once they're in office they do whatever they want, or think is right for us (or themselves, if they're greedy bastards).
  
  I don't know about you, but I don't need someone to tell me what's good for me. If the people elect you into office, you're supposed to do what they tell you to do. You're not their babysitter. You're supposed to be their representative and steward.
  
  --
  Bite my shiny metal ass!
22. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by Captain+Centropyge · 2011-11-01 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  And how you can say that they aren't "directly beholden to one party or another" is completely beyond me. Is that what the "D" and "R" mean..? "Not biased"? I'm pretty sure the VAST majority of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. all vote along party lines most, if not all, of the time. If you think otherwise, you've got your head in the sand.
  
  --
  Bite my shiny metal ass!
23. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by JoeMerchant · 2011-11-01 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  see how your representative and senators voted on that particular item, the item you cared about, and get some sense of whether or not you want to vote for them again.
  You're assuming our representatives want to be accountable... All they care about is getting (re)elected and/or ensuring the other party isn't.
  No, sadly, I know better. What I am wishing is that our system would let the governed people demand and receive accountability from their representatives. Wish in one hand...
24. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by silas_moeckel · 2011-11-01 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  It works fine at a local level it's just not fast enough for some people. The feds have pushed into everywhere under the name of civil rights. Yes there will be bad things like the tyranny of the majority. The problem is the local majority is a short lived problem the fed only gets more and more power.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
25. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by fahrbot-bot · 2011-11-01 07:32 · Score: 2
  What I am wishing is that our system would let the governed people demand and receive accountability from their representatives.
  
  As my dad used to say, "If wishes were horses..." Seriously, it's called the voting booth - and not being a moron. For the latter I refer to the likes of the Tea Party and the stories of them demanding that the Government "keep its hand off their Medicare", from the comfort of their Medicare paid for electric scooters... Or the Tea Party demanding a return to the Constitution, then wanting to amend it... For example, see:
  
  5 Constitutional Amendments That Constitution-Loving Tea Partiers Would Change
  http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/top-5-constitutional-amendments-tea-partiers-would-repeal.php
  
  Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble
  http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea-party-call-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment-causing-problems-for-gop-candidates.php
  
  Or my mother who has become a rabid Republican now decrying the very social safety nets she supported when she was a younger and less affluent Democrat.
  So sad.
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
26. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by Rastl · 2011-11-01 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  My thought is to go a whole lot of steps past this.
  Each and every bill brought up for a vote must be able to be COMPLETELY summarized on a single page, using 12 point type. Anything in the bill that isn't in the summary (snow-pea farmer special incentive) isn't legal.
  That would make those omnibus bills impractical if not impossible since there's no way to put all the things they cover on a single page.
  Lots more bills? Yep. But very concise ones that are easy to research and see who voted how.
27. Re:Regulators vs. legislators by Bucky24 · 2011-11-01 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  At the time there was no one else interested in making those kind of laws. But I agree with you that it's a pretty big flaw.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Nope by anom · 2011-11-01 02:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

But just like with the White House "We the People" crap, they will be able to better-tailor the letter that tells you they're shoving it down your throat whether you want it or not.
1. Re:Nope by StikyPad · 2011-11-03 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Call them on it.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
2. Re:Nope by Pence128 · 2011-11-03 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmmmm... the quality of petitions seems to have plummeted... "take us seriously" is just behind "admit aliens exist."
  
  --
  404: sig not found.
Said a DHS Spokesperson: by Greyfox · 2011-11-01 03:02 · Score: 2

"Someone with such a tiny penis really shouldn't be commenting on matters of public policy. Why don't you just return to your home, Citizen One-Half Kane."

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
They don't care by dkleinsc · 2011-11-01 03:08 · Score: 1

The US executive branch has been in blatant violation of the highest law of the land for over a decade now, why would they stop now?

