Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House Pulls Down TSA Petition

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the change-your-hope dept.

Privacy 638

Jeremiah Cornelius writes with a note that on Thursday of this week "The Electronic Privacy Information Center posted a brief and detailed notice about the removal of a petition regarding security screenings by the TSA at US airports and other locations. 'At approximately 11:30 am EDT, the White House removed a petition about the TSA airport screening procedures from the White House 'We the People' website. About 22,500 of the 25,000 signatures necessary for a response from the Administration were obtained when the White House unexpectedly cut short the time period for the petition. The site also went down for 'maintenance' following an article in Wired that sought support for the campaign."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Two can play at this game (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964339)

We need a petition for the petition!

Re:Two can play at this game (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964411)

We need a petition for the petition!

That petition will get pulled early too. Look it's doesn't matter how many petitions you stand up. Basically the folks that have the authority and power to control the people, will. Common folk are only here to support the rich and powerful by way of their taxes. Nothing else matters. You're either part of the good-old-boy network, or you're nobody. It's always been this way; for every country; for every regime; for every global power, since time began.

Re:Two can play at this game (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964461)

We need a petition for the petition!

That petition will get pulled early too. Look it's doesn't matter how many petitions you stand up. Basically the folks that have the authority and power to control the people, will. Common folk are only here to support the rich and powerful by way of their taxes. Nothing else matters. You're either part of the good-old-boy network, or you're nobody. It's always been this way; for every country; for every regime; for every global power, since time began.

Yes and every once in a while a revolution comes along that burns the old ways and chops heads or worse.

Re:Two can play at this game (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964519)

Yes and every once in a while a revolution comes along that burns the old ways and chops heads or worse.

But somehow fails to effect any change at all.

Re:Two can play at this game (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964555)

If the Obidiot were to be thrown out of office come the November election, it would effect some change.

If all 435 sitting idiots in the House of representatives were thrown out come the November election, it would effect some change.

If all 33 idiot senators in the Senate up for reelection were thrown out come the November election, it would effect some change.

I.e. Change is effected by throwing the elected officials out. And then come the next election if that new crew is still cow-tailing to corporate interested, throw that entire batch out. Repeat until the elected idiots finally realize that their employ is to serve the interests of the people (those who vote them into office) rather than the corporate elites.

Re:Two can play at this game (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964627)

It would certainly effect change for Obama. For the country as a whole? Not so much. In fact, none at all. The track that the US - and much of the Western world - is currently on, will continue. There is so much momentum because of a mind-set. The mind-set of the corporate world. The mind set of the children brought up in a land of plenty, who have never experienced real war, or real hardship, or real famine. The mind set of corruption and lobbying. The mind-set of being fascinated with destruction and war machines and technology. You can vote out every single politician and nothing will change at all, because the politicans are merely a reflection of the society as a whole. They are the symptom, not the disease.

Re:Two can play at this game (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964911)

Bullshit. Obama and his toadies like the TSA because the unions are infiltrating it. More unionized bureaucrats, more loyal Democrat voters. People's rights be damned.

Re:Two can play at this game (2, Insightful)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964829)

You are missing the fact that the problem isn't the politicians as much as their puppet masters.

Re:Two can play at this game (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964975)

You missed out a word - that should be "JEW puppet masters"...

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201152512623687256.html

That's the piece of crap who rules America, not the Congress, not the people.

Re:Two can play at this game (5, Insightful)

number11 (129686) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964949)

If the Obidiot were to be thrown out of office come the November election, it would effect some change.

True, but if he was replaced by Rmoney, it would be change for the worse.

If all 435 sitting idiots in the House of representatives were thrown out come the November election, it would effect some change. If all 33 idiot senators in the Senate up for reelection were thrown out come the November election, it would effect some change.

True, but if they were replaced by others from the usual crowd of suspects, it would not be significant change. And part of the problem is that while a lot of people (including me) think that Congress is idiots, those same people (including me) often think their own particular Rep is an exception.

Repeat until the elected idiots finally realize that their employ is to serve the interests of the people (those who vote them into office) rather than the corporate elites.

This will only work if we can keep the corporate elites' money out of politics. Limiting who can put money in (e.g. only persons qualified to vote) would help, as would limiting the amount they can put in (e.g. a max of $5000 per person per election for all aggregated electoral/issues advertising contributions), but there are those "corporations have rights" and "money is speech" things to overcome.

