Slashdot Mirror


Executive Order Grants US Gov't New Powers Over Communication Systems

An anonymous reader writes "President Obama has issued a new executive order: 'Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.' EPIC reports: 'The Executive Order grants new powers to the Department of Homeland Security, including the ability to collect certain public communications information. Under the Executive Order the White House has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications.' A few key excerpts from the exec order: 'The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) [National Security/Emergency Preparedness] communications policies, programs, and capabilities. ... Sec. 5.2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications, including: communications that support Continuity of Government; Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal emergency preparedness and response communications; non-military executive branch communications systems; critical infrastructure protection networks; and non-military communications networks, particularly with respect to prioritization and restoration; .... (e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate."

9 of 513 comments (clear)

  1. When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of course by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications

    When the U.S. President does it, it's to make your kids safer.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  2. Re:Why is this an executive order? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because the summary is bullshit.

    This is basically doling out to different departments who has responsibility for the government's communications in emergencies. The Defense Department is responsible for the President and VP's communications while Homeland Security is responsible for other levels of government. There is nothing about new powers in the executive order.

  3. Re:you were warned... by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you fucking high? He's just continuing the particular policies of George W. Bush and the general policies of every President since Reagan. The worst part about Obama is that he HASN'T changed anything.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  4. Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So....how's that "Hope and Change" working out for you?

    Geez...and people were seriously worried about Bush Jr. trying to 'go imperial', grab power and stay president past his term.

    Even he didn't go for a power grab THIS broad.

    Seriously...the govt can take over private sector machines? What constitutes an emergency to trigger this takeover....emp? China cyber attack? Bad election returns?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  5. Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where did the Patriot Act come from again?

    John Kerry wrote a significant amount of the Partriot Act, perhaps the majority of it. Things have changed over the past 30 years. In the 70s and into the 80s, the Republicans were the party that wanted government to tell you how to live your life, but these days it seems to be the democrats telling me what light bulb or shower head I can buy, trying to ban violent video games, outlawing toys in happy meals, and in general trying to force me to live a virtuous and sinless life.

    I don't care which party is the bigger asshole this generation: take away all the power and budget we can from the federal government, and it won't matter nearly so much.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  6. Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours by Jhon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge. I truly do believe that."

    I don't doubt you do believe that. The problem is it's 'O' that's done it... not a "republican". There's been more shenanigans from the "D"s (because they had total control for two years) with regards to both executive and legislative maneuvering than I can recall ever.

    Is it because the Dems are bad? No. It's because they had total and supra majority control.

    My vote for president as a rule of thumb is for the candidate who is of the OPPOSITE party of whoever controls congress. Some of our best and most productive years as a nation have been when the two branches are in opposite party control.

  7. Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours by deapbluesea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    take away all the power and budget we can from the federal government, and it won't matter nearly so much.

    If I only had mod points.

    The problem isn't with which party is in charge, it's with how much whoever is in charge can do. I'm not calling for anarchy, but an awful lot of our problems stem from too much centralized control, not too little.

    For those of you cheering the health care act's penalty, just think what you would say if the other side had exercised such power. For all of these executive orders, what if it were the other side? Just a hypothetical for you: now that Obama has successfully issued an executive order to DHS to not process certain illegal aliens, and that executive order has been defended by a large number of partisans, will those same partisans defend a Romney executive order that directs the IRS to simply not collect any penalties levied by the ACA? How about a Republican "tax" on abortion procedures? Would you be ok with that since you recognize the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the individual mandate as a tax under the taxing power of Congress? Would those pundits who cheered the decision still feel the same when its precedent is used on a subject contrary to their ideology? What about an individual mandate to purchase a gun or pay a penalty if you don't? After all, crime costs us just as much as those free riders at the emergency room. If you're worried about guns being used irresponsibly, we'll just create a mandate for all employers to provide safe gun ownership training and one hour a month at the shooting range. Feeling better about those ACA precedents yet?

    Regardless of sides, the last 8 years have seen an unprecedented consolidation of power that can and will be abused by either side. The only fix is to get involved in your local politics and start getting people into office who will vote to cut back federal (and state) powers. The more demand there is for that kind of politician, the more of that kind of politician we will see. If you disagree with the Tea Party (who is for smaller government, but maybe not the parts you would like to see shrink), then get out and start your own movement (no, Occupy doesn't count - it's a failure as a political movement). No matter what, the future of America rests in its ability to walk back these power grabs and reestablish a constrained government with narrowly defined powers.

    --
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
  8. Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a Dem, I can say we _know_ Obama sucks and we aren't expecting any difference after the election.

    We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.

    It's not the definition of insanity, as you put it, it's picking how you want to get screwed the least. I hate that Obama is doing all this Bush-esque stuff, but I know Romney would do it much worse.

  9. Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I truly believe that any president, R or D would do this. You're forgetting that in the public light they bash each other and act like enemies but behind closed doors they all work together to fill each others bank accounts.

    Indeed; a cursory glance at who is financing Obama and Romney's campaigns shows who really runs this country: Namely, Goldman motherfucking Sachs and J.P. Morgan.

    More amazing is how this information is publicly available, yet the masses still trend towards eschewing reality in favor of the nonsense-topic-of-the-day.

    I still laugh at the so called occupier idiots that protest the rich CEO's (well unless it's Steve Jobs/Apple) and banks. They should really be marching in Washington.

    Again, considering that Wall Street banks are the de facto, shadow rulers of America, their protest was targeted at the right group, albeit by a highly misguided group of college dropouts with too much free time.

    If you want to kill a serpent, cut off the head.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese