5 ms·

Obama gives himself control of all communication systems in America

23 points by moondistance 14y ago

DamnYuppie 14y ago
How is this not incredibly terrifying? They use security and safety as justification for continually reducing our civil liberties and privacy. They act as if the whole of the nation is criminal.
- CWuestefeld 14y ago
  That's true, but it's not just that. Their assumption is that for the continued operation of our country, the most important thing -- in extreme, the only critical thing -- is the operation of the government. I believe this is absolutely false. It's not our government that has made America great. It's our people, our culture, our industry. Thanks to all of this, we thrive in spite of the government.
  - drharris 14y ago
    This is definitely the truth. Only recently in this country have people put the government on this kind of pedestal; it smells of nationalism. For years, we existed without any central government, and then for years with a relatively weak one. If the government were to go, it might not actually be the worst thing...
    - nirvana 14y ago
      Speaking of controlling communications-- this entire thread, which was #2 on HN when I first saw it-- has been buried because it is not sufficiently pro-obama. Meanwhile the latest uneducated screed about how the banks caused the housing crisis (false) and are EVIL!, will always stay way up on the first page of HN for hours if not a day or so. I can't stand this censorship on HN. Well, it wouldn't bother me if the HN core audience weren't constantly saying "We're objective and open minded!"
      - CWuestefeld 14y ago
        Downvote: 1) You can't possibly make a factual statement like it "has been buried because it is not sufficiently pro-obama". You can't know other people's reasons for not up-voting. 2) HN is a private service that can feature whatever content it likes. If they choose not to link to something, that's not censorship -- censorship is something a government does to you. 3) You can't call someone's decision not to up-vote an article "censorship" in any case.
drharris 14y ago
I can just feel the hope and change.
tseabrooks 14y ago
I'm one of the most conservative folks you're likely to meet... One of those "Right Wing Nutjobs"... but this really feels like FUD to me. In a state of emergency the US Gov will need to ensure that it has the ability to communicate. Agreed. Hell, they'll need to ensure that I have the ability to communicate.
- moondistance 14y ago
  I also thought that might be the case, before I read this part: "In explaining the order, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) writes that the president has authorized the DHS "the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications.""
  - justinschuh 14y ago
    EPIC has a history of being pretty over the top with their statements and demands. I wouldn't take anything they claim too seriously unless it's corroborated by a more reliable source.
    - moondistance 14y ago
      Thanks, I wasn't aware of EPIC. Now that I've read more about EPIC and the executive order referenced in this article, I regret posting this link. The article does appear to significantly overstate the EO. But I appreciate all of your comments - this has been enlightening :)
nirvana 14y ago
For anyone who wants to let this slide, how would you have reacted[1] if the headline had started "Bush gives himself..." and it had been published 6 years ago? Cause 6 years from now it might be someone you don't like in office, but the power will still be there. Just as the PATRIOT ACT still is (expanded and extended by Obama), the TSA is (now with porno-scanners!), the domestic spying that happened under Bush is still going on (now retroactively "legal" and much more secret!), etc. [1] In case my comment isn't obviously nonpartisan, I am equally offended at this in both situations, and believe that Bush wanted this power too.
- justinschuh 14y ago
  If it started with "Bush gives himself..." I think I'd be doing the same thing I'm doing now. That is, sit here wondering how exactly anyone is interpreting this executive order the way the headline frames it. The truthiness ranks right up there with "death panels."
  - nirvana 14y ago
    There really are death panels in obamacare. I read the bill before it was made secret, when this issue was brought out. The bill creates committees which decide who gets health care and who is left to die. That's a plain fact. The response to airing of this fact is that Obama, et al. started spinning it as an objection to "end of life counseling". In other words, they lied about what the criticism was about, and once they did it all the liberals started acting like it was absurd to complain about "death panels". There are people who I've met who bring up "Death panels" as an absurd complaint who don't even know that the bill creates committees who regulate who gets health care and who doen't. (not "is this treatment effective" but "should retired people get this treatment since they are no longer paying taxes?" with the stated political purpose of letting those who aren't paying taxes die. The major objection brought up time and time again from the left was that "society" was "wasting money on old people".) So here's the tragedy: There are so many people who have heard such propaganda that they won't even consider the fact that there are death panels because they've been told it was a lie. Even though it was right there in black and white for anyone to read in the bill (before it was made secret until passage.)
mpyne 14y ago
I would recommend reading the actual executive order: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness- http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/execut... This looks to me just what it says on the tin: The Federal Government is to develop a plan for ensuring comms during national crises. The only part that hinted at "control" of systems is Sec 5.2(e) where the DHS is to be able to satisfy priority communications requirements through use of (not control of) commercial, Government, and privately-owned resources. So yes, the gov't could come in and use Aunt Tillie's landline phone if no other resources were available in a disaster, but that hardly equates to "control of all communications systems" and is hardly different in degree to the powers the Federal government already has in disaster response.
cjdavis 14y ago
Here's the original Executive Order: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness- http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/execut... I'm curious, how much does this really differ from the original Emergency Broadcast System, or the current Emergency Alert System?
portmanteaufu 14y ago
As an aside regarding the title: if he was able to "give it to himself" then he had to have it in the first place. If he didn't have it beforehand, he couldn't give it to himself. Weird turn of phrase.
gte910h 14y ago
"If comms are out, we have power to turn them back on so we can talk to the other parts of government" sounds like a really good idea. Not a power overreach. Shitty headline IMO.
rsanchez1 14y ago
He would take control of all communications in the event of a national emergency. Then again, all he has to do is declare a national emergency, and then who knows what happens. If it is a genuine national emergency, though, like an enemy invasion (which is what this executive order seems to plan against), then Obama seizing all communications in America seems like it will be the least of our problems. However, the presence of language like "Continuity of Government" does not inspire much confidence that he is looking out for us.