Re:Two can play at this game (4, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964745)

People are inherently evil, and behind their altruistic motives is the instinct to backstab if they can get away with it.

Put someone in a position of trust where they have a chance to fuck everyone over and get away with it, they will do so.

The few who wouldn't, never seek such a position to begin with.

It's human nature, and will never change.

The best we can do is put in checks and balances so that we turn this nature against itself and keep it deadlocked in a stalemate.

Re:Two can play at this game (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964811)

It rotates in a new set of good ol' boys. It's change, just not the change the revolutionaries were hoping for.

Re:Two can play at this game (4, Insightful)

smpoole7 (1467717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964769)

> Yes and every once in a while a revolution comes along that burns the old ways and chops heads or worse.

And within a generation or two (if that long), the revolutionaries are just as corrupt as the original regime.

Also, it's a rare revolutionary who just wants things to be FAIR. Most of them want to get EVEN. (A very fine distinction.) History is also filled with examples of revolutionaries who, once having taken power, simply use that power to oppress those who originally oppressed them.

Re:Two can play at this game (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964493)

Look it's doesn't matter how many petitions you stand up. Basically the folks that have the authority and power to control the people, will. Common folk are only here to support the rich and powerful by way of their taxes. Nothing else matters. You're either part of the good-old-boy network, or you're nobody. It's always been this way; for every country; for every regime; for every global power, since time began.

That wasn't true of the US from WWII to about 1960. Truman and Eisenhower were modest people. Truman ran a hat store. Eisenhower was a night supervisor at a creamery before he got into West Point. That period was probably the most successful in American history.

Re:Two can play at this game (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964593)

Incidentally, the top tax bracket in that period was 80-90%. The rich could still live like kings, but they didn't have billions (or the contemporary equivalent) to buy politicians.

Income disparity is a self-reinforcing problem. If you let the rich have too much of the pie, that gives them the power to take even more.

Re:Two can play at this game (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964803)

If your taxes are that high, then you wouldn't take as much money out of the company. Rather the company would spend it, which is how most of the bought politicians happen now. They are rarely bought from personal finances.

Also, almost no rich person paid those taxes. They used loopholes to pay what they pay now.

If you take too much from the rich, they will leave, and they'll take their jobs with them. They didn't leave back then because the government wasn't successful at taking that much.

Please, take some History classes, because mistakes like yours lead others to believe you, and will destroy the US as fewer and fewer people understand the truth.

Re:Two can play at this game (1, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964847)

Incidentally, the top tax bracket in that period was 80-90%.

First: nobody paid those taxes. People paid less taxes than they are paying today.

Nobody paid 94 or whatever % taxes. Entire industries were created to avoid taxes and every single thing was a write off against taxes and IRS didn't have direct link to every bank account, checking information was a very long manual process.

Second: what kind of logic is that, marginal tax rates were high and so this is why the economy was better or whatever the point is? That's a huge logical fail, none of that follows.

Thirdly: the real time when USA was actually a real economic power, when people truly had individual liberties was not any time past WWII, it was the time from the 1870 to 1913.

Incidentally 1913 was the year when IRS and the Fed were finally pushed through (after a number of unsuccessful and temporary attempts), the stars lined up so to speak, or more correctly - the POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress and Senate lined up in a way that allowed this atrocity to take place.

That became the beginning of the end of the Republic.

Re:Two can play at this game (0)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964849)

Applause. So few people get that this alone (as if there weren't many other reasons) is why we should tax the rich very heavily.

Re:Two can play at this game (1, Insightful)

repvik (96666) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964885)

Which causes them to move, and take a bunch of jobs with them. Excellent. Who does that fuck again? Oh, you're right, the rest of us.

Re:Two can play at this game (5, Insightful)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964925)

So I have a choice of allowing someone to fuck me over and try their best to enslave me while pretending to let me have a say in the matter, or creating an environment where they leave, take their money and jobs, but leave behind the capital and resources that the remaining citizens can attempt to use to actually achieve success? I say let them go. There are piles of people with skill and drive that can still succeed and bring up many with them that currently have to wade through a stacked deck.

I dont think that the jobs are only here because the rich that are skimming the economy into ruin are just being polite as long as we let them get away with anything they feel like doing.

Re:Two can play at this game (3, Insightful)

ToastedRhino (2015614) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964969)

Funny that historically that absolutely did not happen, and in fact the US was at its most prosperous during those times. Greed will always exist, and some people will indeed move because of it. I say good riddance, go be a douchebag somewhere else.

