DHS Stonewalls On Public Comment About Body Scanners 192
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."
Land of the free (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.
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, 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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
That or they wouldn't accept the scanners because they don't work....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
(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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [google.com] 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+Highwa [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Also, they charge extra if you use a credit card which is not allowed by any vendor that I know of other t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If by "these devices" you are referring to the body scanners, they were first installed in a few airports under Bush [usatoday.com], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
there...FTFY....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 civi
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to America. You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:to tell a judge he doesn't have the authority (Score:2)
Sudo We're Fighting Terrorists. This Is Not The Case You Are Looking For. Move Along Your Docket Now.
Re: (Score:2)
American people fall under class:terrorist?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"go away or I will issue a *second* ruling!" (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why the US marshals exist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service [wikipedia.org]
And when that fails, that is why we have the Second Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
And when that fails, that is why we have the Second Amendment.
Down, boy - the currency hasn't collapsed yet. Patience.
Re: (Score:3)
"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 bunc
Re: (Score:2)
That would be Andrew Jackson, defying the Supreme Court, leading to the infamous "Trail of Tears" [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] data.
Re: (Score:2)
...and we can hope for the next guy in to do better.
You're joking, right?
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I would love Obama being a one-termer, I am more terrified of those who would replace him from the GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now...I'd vote for a small soap dish with no personality over Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The Banks and the FEC regularly trade people back and forth
Well that explains a lot.
Re:Great (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulators vs. legislators (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 repre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 understand
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Being in session in Washington is only a small component of their job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you convinced me it was a good idea right there.
Why should the default assumption about any new idea be "it's a bad idea"?
Re: (Score:2)
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 interest
Re: (Score:2)
Said a DHS Spokesperson: (Score:3)
They don't care (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Decade? Try at least a Century.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Guess they have to stop (Score:2)
Security on private jets? Now they've done it (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Don't Be Silly (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)