Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts China Government Social Networks United States

US Judge Blocks Attempt to Ban WeChat (thestreet.com) 140

Posted by EditorDavid from the we-chatting dept.
"The popular Chinese messaging and payments app WeChat looks like it might still be available in the U.S. beyond Sunday night, after all," reports the Street: U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of San Francisco stopped the Trump administration from forcing Apple and Alphabet to take the Tencent Holdings' messaging app offline for downloading by late Sunday, according to a report from Reuters. The decision — which also blocks other restrictions imposed by the U.S. government on the app — follows the U.S. Commerce Department's move on Friday to virtually eliminate access to the application and impair its ability to function, in part by prohibiting companies from distributing or maintaining it and blocking financial transactions over the app in the U.S...

The order also stated that the Commerce Department's orders "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to serve the government's significant interest in national security, especially given the lack of substitute channels for communication."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Judge Blocks Attempt to Ban WeChat More

US Judge Blocks Attempt to Ban WeChat

Comments Filter:
  • I ask because I'm clueless guys. How does the US government system work in this case? I've always thought that a Presidential Executive Order is not something a Judge has authority to override. But my cluelessness doesn't stop here. I've also seen that the President wants to use federal law enforcement to stop violence in multiple cities but their mayors doesn't allow it. This is not news, I actually see videos of mayors saying that US Marshalls are not welcomed in their cities. How does someone at city lev

    • Re:Need help (genuinely) to understand (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Sunday September 20, 2020 @12:49PM (#60524704)

      I ask because I'm clueless guys. How does the US government system work in this case? I've always thought that a Presidential Executive Order is not something a Judge has authority to override. But my cluelessness doesn't stop here. I've also seen that the President wants to use federal law enforcement to stop violence in multiple cities but their mayors doesn't allow it. This is not news, I actually see videos of mayors saying that US Marshalls are not welcomed in their cities. How does someone at city level get to disorbey the President's orders?

      Trump is not a king. He only thinks he is.

      • Trump is not a king. He only thinks he is.

        The federal government has limited (and iterated) powers, all of the others originate (I originally wrote flow back, but that's incorrect -- they come from) from the states.

        That being said, I thought the feds had control over interstate (between states) commerce -- in other words, within a state the state is supreme, but between states the feds have been given control. (Because if all states are exactly equal peers, what to do when they disagree?) Since Apple (et all) may be anchored to a state but st

      • Trump is not a king. He only thinks he is.

        Actually, he is THE king of this country if the government system was royal based.
        Similar to how the Queen of England is a Queen.

        He's not being called King because our government system is different that's all. Instead, the USA President has much more significant power than being a King. Guys like you don't recognize his Presidential authority and that's fine because you're stuck with your party. But whether you like it or not, he is in fact our King. There's not a thing you can do to change that. And i

    • Re:Need help (genuinely) to understand (Score:5, Informative)

      by cigawoot ( 1242378 ) on Sunday September 20, 2020 @01:10PM (#60524792)

      I've always thought that a Presidential Executive Order is not something a Judge has authority to override.

      Because the presidency is not a dictatorship. A president can issue an illegal/unconstitutional executive order. However, our court system, as part of our systems of checks and balances, has the authority to block illegal/unconstitutional executive orders.

      • So what your saying is this story is a good example that the constitutional system in the US is working properly and as designed, and that there isn't a dictator in charge as so many rabid never-Trumpers claim? I said the same thing about Obama haters as the same thing regularly happened under him (exec orders deemed illegal by the courts), the only difference is most of those Obama-haters didn't exaggerate as much (or were smart enough to not believe an actual dictatorship had been established).

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SkonkersBeDonkers ( 6780818 )

      Executive Orders can have the force of law but like all laws they are subject to judicial review.

      As for the cities resisting federal "help", the USA is a republic where one of the guiding principles is that in as much as is feasible, control devolves to the locality in question. So cities are responsible for the law within their borders. Republicans claim to believe in this principle above all others (hence the frequent invocation of "states' rights) but they've shown in practice that they are only in fav

    • Same reason the president can't just go and arrest all rioters - they're not allowed to do so.