Re:Two can play at this game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964883)

Incidentally, the top tax bracket in that period was 80-90%. ... If you let the rich have too much of the pie, that gives them the power to take even more.

That's the income tax bracket. Income from a job, working for someone. The rich make money from investment income. High income tax gives the appearance of soaking the rich while making it very difficult to achieve wealth for the normal person. Why would the wealthy want more competition? It's so easy to get people like you to jealously take the income of the best of your peers to prevent most of them from achieving wealth.

Re:Two can play at this game (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964643)

True, but that's a very short period, and Eisenhower only managed to get to the Presidency because he was a war hero, and becoming a war-hero has always been a way to jump rank into the aristocracy, even in the old English aristocracy.

Re:Two can play at this game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964645)

The US (or rather its corporations) made much of its fortune as carpetbaggers during the reconstruction of Europe and Asia after the war.

define success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964657)

If by success you mean economic success, the Presidents had not much to do with it. Although the buildup of interstate highways paid for by US tax dollars reaped economic pay-offs that are still going on.

Also, much of that success of that period was the fact that the rest of the industrialized World was bombed out and we were pretty much it for manufactured goods and there was also pent up demand from the WWII. Most of our resources went to fighting WWII, retarding our economy in the process (Wars are NEVER good for an economy) and then after the war, folks were buying all those refrigerators, food stockings, cars, and everythign else they couldn't get during the war.

What I'm saying is, a monkey could have been President and we would still have had that economic boom.

And when the rest of the industrialized world caught up, well we started our decline.

Re:Two can play at this game (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964499)

Common folk are only here to support the rich and powerful by way of their taxes.

No you're all wrong. Common folk are here to support the rich with their labor, because their labor is the only thing they have to offer that has value. The rich, on the other hand, use their capital to employ the labor of the common folk, in order to increase their wealth. This benefits the laborer, because he is paid a wage from which he can live. And it benefits the rich person, because he increases his capital. There. Now you have a fairly accurate picture of how the world works.

Now throw in the politician, whose job it is to steal both the wealth of the rich and the labor of the poor, in order to enrich themselves. And since there are many more poor people than rich people, it's easy for the politician to blame the rich man for the problems - most of which are caused by his theft. After all, when did a little division and discord do any harm in politics?

Re:Two can play at this game (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964623)

The politician steals no wealth from the rich. He is the lickspittle and lackey of the socioeconomic elite - and lives or dies at their bidding. What passes for his riches? These are but crumbs, from the feasting tables of his masters.

The main job of the politician is to distract the mass of people into believing their plight can be resolved through matters of governance and ideology. He's like a WWF entertainer - should he lose or prevail, the winner is always the man in the back office.

Re:Two can play at this game (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964663)

The politician steals no wealth from the rich. He is the lickspittle and lackey of the socioeconomic elite - and lives or dies at their bidding. What passes for his riches? These are but crumbs, from the feasting tables of his masters.

In this we disagree. Because the goal of the politician is power, not capital. So while the rich continue having more "money" than the poor, what is money when the currency is debased? Power is to turn around to the rich man, and say "no, and if you continue I will bring the masses of the poor up against you". And what is the rich man going to do? Why do you think there is so much wealth "offshore", and why do you think the government is so desperate to seize it, outlaw it, and otherwise get its finger in it? Offshore wealth is a thorn in the politician's side, because it lets the wealthy keep some control over their destiny. But no, the politician is not the rich man's lackey at all. He will tolerate the rich man as long as the rich man does what he is told, and if not there are plenty of others willing to be rich men.

Re:Two can play at this game (3, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964709)

Artificial view of "Money" and "Power".

"Money" is a power token, and a force to exert that power. Politicians have NO POWER in the modern, western republics. They are INSTRUMENTS of the power of others. This is where you have been deceived.

Re:Two can play at this game (4, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964839)

That's utter bullshit. The government enforces the will of the people. Part of that means collecting taxes and providing for those who didn't get lucky in life. Get rid of the safety nets, the the people will find another way to provide from themselves -- by killing the rich and taking their things. The poor will not lay down in the gutter and starve to death, no matter how much the robber barons may wish it.

Taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society.

Re:Two can play at this game (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964895)

The government enforces the will of the people

- now that is prime time bullshit.

