Obama gives himself control of all communication systems in America | Hacker News Reader

Obama gives himself control of all communication systems in America

rt.com

23 pointsmoondistance22 comments

I would recommend reading the actual executive order: 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.

Here's the original Executive Order: 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?

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.

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.

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...

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!"

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.""

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.

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 :)

I can just feel the hope and change.

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.

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."

Every time Fox News gets riled up by something Obama does, I always ask myself, how would I feel if Bush/Cheney did the same thing? In this case, I don't have a problem with the executive order.

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.)

I can't tell from your comment history if you're a pathological liar or just a really persistent troll.

I would have reacted the same way if this is been done under President Bush. I would have noted the article is from RT.com, recalled that they are a horribly inaccurate source for anything, and flagged the article.

It IS someone I don't like in office right now, and I still don't think this executive order is an issue.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com