    • I've always thought that a Presidential Executive Order is not something a Judge has authority to override.

      Trump is not king.... yet.

      We still have a Constitution and if a Presidential EO is unconstitutional then it can be sunk by the courts. For example, Trump wants to issue an EO blocking Biden from being President (he has actually said this) that would have to be blocked otherwise the Office of President would be a monarchy in short order.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        Weirdly enough, your President has more power then most Monarchs. Why your Founders gave him so much power, I don't know. The English Monarch had been defanged a hundred years earlier in the Glorious Revolution and even in 1776, the power lay with Parliament.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hawk ( 1151 )

          Our Founding Fathers did, in fact, see the president as a monarch, and holding those powers.

          However, they also saw this as monarch for a strictly limited and fitted term, which was seen as a way to reduce the risks inherent in such a role. The prior attempt at governance, the Articles of Confederation, was a failure in large (but not exclusive) part because of the lack of an executive authority.

          As bitterly as whichever party doesn't hold the office at a given moment complains and protests, *all* executive

    • I ask because I'm clueless guys. How does the US government system work in this case? I've always thought that a Presidential Executive Order is not something a Judge has authority to override. But my cluelessness doesn't stop here. I've also seen that the President wants to use federal law enforcement to stop violence in multiple cities but their mayors doesn't allow it. This is not news, I actually see videos of mayors saying that US Marshalls are not welcomed in their cities. How does someone at city level get to disobey the President's orders?

      The first part of your question can be a bit confusing because the US Judicial system is often confusing. Executive Orders are not immune from judicial review, but we're also using them a lot more than originally intended. Long story short, the federal courts were NOT designed to be "co-equal" in our Constitution (ultimately, Congress is Supreme... it can remove both the President and Court justices). However, we've had a problem in the US with the notion of both the law and the judges officiating it "evolv

      • The system is far more nuanced that. Even you give credit. Each branch of government has some role that is exclusively its own, and other roles which overlap. As far as the judiciary, the Framers likely didn't envision courts being as expansive as they are, but whether they knew it or not at the end of the 18th century, it is strongly implied that the courts serve as a counterbalance to the executive and the legislative (this is straight out of English Common Law).

        What the Framers did not adopt was Parliame

        • What the Framers did not adopt was Parliamentary supremacy. They intentionally made the three branches of the Federal government both independent and coeval, each one serving as a curb on the powers of the other.

          (Though it did take the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison [wikipedia.org] to establish the reading of the Constitution that gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution and courts to strike down laws that conflict with it.)

          My rule of thumb: Though the mechanism is different in each case, overruling

          • Marbury v Madison was fundamentally about whether the Constitution or statute was pre-eminent. To have decided the other way would have made the Constitution subordinate to Congress, which pretty clearly was not the intent of the Framers. Marbury v Madison demonstrates the key difference between the American and British constitutions. In the British constitutional tradition, Parliament itself defines the Constitution, which can be altered by simple majorities in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

      • It's not just judges that have more power than the framers intended, it's also the president. The president was supposed to be basically a figurehead, analogous to the King/Queen in England at the time.

        And even individual congressmen have way more power than the framers intended. When Congress capped the number of house members at 435, they broke the system and basically turned House members into mini-Senators. If we went by what the Constitution originally said we should have somewhere around 11 thousan

        • Re:Need help (genuinely) to understand (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Sunday September 20, 2020 @03:05PM (#60525162)

          11,000 reps is only unwieldy if they try to meet in person. But it would be entirely possible now to have districts of ~30,000 people each, with the representative actually living and maintaining a single office within the district.

          As an added bonus, it would make corruption a lot harder on the demand side, and a lot less lucrative on the supply side.

          I would repeal the 17th amendment at the same time. Our system was designed with "the states" having a seat at the table, and removing that seat has not worked out well for us. And no, "the people" having two seats is not at all the same thing.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          Well Article the First (Congressional Apportionment Amendment) is still pending and could be passed if you could convince enough States to ratify it.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by hawk ( 1151 )

            but ratifying the original 1st would have no effect today (well, other than capping the upper size of the house at something around 7,000!)