The government does no such thing. The politicians use the popular trends in order to become famous for introducing (and maybe passing) the bills that are popular with the mob, sure, but this does not equate to 'enforcing the will of the people'.

The will of the people is subjugated to the number 1.

The will of the people is finely presented in the law, that is supposed to govern the government, and that law is completely tossed out (of-course I am speaking of the Constitution).

The taxes are needed to pay for the government, that is true, but 1913 became the aberration, the year when the government was finally in a position to take away the will of the people, as it introduced the tools necessary to destroy the ability of the people to fend for themselves, the Fed and the IRS were created to steal the productivity of the people in a number of important ways, and none of it should have ever happened; it was tried earlier a number of times and failed, but finally they figured out how to put together the right people into the key positions to have this implemented and since then the gov't became something it was NEVER intended to become from the beginning of the USA, it became the ruler of the people rather than the protector of their freedoms.

Re:Two can play at this game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964977)

Sure it befnefits the laborer, now take the cpatilist and their control of resources out of the picture. Clearly without anyone restricting their access to the resources the laborers are helpless! Labor benefits from management, not from a resource chokehold, and contrary to common belief management is not an esoteric and uncommon skillset.

Re:Two can play at this game (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964541)

For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.

-- George Orwell, 1984

Tyranny (5, Insightful)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964349)

So much for open government and responsiveness. Yes, but only if we ask for what they want to give us.

How much time? (5, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964387)

TFS and TFA state that the "White House unexpectedly cut short the time period for the petition", and indeed, the petition's page now says "The petition you are trying to access has expired, because it failed to meet the signature threshold."
It would be nice if EPIC provided information on (i) how long a petition normally gets before it expires, and (ii) how old this petition was when it was abruptly terminated. We know that it had garnered 22500 out of the 25000 signatures required, but how much time was taken away by the early termination of the petition?

Re:How much time? (3, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964989)

but how much time was taken away by the early termination of the petition?

I'm too lazy to dig up wherever I read it, maybe it was a comment on hacker news, but it sounded like it had about another week to go before expiration.

FWIW, I'm inclined to write this off as a glitch. There is nothing to be gained by nefariously disappearing the petition other than to draw attention to the petition. If history is any evidence, petitions that do get enough signatures don't provoke any action anyways, just a condescening pat on the head.

Re:Tyranny (3, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964413)

Its getting more and more obvious though. When a government is no longer working for the people, the people will change it one way or the other, this is the lesson of history. I sometimes wonder how these guys got into power in the first place with such a poor understanding of cause and effect in politics.

Re:Tyranny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964505)

And yet, there is no sign of people changing it anytime soon. Ask around, and everyone still believes in the power of 'democracy', or is just too comfortable (or too scared) to get up and do anything.

Also, it's not as if the people currently in power will be punished. They'll be out and away well before that, and their replacements will take the heat.

Re:Tyranny (0)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964651)

I'm not sure I would rank "they take down online petitions hosted on whitehouse.gov" very high in the annals of tyranny. There are a lot of things to dislike about the U.S. government besides that one!

somewhat surprising (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964359)

Given that online petitions are notoriously ineffective, I wonder why they'd bother. Let the thing get to 25,000, and issue a generic, mostly content-free response about balancing safety and the War on Terror with civil liberties and whatever. I doubt it'd be particularly politically damaging either way, since this is one issue where the Obama administration is more or less in line with the GOP opposition, which created the TSA in the first place, and whose law-and-order branch still strongly supports it.

Re:somewhat surprising (1)

leftover (210560) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964429)

I think they are trying to avoid more negative PR given the current state of the campaign. Past petitions along the same lines have received exactly the treatment you describe. We can 'hope'* that removing the petition will instead draw more attention to it. *[The word 'hope' is now cringe-worthy and has been deprecated.]

Re:somewhat surprising (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964495)

That's where I don't see a campaign angle here. Do you think Romney is going to run an anti-TSA ad? It's more likely he'd try to paint Obama as "soft on terrorism" by running an ad accusing Obama of not being hardline enough on security in some area.

