President Obama Threw A Cyberwar.... And No One Showed Up
from the firing-off-a-blank-check-from-the-'Executive-Order'-account dept
Last spring, in the wake of the Sony hack, President Obama threw a cyberwar. And no one showed up.
In April 2015, President Obama issued Executive Order 13694 declaring a national emergency to deal with the threat of hostile cyber activity against the United States.
But six months later, the emergency powers that he invoked to punish offenders had still not been used because no qualifying targets were identified, according to a newly released Treasury Department report.
It certainly sounded scary enough. Obama said things about "cyber threats" being a serious threat to national security and the US economy. The state of emergency, according to the President, would create a "targeted tool" for combating our cyber-enemies.
This state of emergency is just one more in a line of uninterrupted states of emergencies dating back to the mid-1970s. A perpetual state of emergency is far more useful to the government than a "targeted tool," so a declaration of (cyber) war against a bunch of noncombatants still served a purpose, if only indirectly.
It started the ball rolling on the CISPA/CISA resurgence, which eventually "passed" after being attached to the coattails of a budget bill with far more momentum and support, as few legislators were willing to stare down the barrel of a government shutdown just to prevent a badly-written cyber-bill from passing.
More importantly, the president's statement and executive order gave the administration permission to do things it doesn't normally get to do.
Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.
Declaring a state of emergency allows for the potential wreaking of havoc in taxpayers' lives. And even if these powers go unexercised (or anything), it still costs the taxpayers money.
Even though it generated no policy outputs, implementation of the executive order nevertheless incurred costs of “approximately $760,000, most of which represent wage and salary costs for federal personnel,” the Treasury report said.
The expenses of national states of emergency aren't being offset by seized funds or assets related to the targets of the executive order. The Treasury Department's report logically notes that zero targets means zero seizures. According to another report quoted by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, the long-running "state of emergency" prompted by various North Korean actions is resulting in less than ~$60,000 a year -- compared to an operational cost of at least $125,000/month (presumably the North Korean state of emergency is more expensive than the "cyberwar" one). No one really expects a "break even" government, but it's inarguable that targeting known or unknown entities via executive orders really isn't doing much to cripple their operations.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: administration, cybersecurity, cyberwar, executive order 13694, president obama, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is why most, if not all of the antics by the Executive branch and its agents are not only illegal, but unconstitutional.
The Patriot act itself is unconstitutional.
Without a formal declaration of war by Congress, the President's executive orders exceed the authority limited outside a time of war.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The way to understand the world is that 1984 was a guide book. A roadmap. And in typical government fashion, it took them a long time to come close to getting it implemented properly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
U.S. ... E.?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Military Industrial Political Espionage Complex
Frankly, I am surprised there isn't more money being dumped into research that extends lifespans just so these corrupt, power hungry monsters can exercise that power one year longer.
One mere state of emergency is inconsequential when there are so many to choose from: drugs, poverty, the environment, non-governmental entities who wish to attack the US, anyone who doesn't look like us, The Domino Theory applied...everywhere, world trade, personal empiricism, communists, non-communists, wannabe communists, terrorists who are not us, terrorists who are us but we don't like, copyright haters, patent haters, countries who fail to bow down to our corporate partners...etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Quoth Wikipedia
and
The United States declared a national emergency in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks that remains in effect. This emergency suspends certain provisions of law that limit the size of the military and the duration of military service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
- Civil asset forfeiture ("seize property"; "seize commodities")
- Foreign military deployments not explicitly authorized by Congress ("assign military forces abroad")
- TSA, no-fly list ("seize ... transportation"; "restrict travel")
- Intrusive tax code ("control the lives ...")
Sign me up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Surprising
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Quoth Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in thread ]
War on What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The best example is that a sitting President should be able to select a Supreme Court Judge and get an up or down vote from the congress in a reasonable time. Instead, the process is entirely political and Republicans have stated that they won't consider a candidate unless it comes from the NEXT President, almost a year after the court lost it's judge.
So in order to deal with cyber crime issues, the only way the President can do anything is through executive orders and "war on..." type things, because that's all he's got left to work with.
That said, it's hard to deny that there appears to be at least some state sponsored hacking going on. Of course, you can always believe the "rogue agent" or "rogue citizen" line if you like, but the result is still sort of the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: War on What?
Why does the U.S. have Military bases all over the world in a number of countries? Why have we been in the Europe all these years? These country's can't take care of themselves, we have to do it? Can you imagine if France had a Military base in California? How about the U.K. with a base in New York? We're in more then 100 countries and some with many bases. Seems like a world Invader to me not to mention pretty costly.
So we really are the World Police!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]