23 points by moondistance 14y ago

How is this not incredibly terrifying? They use security and safety as justification for continually reducing our civil liberties and privacy. They act as if the whole of the nation is criminal.

CWuestefeld 14y ago
That's true, but it's not just that. Their assumption is that for the continued operation of our country, the most important thing -- in extreme, the only critical thing -- is the operation of the government. I believe this is absolutely false. It's not our government that has made America great. It's our people, our culture, our industry. Thanks to all of this, we thrive in spite of the government.
- drharris 14y ago
  This is definitely the truth. Only recently in this country have people put the government on this kind of pedestal; it smells of nationalism. For years, we existed without any central government, and then for years with a relatively weak one. If the government were to go, it might not actually be the worst thing...
  - nirvana 14y ago
    Speaking of controlling communications-- this entire thread, which was #2 on HN when I first saw it-- has been buried because it is not sufficiently pro-obama. Meanwhile the latest uneducated screed about how the banks caused the housing crisis (false) and are EVIL!, will always stay way up on the first page of HN for hours if not a day or so. I can't stand this censorship on HN. Well, it wouldn't bother me if the HN core audience weren't constantly saying "We're objective and open minded!"
    - CWuestefeld 14y ago
      Downvote: 1) You can't possibly make a factual statement like it "has been buried because it is not sufficiently pro-obama". You can't know other people's reasons for not up-voting. 2) HN is a private service that can feature whatever content it likes. If they choose not to link to something, that's not censorship -- censorship is something a government does to you. 3) You can't call someone's decision not to up-vote an article "censorship" in any case.

drharris 14y ago

I can just feel the hope and change.

tseabrooks 14y ago

I'm one of the most conservative folks you're likely to meet... One of those "Right Wing Nutjobs"... but this really feels like FUD to me. In a state of emergency the US Gov will need to ensure that it has the ability to communicate. Agreed. Hell, they'll need to ensure that I have the ability to communicate.