Re:somewhat surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964517)

Really? A few whiners getting butthurt over a completely meaningless online petition (in a long series of completely meaningless online petitions) is going to sway voters? Seriously? Everyone already knows who they're going to vote for; Obama is going to win with a small but comfortable margin. Even if you think Obama is a liar and sellout, you're still going to vote for him because he's ever so slightly less worse than the alternative. The public sucks. Fuck hope. [youtube.com]

Re:somewhat surprising (0, Troll)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964441)

the Obama administration is more or less in line with the GOP opposition, which created the TSA in the first place

The GOP mostly supported tougher screening, but they did not want it run by the government. They wanted it run by private contractors, just like it was before 9/11. The TSA was pushed by Democrats and Bush caved in to get what he wanted on other issues. In hindsight, it is clear that the Republicans were right: the TSA has doubled the costs of screening and has performed no better than the private contractors at detecting prohibited items during routine tests.

Re:somewhat surprising (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964477)

That's simply not correct. The biggest legislative proponent of the TSA bill that eventually passed was Don Young (R-AK), and Bush strongly supported it throughout; he didn't "cave in" at the end. Its expansion into ever-more-intrusive measures was strongly supported and overseen by first Tom Ridge (Republican, former Governor of Pennsylvania) as head of DHS, and then by Michael Chertoff (Bush's 2nd DHS head). Chertoff, post-Bush-administration, is now closely connected with Rapiscan Systems, the backscatter X-Ray company.

Some in the GOP have slowly started waking up to the fact that they passed a bunch of stupid things in the post-9/11 era (Patriot Act, DHS, etc.), but at the time they were the ones pushing it, and very few (except maybe Ron Paul) opposed it.

Re:somewhat surprising (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964521)

No sources to back this up. You haven't proved a thing.

Re:somewhat surprising (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964699)

This isn't wikipedia, dipshit. No one here is obligated to sprinkle offsite links throughout every comment thet make. You have a problem with that? Get thee off to that other site and stop bothering people here.

Re:somewhat surprising (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964907)

Don't bother making comments if you're not even going to provided citations, then. I'm not going to go searching for proof to prove that your arguments are correct.

Re:somewhat surprising (2)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964659)

Giving far reaching powers to detain, strip-search and irradiate people to private companies in the hope that they can mount an effective and fool-proof security system to protect things of national importance? What could possibly go wrong?

Maybe those good folks at G4S would take the contract?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=g4s+olympics [lmgtfy.com]

Well... (5, Insightful)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964365)

They were going to give a non-answer answer anyway. This is just an attempt to avoid any coverage of the issue.

Re:Well... (4, Insightful)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964395)

They should meet Barbara Streisand. I am betting taking it down and killing what little credibility the petition system had will only increase coverage.

no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964381)

The reddit crowd already went over this one in detail... it wasn't pulled down...the petitions have a limited amount of time, and there was a standard maintenance window near the time this particular petition ended. So no big conspiracy...just normal network maintenance...

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (5, Informative)

Meshach (578918) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964435)

The reddit crowd already went over this one in detail... it wasn't pulled down...the petitions have a limited amount of time, and there was a standard maintenance window near the time this particular petition ended. So no big conspiracy...just normal network maintenance...

Here is the reddit thread [reddit.com] .

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964471)

Here is the reddit thread [reddit.com] .

Are you allowed to do that here?

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964553)

Why wouldn't (s)he be? Slashdots comments are user moderated, not admin moderated.

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (4, Funny)

guttentag (313541) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964561)

Here is the reddit thread [reddit.com] .

Are you allowed to do that here?

Absolutely not. All content posted on Slashdot must be entirely the original work of the poster, unless the linked content is unimportant, not insightful, related to business intelligence or involves videos of remote-control flying taxidermied cats. I would link to the relevant regulations, but then I'd be in violation.

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964805)

unless the linked content is unimportant, not insightful

so reddit is fine then, what's the problem?

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964647)

According to another reddit link: the petition went up July 9, came down August 9. And the maintenance shutdown was routine.

No matter: 've given up on the White House Petition scheme anyway. I've received several "responses" to issues I either initiated or joined in on, and the "responses" were invariably polite, absolutely PC, innocuous, noncommittal, uninformative .. and totally useless.

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964449)

Thank you. I was wondering when someone would post that. I was monitoring the petition the last few days. Even though it needed over two thousand more signatures, it was only getting a couple hundred a day. There was no way it would make the 25K goal by the end of the day.

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964487)

Convenient time to schedule maintenance. Right at the end of the petition deadline. Also, who's running this server. This isn't 1970. There's no need to bring a server down for maintenance. At least not for a prolonged period of time. At most it should be down for the amount of time it takes to reboot the server. A proper web site should have 2 or 3 load balanced machines anyway, so the site never has to be completely down.

