another government intrusion
dept of homeland security
emergency texts
government takes over your cell phone
government tracking
The President's Got Your (cell phone) Number
By AnjaP
@Rollo1 (16679)
Boston, Massachusetts
May 10, 2011 8:55am CST
Starting next year, the government will have a direct line to your cell phone. All new cell phones sold will have to include a chip that allows the President and the Department of Homeland Security to directly text your phone with "alerts". User will have the option to turn off most of the features, but NOT the President's texts.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/10/national-emergency-alert-system-set-to-launch-in-nyc/
On the one hand, it might be helpful to get alerts from FEMA on natural disasters, especially if you live in an area at high risk for tornadoes or flooding. But, shouldn't you decide if you want that service or not?
Perhaps you are not in a high risk area for either terrorism or natural disaster and just wanted to buy that cheap cell phone for emergencies only? Not an option.
And if this is meant to be a warning system like the EBS, why can you turn off the emergency warnings if you want to, but you can't turn off messages from the President? You are not allowed to decide to not accept texts and you will receive them even if you don't have texting on your phone service plan. You cannot opt out.
Joseph Goebbels knew how important it was for the people to hear from Hitler and only from Hitler and no opposing viewpoints. In order to facilitate the one-voice regime, he made available inexpensive radios, called the "People's Receiver" that sold cheaply enough that every household could afford one. Loudspeakers were set up in the streets to broadcast the Fuhrer's speeches and all cafes and bars were required to play them inside their establishments.
A lot of people forget that the word 'Nazi' stood for National Socialist Party.
That's right, I went there
3 people like this
12 responses
@urbandekay (18278)
•
10 May 11
Hitler's party were indeed called National Socialists yet it is foolish to think they were in any way socialists. Indeed they were extremely right wing.
The comparison between US and Nazi Germany is interesting though and speaks volumes about two extremely right wing countries!
all the best urban
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 May 11
The Nazis are generally placed on the right wing and Stalin is placed at the extreme left wing but is there really any difference between them? In essence, the operative word is totalitarian, and both Hitler and Stalin fall under that definition. The State is the most important entity, even though the State does not really exist. The State in all totalitarian regimes is really made up of a privileged class that oppresses everyone else while silencing opposing voices (the Fairness Doctrine).
This move is pure propaganda and does not fit in with the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
10 May 11
Evil whatever name you call it is still evil.
And extreme LEFT is just as evil as extemem RIGHT. What would you say England was Urban?
1 person likes this
@ArdeeGayos (52)
• Philippines
10 May 11
Whoa! Power to the people, in the literal sense. The president is just a call/text away. I am not an American, and I can't help comparing your country to ours, where the president is something seen from afar, and often unreachable by common folks. Used rightly, it can be used to quickly mobilize people, especially in very trying situations. Fukushima comes to mind. However, great care should be taken that this should not be used in any illegal/illicit activities, especially on the ones that unduly infringe on the privacy of individuals.
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
12 May 11
If his text can reach you, so can his goons. you know, the ones who like to beat up little old men at tea party events?
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
10 May 11
I like the idea of an app for my phone that would alert me to violent weather, or natural disasters that could be sent to my phone within a limited area. Right now the National Weather Service alerts us to dangerous weather within a couple of hundred miles on TV because the cable covers such a large area. Such an app would be excellent for travelers to know that severe weather is within 50 or 100 miles of where you are. When the warning is announced on the radio (when Traveling) I have no idea where the station is from (they will use the call letters but not always the city and state because they assume you know that) so I don't know if I should be concerned or not.
To have the president being able to send me a message any time of the day or night I don't want. Several questions would I be reminded of his upcoming speeches, would he call to remind me to vote, would he send a message to contact my congressman about important legislation or would it be only national emergencies?
Like you say Rollo let people sign up for messages or Twitter if they want to be contacted otherwise I don't want to hear from him.
2 people like this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
10 May 11
In announcing the proposal a spokesperson said that it could have been used with the Times Square Bomber incident. They could have told people about the danger and where the people should go. I would guess that two things would happen.
1. People would panic and many people would be killed or injured in the panic of everyone trying to get out of the area.
2. The second thing is people rushing to the spot to see what is going on.
In either event whether it is a real threat or not the Terrorist wins by causing panic.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 May 11
I don't have a cell phone that will download apps, but I can access the internet, Twitter, Weather Underground, Facebook, etc. If there was a way to get automatic severe weather alerts, I might sign up for it, but I think that has to be a choice.
I just thought of something that I hadn't before. Perhaps they will need to reach us all by cell phone if the president ever decides to use his internet kill switch? I wonder why they couldn't use radio or TV, though?
I also question what sort of messages the president wants us to receive directly from him? As I said, I get his tweets and they are definitely written by underlings and mostly tell you how wonderful the administration is. That's all the propaganda I am willing to sign up for.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
10 May 11
I am not American, but I would go for an alert on natural disasters. But if I were living in the States, I would not want a message from your Great Leader. Sounds like he is not interested into a second term alone, but making himself life long dictator and supreme ruler of the United STates. And I suppose you would have to pay for Obama's texts.
He us lAnother way to soak Americans.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 May 11
I think that if a service for natural disaster alerts were to be offered and people wanted to use it, that's fine. The government already has an Emergency Broadcast Service on television and radio. Of course, they can't tell where your personal television or radio is, can they?
I follow Obama on Twitter. That's a choice and not because I support him but because it's always good to know what he's up to now and to see the official line of propaganda. But I wouldn't want the Twitter service to insist that I am automatically required to receive his Tweets.
There can be only one reason to insist that all cell phones receive texts from the POTUS. It's the one item people always keep with them and it's the best way to indoctrinate from afar.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
11 May 11
Here we pay for text messages received and sent after a certain amount. I do not go on Twitter that often, and I certainly would not want Obama to insist I read all his tweets. I do remember learning about the Nazis and their propaganda machine. My father went over there to fight and I was born during the War. Plus I had an aunt how had to hide from them, so I can see what would happen if Obama continues and gets in a second time. I really do not like someone who tells us what to do but gives himself a pass, for instance telling people to save on gas, not use fossil fuel and yet takes trips all around the world on yur money. And encourages other countries to drill instead of in the States.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
11 May 11
I currently own a Drioid 2 Global and in it it has the option receive emergency text like Amber Alerts and one that is the Presidents which I am assuming to be very much like the National Emergency Broadcast Network that is for your Television this is only to be used during national Emergencies and I believe also that it is through the Government giving the Message to your Cell Phone Company that you are using then sends it out to you through your phone this could be used for example if the Nation comes under Direct Attack from a Foriegn Power to inform you of this quickly and also where a safe place might be if you are located near the front lines or where the attack is looking to be starting. Also with the Amber Alerts and others these are for you to opt-in or out of.
Also I am not sure if they have it right as well a Chip and the Software are two different things and well you wouldn't need both to recieve the message and also to avoid people being able to disable the Chip or the software I would believe that this is most likely a thing that is on the Carriers end of things but they limit what phones they are currently on this network because it would be an automatic opt in thing. Also they could already track you using the GPS ability on your phone so this isn't anything new if you own a Cell Phone the police and Government can track you. Yes even older phones.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
11 May 11
I have no objection to people being able to opt into emergency alerts, because they also have the ability to opt out.
I do object to the president (any president) using this system to send messages. I object strenuously to the fact that you cannot opt out of receiving the president's messages. I object to a president coming up for reelection putting a propaganda tool in my cell phone. The plan calls for all cell phones to be capable of receiving these texts by the spring of 2012 - an election year. And who MUST you receive texts from even if you don't want them? A candidate for election, Obama. You cannot opt out of the texts from the president even if you opt out of the emergency alerts from FEMA and DOH.
Honestly, does that not sound a bit suspicious to you?
This has nothing to do with tracking anyone. It is the impropriety of this most blatant attempt to control the dissemination of information.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
11 May 11
Well first I am not sure if this would be coming from the president himself or herself. It might be the White house that would be sending information out like that PR guy for the Executive Branch and as I understand it. It is set up as like the National Emergency Broadcasting System is in that it would send a Blast message to an area or the whole nation with little in the way of being able to target also if it is the President doing it then well using it for campaigning could back fire and give your opponent the extra votes so I don't see any president taking the risk of using this as a campaigning tool because well if I start getting text messages from the president or alerts about how I should vote I will most certainly not vote the way he or she wants unless I agree with the position but that is only after I vet it fully.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
11 May 11
Kinda like the three minute hate in Geo. Orwell's '1984'. You couldn't opt out of that one either.
1 person likes this
@sam3m1 (190)
• United States
10 May 11
before we get into an "obama is a commie" discussion, read the available information first. the system is one way - as a warning system. you can opt out of the system except for texts from the prez., which you don't have to read. how paranoid can you be?
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 May 11
I read the information fully. Which part of it did I misstate? You have just stated exactly what I said. You will not be able to opt out of texts from the president.
How paranoid can you be when you cannot evaluate any issue based on the merits of an argument but instantly rise to defend any policy, however intrusive? Are you afraid Obama isn't perfect?
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
10 May 11
It's slowly creeping up on us, isn't it? 
I realized this morning that I was 5 days overdue to add minutes onto my pre-paid cell phone. I had to get dressed to go out, access my cash stash, drive to Walmart and get a darned minutes card.
My phone is anonymous. The one time I had to call customer service they asked if they could create an account for me because it would be so convenient and I said no. I use only cash to buy the minutes. Paranoid? You bet! 
But I have my privacy and I'll keep this phone to avoid the mandatory communications chip.
Will the admin want to spy on our bathrooms next?
I realized this morning that I was 5 days overdue to add minutes onto my pre-paid cell phone. I had to get dressed to go out, access my cash stash, drive to Walmart and get a darned minutes card.
My phone is anonymous. The one time I had to call customer service they asked if they could create an account for me because it would be so convenient and I said no. I use only cash to buy the minutes. Paranoid? You bet! But I have my privacy and I'll keep this phone to avoid the mandatory communications chip.
