- The RESTRICT Act, a bill that could ban TikTok nationwide, was introduced in the Senate last month.
- Although the TikTok ban has bipartisan support, critics have called the bill a “violation of our right to free speech.”
- Ohio Republican Senator JD Vance called the bill the “Patriot Act for the Digital Age.”
The TikTok ban has become one of the only bipartisan issues lawmakers seem to be paying attention to.
From Montana’s ban on social media apps passed this month to the Senate’s unanimous approval affecting nearly every personal device within state borders, lawmakers both Democrats and Republicans have taken to short-form video. I agree to the app. Its parent company, Beijing-based ByteDance, has to leave.
Former President Trump and The current Biden administration supports legislation to ban TikTok.
One of the broadest proposals is the bill currently passing through Congress. But across the country, he said the RESTRICT Act, touted as a way to ban TikTok, doesn’t just prevent users from accessing the app known for its viral dance routines. conspiracy theory video.
Representatives for TikTok and its parent company ByteDance did not immediately respond to Insider’s request for comment.
Description of the RESTRICT method
“Act on Limitation of Occurrence of Security Threats that May Harm Information and Communication Technologies”, or Senate Bill 686, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Select Committee, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Indiana, and Republican John Thune of South Dakota, along with Debra Fisher of Nebraska and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. It was sponsored by a bipartisan group of senators. Kirsten Gillibrand in New York.
of SpecificationIf is passed, do not specifically target TikTok. Instead, it empowers the Secretary of Commerce, by order of the President, to restrict or ban digital products and services from countries considered foreign adversaries, including China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.
Information or communications products or services with more than 1,000,000 U.S. users, such as ByteDance’s TikTok app, and Internet hosting services, cloud-based data storage, machine learning services, and other apps, are “national security” as such. subject to strict regulations.
Up to $250,000 for any person or company based in the United States who violates restrictions issued under the Restrictions Act, including individuals who download prohibited programs and companies who distribute software deemed to be of excessive risk. (or double the value), subject to civil penalties. the greater of the transactions underlying the order) and fines of up to $1 million and criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison.
“Today, the threat everyone is talking about is TikTok, and how it enables surveillance by the Chinese Communist Party or facilitates the spread of malicious influence campaigns in the United States. Before that, it was Huawei and ZTE that posed the threats.Before that, Senator Warner said, it was Russia’s Kaspersky Lab that threatened the security of government and corporate devices. statement announced the bill.
He added: “We need a comprehensive, risk-based approach to proactively tackle potentially dangerous sources of technology before they gain a foothold in America. No scrambling to catch up, it’s everywhere.”
A representative for Senator Warner did not immediately respond to an insider’s request for comment.
An important bill to protect national security?
Supporters of the bill, including the Biden administration, CNN Consider the Restrictions Act an important step to protect the country from digital surveillance and other digital threats from foreign adversaries, according to reports.
“This law will allow the U.S. government to prevent certain foreign governments from misusing technology services operated in the U.S. to jeopardize the sensitive data of U.S. persons and U.S. national security. ’ I read the March article. statement From National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on the bill.
Sullivan’s statement continued:
Co-sponsors of the bill, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, said China’s recent escalation of surveillance of the United States, including the shot down of a reconnaissance balloon across China in February, has led to actions to protect national security. He argues that it is an essential time for
“Through hardware exports, malicious software, and other covert means, China seeks to steal information for military and economic advantage,” Senator Collins said. statement announced the bill. “Not only does this directly improve the national security of the United States, it also protects the personal information of Americans and our nation’s vital intellectual property.”
Or “Is it a total violation of our free speech?”
Proponents of the bill claim it will protect Americans from foreign threats, but critics say its negative effects could range from reduced cultural exchanges to outright violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. claims to be.
“The U.S. ban on TikTok is a ban on exporting U.S. culture and values to the more than one billion people who use our service around the world.” CNN Brooke Oberwetter, a TikTok spokesperson, said in a statement about the law:
Even those who support a TikTok ban, like Ohio Senator JD Vance, don’t see the ban as an adequate solution.
“Some groups of people are very concerned that they are too vulnerable on the issue of TikTok,” an insider previously reported. Referring to a controversial law that gave the government sweeping powers of oversight, he said, “Another group of people are very concerned that you are, in effect, creating the Patriot Act for the Digital Age.” I am doing,” he said. government.
Others argue that the bill’s language is too broad and could make services like VPNs (which help provide additional digital security while browsing online) illegal. His Willmary Escoto, a U.S. policy analyst at the digital rights nonprofit Access Now, said: Vise“As written, the broad language of the Restrictions Act can criminalize VPN use and prevent vulnerable people from accessing security tools and other applications they rely on for their privacy and security. It can have a big impact.”
Eric Goldman, a law professor at the University of Santa Clara School of Law and co-director of the Institute for High-Tech Law, told the insider that the goal of the RESTRICT Act is to allow governments to develop software that allows people to talk to each other. He said it was to make it possible to refuse. A great threat to the First Amendment rights of Americans.
“I completely reject the premise of the law. So the details don’t matter too much to me because I don’t think governments can do what restrictive laws allow – under any circumstances.” But,” Goldman told Insider. It is a violation of our right to free speech. “
Through the bill, the legislator says conversations are taking place on software that the government deems fundamentally unacceptable based on the software’s provenance, Goldman said.
“It’s worth fighting to seize the rake moment when the government says it’s just going to get people to stop talking to each other,” Goldman said. It means you are.”
Bipartisan agreement on censorship
Goldman argues that the Chinese government has a thousand ways to get data on American consumers, so banning software from the country serves as an easy outcome for politicians to pursue anti-China bashing. claimed to be. Meaningful regulation to overhaul digital security across the country.
“Any serious effort to solve the problem of TikTok will go to some country’s privacy laws,” Goldman said. I don’t want to give up my ability or stop using the same methods as China to gather my own information about foreign entities. By trying to use censorship as a solution to China’s censorship, you are actually undermining moral authority.”
While the bill’s future remains uncertain, Goldman notes that Trump’s attempt to ban TikTok has been found to be unconstitutional, and believes the ban law is likely to fail as well. But seeing bipartisan support for the bill so widespread, he worries about what causes divided politicians to agree.
“It’s rare to see such bipartisan support today, so the fact that the two parties are side by side is, you know, a little munching to outdo each other in their sinophobia. That doesn’t bode well for free speech.Basically, we’ve seen both parties say that censorship is preferred here, but that puts us all at greater risk. will be
He added: “Getting bipartisan consensus right now is a really bad idea. That could be where we are. Seriously, what do we agree on? Censorship is a bipartisan value.”