            Whereas when the original 2d was ratified, it *did* have an effect.

            hawk

      • Thanks for the detailed explaination. It helps me understand a lot more now.

      • But at the highest judicial level... the Supreme Court... we've reached a stage where if the court majority rules that day is really night, then, legally that's that, and there's not much anyone can do about it. The power of judges has gotten somewhat out of hand in the American system, to an extent that the Founding Fathers would never have approved of. Thomas Jefferson in particular would call for a lot of these guys to be tarred and feathered, and some of them perhaps condemned to the hangman's noose.

        Tho

    • How does someone at city level get to disorbey the President's orders?

      Well there you go, if what you say is true, I guess the President should send the orders directly to them instead of putting them into orbit. People at the city level might not yet be connected to Space Force.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Maybe things don't play out on timeframes you like - but all judges up to the Supreme Court have a system of checks above them - it's called appeals (and there will definitely be some in this case!). Because of this, it is not in a judge's best interest to rule outside of precedent and the rule of law... because their ruling will simply get struck down by a higher court.

        • Were you thinking that something bad happens to a judge when his rulings are reversed on appeal? Because if you were, you'd be wrong. There is no downside to a bad ruling that will be reversed years later on appeal.

          No one intended for every federal judge in the country to be able to delay any executive or legislative action that he dislikes, for free. But here we are.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Maybe because that one judge is ruling on an action being taken by the Federal government, that you know, affects the whole country at once? It is kind of all-or-nothing both ways by design.

        Now when the States start doing unconstitutional things that is where the court cases have to waged State by State, Circuit by Circuit, until the matter eventually ends up before the US Supreme Court.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by strech ( 167037 )

      A somewhat simplified version:

      The core issue is jurisdiction - different parts of the US political system have different powers, and they can't exercise powers that are held by other branches. This flows in two ways:

      Top->Bottom:

      • Federal [the US]
      • State [e.g. Oregon]
      • Local [e.g. Portland]

      And between different branches of government:

      • Legislative [Congress]
      • Judicial
      • Executive [The President]

      There a couple special cases off to the side, which only apply to people that are a part of them, and don't fit neatly into t

    • The basics: The USA is a constitutional republic with democratic elections. We have a three-branch government in which the three branches [executive,legislative, and judicial] are said to be "co-equal" in that none is supreme over the others and each has checks on the others. The legislature is further divided into two houses: The House of Representatives (whose seats are apportioned by population and members represent the people and elected every 2 years) and the Senate (whose seats are apportioned 2 per s

  • lack of substitute channels? (Score:3)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Sunday September 20, 2020 @12:46PM (#60524694)

    The order also stated that the Commerce Department's orders "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to serve the government's significant interest in national security, especially given the lack of substitute channels for communication."

    How is there a lack of "substitute channels for communication"? There are a zillion chat applications which seem like they could easily substitute this particular one. Could someone provide context so this quote doesn't seem insane?

    • Or, if you were, say a reader, you would know that China doesn't allow a zillion chat applications.

      • Or, if you were, say a reader, you would know that China doesn't allow a zillion chat applications.

        And if we were in China that would be an issue but we're talking about the US. Should we allow any application deemed a national security threat merely because another nation only allows it for communication? That sure seems like that's a position that could easily be abused.

        • Perhaps you should explain how wechat is a national security threat. The legal argument is that the government has not shown any level of national security threat that necessitates a total wechat ban.

          You do realize that people have the freedom of association and speech under the 1st Amendment right? And that abrogating the 1st Amendment requires strict scrutiny. I'm sure you were very much in favor of the Patriot act too.

          • Perhaps you should explain how wechat is a national security threat. The legal argument is that the government has not shown any level of national security threat that necessitates a total wechat ban.

            Let me try to help explain regarding this aspect:
            - Chinese laws mandate that all Chinese companies, upon request by the government, MUST surrender customer information to the requesting agency without delay. Any attempt to curb this type of request is deemed obstruction of justice. The kind that starts with "T" and rhymes with "REASON". That's why when the Chinese government told Zoom to disable the paid account of a US customer, they immediately did it, despite that they are a US company, not a Chinese

            • Again show where wechat is a national security threat that trumps free speech. Sucking up customer info, that can easily be obtained from many different sources like linkedin, google, facebook, etc. doesn't suddenly make wechat a national security threat that requires a nation wide ban. Banning it on government devices should be a given, but a national wide ban obviously isn't indiscriminate enough.

              • Are you pretending to not understand?
                WeChat is required to obey chinese laws. Google, FB, etc... are not.

        • Again, if you were a reader, you'd know all Americans are being fucked by America and not even getting a kiss for it.

          China, US: pot, kettle.

          This shit you're just now stumbling on is subtext to the transparent effort to quash Chinese competition in the lucrative market of data whoring.

    • My confusion is how do they block it? I'm not a user, but short of a firewall, exactly how does one block access to servers in another country? I suppose you could override DNS results in the US, but again, what if someone in the US is not accessing US DNS servers? I know China gets away with this stuff as they do have a giant firewall. But I did not think the US actively blocked at the borders.
      • What the executive order did was say designate these programs as illegal under existing law. There is no way of blocking it, excluding federal computer systems, so what the law does allow is to make it criminal for the various stores (amazon, play, apple being main ones) to host it or provide links to it.
        The law does not allow the government to delete it off your phone.
        So while the executive order is in effect you would not beable to download it if you did not already have it, and you would not receive
      • My understanding is that they will not block the app, but they will prevent Apple/Google from having it in their stores, and they will prevent payment processors from accepting payments.

        Note that Apple could delete it from all their phones, if they wanted to.

        • Note that Apple could delete it from all their phones, if they wanted to.

          Also, Apple _would_ delete the app from users' phones if the president would manage to convince Apple that the app is harmful for people to use (malware). Of course, the current president of the USA saying so is not something that Apple will find very convincing at all. Let the NSA examine the code and show Apple the evidence that it is malware, and the app is gone (after Apple checks the evidence).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Google can too. Google can even delete the app if you side-load it. Part of their anti-malware process.

          • Yeah, but if you want to, you can upload a modified version of the OS that prevents them from doing that.

    • How is there a lack of "substitute channels for communication"? There are a zillion chat applications which seem like they could easily substitute this particular one. Could someone provide context so this quote doesn't seem insane?

      The free world has a zillion chat apps that could substitute, but China does not. WeChat is pretty much the *only* chat app in China, which means Americans with family/friends in China have no choice but to use WeChat as well.

      Sort of like how many people end up with iDevices even if they prefer Droid... Grandma/Grandpa gets an iPad, then mom and dad get one in order to share pictures, and before long, you're FORCED into getting one yourself because they're like "But didn't you see our message? We shared th

      • The free world has a zillion chat apps that could substitute, but China does not. WeChat is pretty much the *only* chat app in China, which means Americans with family/friends in China have no choice but to use WeChat as well.

        The only thing that means is that China a responsible for a lack of "substitute channels for communication". If we allow China to insist on an application that's been deemed a national security threat then other nations could insist on doing the exact same thing no matter how malicious their application.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cylix ( 55374 )

        That doesn’t particularly matter, but it does bring up an important aspect. Wechat is a state owned app they had exclusive use in China and like TikTok has been found to do not just data harvesting, but clip board harvesting.

        The concerns are legitimate and if the shoe were on the other foot there would be no US controlled app. Oh, there isn’t... not in China.

        Even Amazon doesn’t own their Chinese services.

    • Re: lack of substitute channels? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thomst ( 1640045 ) on Sunday September 20, 2020 @04:02PM (#60525362) Homepage

      TFS noted that:

      The order also stated that the Commerce Department's orders "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to serve the government's significant interest in national security, especially given the lack of substitute channels for communication."

      Leading Gravis Zero to plead:

      How is there a lack of "substitute channels for communication"? There are a zillion chat applications which seem like they could easily substitute this particular one. Could someone provide context so this quote doesn't seem insane?

      Well, for one thing, just off the top of my head, there're 1.5 giga-Chinese behind the Great Firewall who are prevented by their own governments from using most of the communications and social media platforms that are more popular than WeChat, here in the West. Relatives, friends, and associates of those PRC nationals who reside in or are visiting this country (some non-trivially-large subset of whom are actual citizens hereof) have non-abridgeable, First Amendment rights to communicate with their friends, relatives, business associates, or any other individuals or groups who live or work within China's boundaries. The President cannot override their rights to so communicate simply because his EO asserts an undefined national security risk to their using a platform that virtually every one of the adults and older children who live in or are visiting the PRC uses to communicate throughout their day.

      IMnsHO, that is what makes this EO unconstitutional on its face, and I have every expectation that Judge Beeler's decision on this issue will be upheld at every level of appeal.

      If the current Chief Executive's legal advisers had done their jobs, they would have anticipated this obstacle, and pursuaded him to limit its scope to Federal employees and contractors. I think it's a safe bet that, had it been so worded, the Magistrate Judge would have ruled it to be reasonable exercise of the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Republic's military, and therefore permissable, despite the modified EO's first-glance conflict with the First Amendment.

      If they entirely failed to present him with that alternative language, his legal advisers (not his personal lawyers, but the Office of the White House Counsel team, plus any outside constitutional scholars they might have thought to consult about the phrasing of this specific document) were incompetent and/or derelict. If they did, in fact present to him, and argue the merits of, the limitation of its scope to those over whom the President can argue he has direct authority, and he chose to overrule them, instead, and insisted on the more sweeping restriction, that is on him, and nobody else.

      That, at any rate, is my immediate reaction. I caution you that I have not read Judge Beeler's decision, nor am I a lawyer. (If you seek legal advice, you should consult an attorney.) But, as a writer of political fiction, I am something of an amateur student of the Constitution out of necessity, and, regardless of whether the line of reasoning I laid out above lies at the heart of her ruling, or whether she based it on a different, equally-fatal constitutional defect, the point I just raised would be enough to rule the anti-WeChat EO unconstitutional, and therefore legally invalid, entirely on its own.

      The President is not a monarch. He does not get to rule by unchallengeable decree. We have rules in this country - one of which is the First Amendment - and he is bound by them.

      I'm not at all a fan of WeChat. Nor do I think it's a good idea for anyone in the USA to install it on his/her phone. I feel exactly the same way about TikTok, in part, for exactly the same reason: the Party can (and I strongly suspect does) insist that apps made in the PRC contain undisclosed back doors to which the Party holds the keys, and that apps' makers turn over to the Party any and/or all "private" information they appropriate from their

      • An old saying, "It's easier to apologize than get permission". In this case, no apology, ofc, but they may now whittle it down to feds pm;u, as you mentioned.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Not just communication either, WeChat is a popular way to send money to people. My wife receives gifts and sends gifts to her family via WeChat regularly. Everywhere in China, including online sites, accepts WeChat for payment so this would also interfere with Chinese American's ability to do business and buy things.

        I would also add that privacy rape is not a valid criteria for banning an app because if it was Facebook would have been blocked years ago.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by thomst ( 1640045 )

          AmiMoJo noted:

          I would also add that privacy rape is not a valid criteria for banning an app because if it was Facebook would have been blocked years ago.

          I never said it was. What I did say was that privacy rape was a prime motivator for my decision not ever to install TikTok on my phone.

          Oh, and I don't and won't have the Facebook app - or Messenger, or any of Zuckerberg's other mobile application - installed, either, for exactly that reason ...

      • There are quite a few alternative apps for people to use to communicate with China in the 'chat' format. Tencent rebranded their collaboration platform "WeChat Works" to "WeCom" in preparation for the ban. Taobao's DingDing also saw a large uptick in users. Source: all my friends and family in China.
      • Offtopic, but on the subject of lawyers and the "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer. I married a lawyer recently and have gotten to know many lawyers over the last two years. I think there's a massive misconception about what special skillsets a lawyer has. You need to remember a law degree is an arts degree, it is not science. The purpose of law school is primarily teaching you how to craft a solid argument, based on published rules and previously similar debates in court. The technical part of the degree

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by thomst ( 1640045 )

          fatwilbur pointed out:

          I think there's a massive misconception about what special skillsets a lawyer has. If you've read the applicable law, you are effectively on equal footing to a lawyer. The only thing you don't know is court procedure (which you don't need to know unless being in court), and you are also not legally allowed to represent someone in court (need to be in the bar for that).