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (2, Interesting)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964631)

It takes longer if the "maintenance" is installing a censorship filter to week out politically inconvenient petitions before they hit the front page.

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (4, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964749)

Perhaps people should take a page from from the copyright cartel playbook and keep putting the petitions up until they get the number of signatures they need.

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964549)

Oh boy! The reddit crowd!! Too bad the 4chan crowd didn't look into it. I'd be more likely to trust their opinion.

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (1)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964691)

So reddit is the new Netcraft? :P

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964789)

And yet, the maintenance downtime was counted against the expiration of the petition?

New one? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964393)

What did the petition say? Can we put up a new one and slashdot-sign it?

Norm Forming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964403)

They are just waiting till the new norm forms and people find the insane security normal. From recent surveys about the TSA, and wee almost there.

Most transparent administration ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964405)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU0m6Rxm9vU

My ass.

The Iron Fist lowers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964415)

Government by the people? I think not.

Par for the course... (4, Interesting)

Nova Express (100383) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964419)

...for the least transparent administration in American history. Perhaps the Obama Administration will restore the petition shortly after they turn over the Fast and Furious documents Obama has claimed Executive Privilege over [latimes.com] .

This is also par for the course for the Obama Administration's constant defense of the TSA. When Texas tried to pass a bill to ban TSA groping in the state, the Obama Administration threatened to impose a no fly zone on Texas [tenthamendmentcenter.com] over the right for TSA agents to grope people. Do you think think the Obama Administration will be any less protective now that they're unionized [dailycaller.com] .

Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz has called for the abolition of the TSA. Given the wasteful, intrusive, and ineffective security theater they stage, does anyone think the America public would object to to their abolition?

From the most transparent administration (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964667)

This comes from the "most transparent administration in American history." They are because they said so and if you say otherwise, they will remove your post.

Re:Par for the course... (4, Insightful)

LourensV (856614) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964697)

...for the least transparent administration in American history.

I seriously doubt that. With modern media and the Internet all the parts of the government are more visible than they've ever been. Yes, there are things that governments today won't tell their citizens about, but those have always been there. It's just that the citizens now know about the existence of these things at all, whereas in earlier times the citizens did what they did in their homes and the politicians did what they did in their capitols and there was much less communication. And so, modern governments seem less transparent, while the citizens now actually know more about what their government does than ever before.

Re:Par for the course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964845)

No, this administration has done a great job of distraction by pretending to open up and allow public influence but squashing anything that is contrary to their agenda.

Not much info (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964427)

How much time was cut short? When was the petition supposed to end? IIRC it was ending very soon anyway.

If they didn't want to answer, they'd just say "this matter pertains to pending litigation, so we cannot comment" as they have done before. Why would they cut the answer period short?

Re:Not much info (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964483)

Apparently the petition expired on Thursday, August 9th [zdnet.com] . If it was just taken down at 11:30 AM today, what is the problem?

Re:Not much info (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964509)

Oh, the EPIC post is dated August 9th. So still, the question is, when was the petition expected to expire?

Re:Not much info (0)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964599)

The problem is people are hysterical retards who flip the fuck out over stupid shit.

Re:Not much info (3, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964795)

I know. Why can't we ever get people to flip the fuck out over the right shit? There's plenty of smart shit to flip the fuck out over.

Special Screening (3, Insightful)

CosmicRabbit (1505129) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964431)

The petition was not removed, but randomly chosen for special screening in a side room, away from public eyes to protect its privacy. Hence you saw it "under maintenance".
Unfortunately it has been determined that the petition was carrying some dangerous baggage, and therefore it was denied boarding rights to the oval office. It is now blacklisted for future trips.

You just lost my vote, Obama ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964459)

Hope and change ?

Bullshit.

What those of us with brains hope is that soon we will have a change of
president.

Re:You just lost my vote, Obama ... (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964539)

What those of us with brains hope is that soon we will have a change of president.

Sorry buddy, but you're in the no brains group. What those of us with brains KNOW is that change of president or not, it makes no damned difference at all. We're serving poo for luch. You want it fried over-easy or sunny side up?

The real question.. (5, Insightful)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964513)

Has the "We The People" website had one iota of influence on ANY issue?

I suspect the whole purpose was to get some good touchy-feely-see-I-care press for launching the site, not to actually do anything substantive but pat people on the head and continue to do whatever the hell they want anyway.