Will the admin want to spy on our bathrooms next?1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 May 11
I am thinking that I might want to buy a lot of cheap model pre-paid cell phones to avoid ever having to buy the ones with the chip. Of course, they will find some way to make them obsolete or illegal eventually.
I admire your dedication to the anonymity of your cell phone, I have wanted to keep them private but I fall victim to the ease of online activation and buying minutes.
I should adopt your system.
You're not paranoid if they ARE all out to get you.
@mysticmaggie (2498)
• United States
11 May 11
I do not like being forced to buy insurance, have to be hooked into the President and his cabinet, have a GPS installed in my car, etc.
I think my brother has the right idea. He still has the rotary phone from thirty years ago and it works just fine. He has no cell phone, no computer, does not use heat or a/c, uses only the microwave for to warm food and that is very seldom - enjoys sandwiches and salads mostly. He lives in a house that is paid for, owes as little as $100 for all utilities combined each month and has a successful business and his car is paid for in full.
@mysticmaggie (2498)
• United States
13 May 11
He has a florist shop, built on his own land that keeps the electric company coming out to change meters because they can't believe his bills are so low. He buys what he needs when he needs it instead of stocking up and having to use a huge cold storage case.
He has the reputation of being one of the most innovative people in the business, although he keeps it small. He said he needs enough to pay bills, eat and feed his mutt dog - named Pitamus Pup.
He's also working on a book, which I will be inputting in my computer because he's doing it all with pencil and paper - the old fashioned way.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
12 May 11
Wow! I think we all need to live like that! 
1 person likes this
@millertime (1394)
• United States
13 May 11
Hi mysticmaggie. I think your brother has the right idea. I think we have become too dependent on modern technology. While I do embrace some technology, I still think it's important to know the old ways. If technology fails, we need to know how to carry on.
I'm reminded of an instance where I was in a store trying to buy something and their computer was down, so they refused to do any transactions. They actually wouldn't take anyone's money and sell them products just because they couldn't run the computerized cash register. They had no backup plan in place and no way to do transactions without the "technology". Pretty absurd, I thought, but it shows how much everyone depends on it and takes it for granted.
It really is possible to live without all the techie stuff and your brother if proving it. A friend of mine lives much the same way. He uses wood for heat in the winter and doesn't run AC in the summer. He says, "I don't need air conditioning. The air is just fine the way it is and my windows open and close real easy." When I was a kid, we didn't have AC in the house or the cars. Only rich people had that.
Hey, just out of curiosity, what kind of business does your brother have?
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
11 May 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1OOSKBR9O8&feature=related
Yes, I know...it's a YouTube video. Actually, it's an interview with Thomas Sowell an economist and historian. Very smart man who knows what he's talking about. After you listen to him explain the socialist vision of those in American politics, listen to his other speeches to the right on welfare, diversity and economics and Obama's vision for America.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
14 May 11
How interesting that someone who experiences censorship in a very real and large way can make the connection to what is happening here in the USA. WE ARE FAR MORE FREE, but we don't appreciate it. Not until WE EXPERIENCE what taogang has will we fully appreciate what we have.
@millertime (1394)
• United States
11 May 11
I heard a news story about this on the radio this morning and they were also talking about this "chip" that will be mandatory in all phones having a tracking capability. In other words, the government will be able to track your every move through this chip. I haven't checked into this further and I don't know if it's true, I'm just saying that they were reporting it as such on the radio news. If it's true, I'm sure it will come out shortly.
Either way, I don't like it. I'm really sick of this nanny state mentality of our government that they have to take care of us for our own good, like we are a bunch of children. They want to impose control over ever increasing aspects of our lives. Enough is enough. If I have to do without a cell phone, I will. I can survive just fine without one, since I did perfectly well for the first 40 years of my lifetime. Guess what would happen if everyone refused to buy the phones with the chips in them. If sales dropped off, you would see a swift change in policy to make it optional to have the chip and the service.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
12 May 11
my daughter had to FORCE me to get a cell phone! I didn't want one but she insisted I had to be within her reach every day! 
So far, I don't care for the thing. BUT, this I could not and would not tolerate. I like my privacy way to much. You're right...refuse to buy them and see how it works. But of course, so many would rush out and get them just because Obama is such a 'celebrity' type president.
So far, I don't care for the thing. BUT, this I could not and would not tolerate. I like my privacy way to much. You're right...refuse to buy them and see how it works. But of course, so many would rush out and get them just because Obama is such a 'celebrity' type president.1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 May 11
You should be free to enjoy all the advantages of such a system and you should be free to choose not to use such a system. I clearly stated what the advantages of this system would be. I also stated that making it mandatory is intrusive and wrong.
They are not 'damned if they don't'. There's a whole lot of stuff we'd love to see them put on the "DON'T" list. But this administrations seems determined to get their fingers into your underwear drawer and woe to you if they aren't folded according to government regulations.
You're only paranoid if they're NOT conspiring against you.
2 people like this