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
1. Re:They don't care by Archangel+Michael · 2011-11-01 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Decade? Try at least a Century.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
2. Re:They don't care by hedwards · 2011-11-01 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  There's momentum now. Had this been dealt with in the wake of 9/11, I doubt very much that the train would still be rolling. Unfortunately, the failure to charge any of the Bush Administration officials with crimes against humanity, even the ones that admitted on tape to ordering war crimes, isn't likely to make it any easier for future Presidents to go back to respecting the constitution.
3. Re:They don't care by TheCarp · 2011-11-01 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Couldn't have worked out worst.
  And yes, actually, try before the constitution. Lets not forget that the real reason the Articles of Confederation were abandoned. It was after events like Shays rebellion that showed that a strong central government would be needed to deal with uprisings amongst the peasant classes, slaves, and by Indians who didn't like their land being colonized.
  It was never setup for the people, only the wealthy land owners. Its the rich man's government, always has been.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
4. Re:They don't care by Mashiki · 2011-11-01 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Decade huh? Yeah don't let reality stop you or anything. Since Bush actually went through congress and the senate. But just remember that Obama is actually turning around and fully side-stepping both the house and senate to pass laws he wants passed. We call that a banana republic.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
5. Re:They don't care by dkleinsc · 2011-11-01 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  I'm holding both Bush and Obama responsible, although as a sibling pointed out it's been arguably a problem for much longer than that.
  Under the Bush administration, a program called Total Information Awareness was launched to intercept and store all Internet traffic without even the pretense of getting a warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This was too much even for Congress, so they defunded the project. The Bush administration just renamed the subprojects or moved them to other offices, and then pushed through a law granting immunity to AT&T for cooperating with this to stop the pending lawsuit challenging the program. Obama has continued the program and shows no sign of ending it.
  The TSA regularly harasses people for being part of groups like the ACLU (in violation of the First Amendment), or involved in Bradley Manning's defense (in violation of the Sixth Amendment). This started back in 2002 or so, and has continued to the present day.
  In September 2001, John Ashcroft's Department of Justice rounded up several thousand people, without charges, on the grounds that they were material witnesses. Many of these people ended up in Gitmo, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. 10 years later, after several changes of Congress and a change of administration, some of those people are still in Gitmo, in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:to tell a judge he doesn't have the authority by TaoPhoenix · 2011-11-01 03:13 · Score: 1

Sudo We're Fighting Terrorists. This Is Not The Case You Are Looking For. Move Along Your Docket Now.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Scanning not legal? by Tokolosh · 2011-11-01 03:21 · Score: 1

Since the time allowed by the courts to solicit comments has expired, without action, is there a legal basis for using scanners? Can I refuse a scan?

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
1. Re:Scanning not legal? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-11-01 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the details. If the judge orders that all scanning and pat downs must end as part of the injunction then it might be possible. If you are lucky enough to live in a state covered by the judge's injunction then you probably could. As an added bonus you could might be able to press charges of assault/sexual assault if the screener still insists on the grope and could possibly get away with some self defense. Of course this is just my speculation and my understanding of the law and judicial system is limited so don't take my non lawyer advice.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
2. Re:Scanning not legal? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-11-01 04:34 · Score: 2
  
  Thankfully I don't think they let the TSA screeners have guns. They rank about as high as college campus security personnel in my mind but probably with worse training.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
3. Re:Scanning not legal? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-11-01 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Along the same lines I have often wondered what would happen if someone would do what one of my buddies in college liked to do in the school cafeteria. Just walk right past the line into the secure area and take off at a run through it and then exit through one of the other doors. After seeing most of the screeners I doubt they would be able to catch someone who was in modest shape. Apart from the charges that might get levied against you the worst that would probably happen is a good tazing.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
Enjoy your isolation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-01 03:31 · Score: 1

Guess why I don't travel through or to the USA anymore?
Yes, it's because of your airport security requirements. Anyone with two neurons to rub together can see it's pointless and does nothing but annoy ALL the lawful travelers.
So, one less businessman/tourist (and associated revenue) right here. I would imagine there's more than one human, earthwide, that shares my opinion.
Keep it up, USA, soon you'll be an island of "safety", enjoying your illusion of security while the rest of the world doesn't have to suffer humiliation and health risks just to travel.
1. Re:Enjoy your isolation by spamking · 2011-11-01 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  There are many of us who feel the same way and choose to drive rather than fly these days . . . reading that TSA blog posted above is some of the best propaganda around.
Guess they have to stop by residieu · 2011-11-01 03:45 · Score: 1

They were allowed to continue using the scanners during the comment period. But they refuse to actually start the comment period, so it sounds like they have to comply with the court and stop using the scanners. Not that the Executive Branch cares much what the Judicial Branch has to say on anything.
Security on private jets? Now they've done it by GameboyRMH · 2011-11-01 03:52 · Score: 1

The TSA will not be allowed to piss off the corporate elite. If this passes, it will be quickly reversed and whoever came up with it will be fired so hard their old pay slips will burst into flames.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:Security on private jets? Now they've done it by i.r.id10t · 2011-11-01 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  The corporate elite simply hop in their private jet and go wherever w/ o scans, pat downs, etc. They even have in flight food and drink service, enough legroom, and probably get to band the stewardesses ...
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
2. Re:Security on private jets? Now they've done it by fahrbot-bot · 2011-11-01 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  The corporate elite simply hop in their private jet and go wherever w/ o scans, pat downs, etc.
  
  Which illustrates my theory that the goal is to protect planes, not people. Downing a private plane is just as damaging to life and property, though more easily "explained" as some sort of "error"... Remember, the rich are not cattle.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
3. Re:Security on private jets? Now they've done it by CompMD · 2011-11-01 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Read TFA. The TSA wanted to put goons on private aircraft and make GA pilots submit data for background checks on their passengers. I'm a private pilot, and like many of my peers, have a seething hatred of the TSA. They seriously dreamed of being able to check over who was going to be in the other seat in a two seat airplane. They have backed off the GA community because of stuff mentioned in TFA.
4. Re:Security on private jets? Now they've done it by Commontwist · 2011-11-01 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  I read that article about the 'silver lining' and how good it was that the TSA now 'understands'. ...
  The problem was that they plainly and obviously made zero effort to understand AT ALL before they tried pulling this on the non-commercial flights. What. The. Heck?
  You should at least research something that you're trying to regulate, not to mention actually talk to organizations involved in it, before trying to enact a daft draft.
  Yet another dark mark showing the attitude of the TSA's leadership.
5. Re:Security on private jets? Now they've done it by desdinova+216 · 2011-11-01 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  is that anything like banging Stewardesses?
"go away or I will issue a *second* ruling!" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-01 04:07 · Score: 2, Informative

You are quite correct -- a quick read about Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia makes it quite clear that even when it is a Supreme Court ruling which is being ignored by a government body the worst that can happen is that the judge(s) will write a second, more sternly worded, ruling.
The Judicial Branch has no power of enforcement as that was deliberately reserved to the Executive. You would have to be quite naive to believe that the framers of the Consitution weren't aware that meant the Executive Brand could and would eventually ignore one or more rulings from the Judicial Branch ... even from the Supreme Court.
1. Re:"go away or I will issue a *second* ruling!" by pnutjam · 2011-11-01 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's why the US marshals exist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
2. Re:"go away or I will issue a *second* ruling!" by mr1911 · 2011-11-01 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  That's why the US marshals exist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service
  
  And when that fails, that is why we have the Second Amendment.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
3. Re:"go away or I will issue a *second* ruling!" by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-11-01 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  And when that fails, that is why we have the Second Amendment.
  Down, boy - the currency hasn't collapsed yet. Patience.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Land of the free speech, Scan This by LifesABeach · 2011-11-01 04:23 · Score: 1

Maybe switching to Decaf at this time would be constructive?
Re:to tell a judge he doesn't have the authority by Gilmoure · 2011-11-01 04:28 · Score: 1

American people fall under class:terrorist?

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:to tell a judge he doesn't have the authority by digitalsolo · 2011-11-01 04:47 · Score: 2

Have you been to an airport recently? I'm an American (and just a boring white guy) and they certainly seem to think I'm a terrorist by their treatment of me.

--
Just another ignorant American.
Re:to tell a judge he doesn't have the authority by mr1911 · 2011-11-01 04:56 · Score: 1

According to the government, yes.

--
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
Re:I'm confused by spamking · 2011-11-01 05:04 · Score: 1

Wouldn't you consider anything that may take more time for an issue to get resolved as about as close to stonewalling as you can get?
Don't Be Silly by Bob9113 · 2011-11-01 05:04 · Score: 2

You are all overreacting. The answer is quite obvious, and is held right in a bit of law often quoted around here:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
See, right at the end -- you have a right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It doesn't say they have to listen. They even capitalized "Government" but not "the people" -- it's like they knew how our lords in D.C. would view us today.
Go ahead, serf, petition away. It is your inalienable right. May I suggest shouting, while standing on your lawn in your underwear with a tin-foil hat on your head. That way all your neighbors will recognize you as the sort of looney who thinks the Easter Bunny is real, or that we have a representative government.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Occupy DHS? by Killer+Instinct · 2011-11-01 05:27 · Score: 1

If the OWS people would head over to DHS/TSA (maybe we can purpitiate them over there)...at least it would be more entertaining.

--
#include bier;
Fight for LIBERTIES by roman_mir · 2011-11-01 08:53 · Score: 1

DHS is just another unelected office, created by push regulations that destroy your liberties and obviously your economy in the process.
You didn't think things like "Patriot Act" and DHS cause harm to the economy as well as your liberties? Anything that causes harm to liberties hurts the economy, there is no way around it.
Fight against this obvious take over of your government by basically fascists on all sides, vote for Ron Paul.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Momentum, sure, but a few decades off, at least by DragonWriter · 2011-11-01 08:53 · Score: 1

There's momentum now. Had this been dealt with in the wake of 9/11, I doubt very much that the train would still be rolling.

The momentum was pretty well established by several decades of similar abuses prior to 9/11, and perhaps most significantly the mother of all accountability-neutralizing moments in Ford's pardon of Nixon.
While, certainly, I'd like to see accountability for the post-9/11 abuses, its pretty clear that the momentum of the Imperial Presidency didn't start there.
Time to petition the WhiteHouse? by JoeMerchant · 2011-11-01 09:05 · Score: 1

My thought is to go a whole lot of steps past this.
Each and every bill brought up for a vote must be able to be COMPLETELY summarized on a single page, using 12 point type. Anything in the bill that isn't in the summary (snow-pea farmer special incentive) isn't legal.
That would make those omnibus bills impractical if not impossible since there's no way to put all the things they cover on a single page.
Lots more bills? Yep. But very concise ones that are easy to research and see who voted how.
If we can get 5000 signatures, they promise to respond, hell, they'll respond to an e-mail, but with 5000 signatures, they might do more than hit the "autogenerate reply" button.