The People Have a Voice! (4, Funny)

ZosX (517789) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964537)

oh wait.....

America is not about "we the people" (1)

John Holmes (2619159) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964543)

It never has been. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBdk5n68gdM [youtube.com]

Re:America is not about "we the people" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964633)

Yeah, it's about "We the rich people! Fuck the rest of you."

if you read the EPIC site that is linked (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964545)

you see the petition was set to expire on the 9th and they admit they didn't have the 25,000 threshold so how can they complain? i think the TSA is crap but this is a bogus conspiracy.

RTFA (4, Insightful)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964567)

If anyone bothers to read this, (and this is an old story already, been done at Reddit) they will discover that it was due to be taken down in a half an hour. It was a half an hour early, BIG FUCKING DEAL. It's highly doubtful that they would have got the 2500 signatures in that time anyway. Besides these petitions are only for letting them know what people are on about, to get a public opinion. They don't set policy.

This is a none issue, only made an issue by hysterical paranoid loons.

Re:RTFA (1)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964703)

Yes, and no.... If they really did take it down 30 minutes early, it wasn't handled properly, period.

I don't think it's necessarily impossible they'd get 2,500 more signatures inside of 30 minutes. (We've seen how many HP TouchPads people were able to order in just 10 or 15 minute windows, during that whole blowout sale craze.)

Even if they didn't, it doesn't really matter.... By doing anything irregular with making the petition available, it opens it up to scrutiny or debate.

I do agree that this thing wasn't going to set policy though. It's obvious our government shoves every agenda down our collective throats that it wants to see happen. These things are more useful to wake up the public a bit about what's going on around them. (If you can show that a majority DOES oppose something government continues doing anyway, it strengthens people's resolve to protest the status quo.)

Re:RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964865)

If you're trying to bring some lucid, lacking in paranoia, sanity, then you're on the wrong website.

Please leave.

Land of the free! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964591)

Yay, yay, USA!!

Land of the free! (Or maybe now it's that other four letter F word, with "ed" added on the end.)

Center of democracy for the free world!

Obama... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964649)

bringing back pre-Civil War stereotypes of Mulattos.

Yes We Can! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964665)

Because We Can!

Transparency and Open Government (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964677)

In his own words:

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government." - President Barack Obama

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment [whitehouse.gov]

Re:Transparency and Open Government (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964799)

I don't trust social media â" I think it's all a bunch of bullshit. I think it's a manoeuvre. It's Orwellian. This small screen is going to hypnotise you. You're going to do what it wants you to do. What does it want you to do? It wants you to text your friend. What are you saying to your friend? You're going to say: "I'm on the corner!" â" and your friend says: "I'm on the other corner!" Is that what you're saying ... is that what you're thinking? Wait a minute.You don't even know what you think and what you feel if that's what you're doing all day and night.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/aug/09/ry-cooder-mitt-romney-dangerous-cruel [guardian.co.uk]

I tried to sign it, but couldn't (4, Interesting)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964679)

I tried to sign this petition several times over the last couple of weeks, but the system would not let me create an account.

So how's that Hopey/Changey thing working for you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40964861)

ROFL.

Meh whatever (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964879)

1) The people behind this "story" are making a big fucking deal out of normal maintenance and a half hour
2) You really shouldnt care anyway cause 'We the People' is a fucking joke anyway. Its nothing more than busywork that gets you nothing else but an official copy and paste response.

Flying vs. Voting vs. TSA (4, Interesting)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964887)

We just recently saw a study which shows that the TSA isn't an issue -- Americans don't hate them that much.

But the study didn't control for whether you'd flown or not in the past few years.

Obviously, I'd like to see the study redone with whether you've flown. I suspect people who've flown HATE the TSA and people who haven't think they're grand.

But I'd also like another variable added. People who vote.

I suspect the people who don't hate the TSA are a complacent bunch who don't read, don't think, and don't vote. I further suspect people who don't fly don't vote. But it could go the other way. I want to see those numbers. The TSA may be a much, MUCH bigger issue than the administration thinks it is, or they may be completely right -- ignore it, because it's not something the real people who vote crare about.

focus is on the wrong thing (2)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#40964947)

getting rid of janet napolitano should be the focus of the effort. She loves the police state for some reason. When she was governer of Arizona they put in revenue cameras. When she left they ripped them out. Get rid of napolitano and there is a better chance to get rid of the tsa.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?