moondistance 14y ago
I also thought that might be the case, before I read this part: "In explaining the order, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) writes that the president has authorized the DHS "the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications.""
- justinschuh 14y ago
  EPIC has a history of being pretty over the top with their statements and demands. I wouldn't take anything they claim too seriously unless it's corroborated by a more reliable source.
  - moondistance 14y ago
    Thanks, I wasn't aware of EPIC. Now that I've read more about EPIC and the executive order referenced in this article, I regret posting this link. The article does appear to significantly overstate the EO. But I appreciate all of your comments - this has been enlightening :)

nirvana 14y ago

For anyone who wants to let this slide, how would you have reacted[1] if the headline had started "Bush gives himself..." and it had been published 6 years ago? Cause 6 years from now it might be someone you don't like in office, but the power will still be there. Just as the PATRIOT ACT still is (expanded and extended by Obama), the TSA is (now with porno-scanners!), the domestic spying that happened under Bush is still going on (now retroactively "legal" and much more secret!), etc. [1] In case my comment isn't obviously nonpartisan, I am equally offended at this in both situations, and believe that Bush wanted this power too.

justinschuh 14y ago
If it started with "Bush gives himself..." I think I'd be doing the same thing I'm doing now. That is, sit here wondering how exactly anyone is interpreting this executive order the way the headline frames it. The truthiness ranks right up there with "death panels."
- nirvana 14y ago
  There really are death panels in obamacare. I read the bill before it was made secret, when this issue was brought out. The bill creates committees which decide who gets health care and who is left to die. That's a plain fact. The response to airing of this fact is that Obama, et al. started spinning it as an objection to "end of life counseling". In other words, they lied about what the criticism was about, and once they did it all the liberals started acting like it was absurd to complain about "death panels". There are people who I've met who bring up "Death panels" as an absurd complaint who don't even know that the bill creates committees who regulate who gets health care and who doen't. (not "is this treatment effective" but "should retired people get this treatment since they are no longer paying taxes?" with the stated political purpose of letting those who aren't paying taxes die. The major objection brought up time and time again from the left was that "society" was "wasting money on old people".) So here's the tragedy: There are so many people who have heard such propaganda that they won't even consider the fact that there are death panels because they've been told it was a lie. Even though it was right there in black and white for anyone to read in the bill (before it was made secret until passage.)

mpyne 14y ago

I would recommend reading the actual executive order: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness- http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/execut... This looks to me just what it says on the tin: The Federal Government is to develop a plan for ensuring comms during national crises. The only part that hinted at "control" of systems is Sec 5.2(e) where the DHS is to be able to satisfy priority communications requirements through use of (not control of) commercial, Government, and privately-owned resources. So yes, the gov't could come in and use Aunt Tillie's landline phone if no other resources were available in a disaster, but that hardly equates to "control of all communications systems" and is hardly different in degree to the powers the Federal government already has in disaster response.

cjdavis 14y ago

Here's the original Executive Order: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness- http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/execut... I'm curious, how much does this really differ from the original Emergency Broadcast System, or the current Emergency Alert System?

portmanteaufu 14y ago

As an aside regarding the title: if he was able to "give it to himself" then he had to have it in the first place. If he didn't have it beforehand, he couldn't give it to himself. Weird turn of phrase.

gte910h 14y ago

"If comms are out, we have power to turn them back on so we can talk to the other parts of government" sounds like a really good idea. Not a power overreach. Shitty headline IMO.

rsanchez1 14y ago

He would take control of all communications in the event of a national emergency. Then again, all he has to do is declare a national emergency, and then who knows what happens. If it is a genuine national emergency, though, like an enemy invasion (which is what this executive order seems to plan against), then Obama seizing all communications in America seems like it will be the least of our problems. However, the presence of language like "Continuity of Government" does not inspire much confidence that he is looking out for us.