          You can be prosecuted for "practicing law without a license" in the USA. That is why I included the disclaimer, and why everyone who includes a similar disclaimer in posts regarding one aspect or another of U.S. law.

          It has fuck-all to do with "special skillsets." It's strictly CYA ...

    • Could someone provide context so this quote doesn't seem insane?

      Tik-Tok's users embarrassed Trump, motivating him to act, so trying to turn off Tik-Tok and WeChat becomes a first amendment issue.

         

    • There are a zillion chat applications which seem like they could easily substitute this particular one.

      Hey user 934156, can you please post all your contact details here? I'm concerned that if Slashdot goes down I won't have any ways to point out that the existance of an alternate service does not automatically make it a suitable substitute.

      Thanks.

      • the existance of an alternate service does not automatically make it a suitable substitute.

        The argument made was not that substitutes weren't suitable but that there were a lack of substitutes. It's the difference between saying Libre Office isn't good enough and saying Microsoft Office is the only office suite.

  • The court circuit that is reversed more than any other [findlaw.com] is teeing itself up for yet another smackdown by higher courts.

    • From your own link:
      "Over that period, however, the Supreme Court reversed lower courts 70.2 percent of the time. It also accepted more cases from the Ninth Circuit than from any other federal appeals court. It's worth noting that the Ninth Circuit is also the largest circuit."

      And:
      "But over time, the Ninth Circuit is barely ahead of the curve. Since 2007, the 9th has trailed three other circuits in reversal rates. About 75.5 percent of its cases were reversed during that time, but the Sixth Circuit was most-

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by meglon ( 1001833 )
      Why are you LYING? From the article you cited:

      In June 2018, the Washington Times said the Ninth Circuit had a reputation as "the most out-of-touch circuit." President Trump has perpetuated that reputation about the "9th Circus."

      Based on the October 2017 term, the Ninth Circuit was often on the wrong side of the Supreme Court. The High Court reversed 15 of its cases -- twice as many as from any other federal appeals court. But over time, the Ninth Circuit is barely ahead of the curve. Since 2007, the 9th has trailed three other circuits in reversal rates. About 75.5 percent of its cases were reversed during that time, but the Sixth Circuit was most-reversed with a 88.1 percent rate. The Eighth Circuit came in second with 76.3 percent, and the Eleventh Circuit was reversed 75.9 percent of the time.

      https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]

      • The 9th has a reputation for getting reversed on notorious cases, not whether a dealership car repair intake salesman counts as a mechanic, car salesman, repair parts desk salesman, or none of the above.

    • Except that there have been so many originalist judges appointed to that court that they've more recently come out w/ more sane rulings. The above judgement doesn't seem to have come out of the Ninth Circuit.

  • I was with them until.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday September 20, 2020 @01:23PM (#60524840) Journal
    I agree with the court overall, but this phrase:

    "especially given the lack of substitute channels for communication."

    Really? I have roughly ten different messaging services on my phone (plus it's a phone), because I can't convince all my friends to use the same one. How can the judge possibly believe there are not substitute channels for communication besides WeChat?

    • I agree with the court overall, but this phrase:

      "especially given the lack of substitute channels for communication."

      Really? I have roughly ten different messaging services on my phone (plus it's a phone), because I can't convince all my friends to use the same one. How can the judge possibly believe there are not substitute channels for communication besides WeChat?

      Unfortunately the judicial branch sometimes steps outside its bounds of judging the constitutionality of laws and government behavior, into substituting the judicial branch's wisdom for that of the elected branches, as if it were its job to make the other branches get approval for the policy decisions they are elected by The People to make.

      • Having said that, I do wish there were a lot more forcing government to justify its laws rather than just the bare minimum of assumed applicability (which are accepted mostly even if the official reason is a transparent cover story for rent seeking and crony capitalism.)

        But administrations will shift, and judges will forget this recently newfound principle. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

        • Ultimately the only check on our leaders that exists is the people themselves. All the other checks just slow the leaders down.

          If the people are corrupt, then there is no hope except changing the people.

    • Re:I was with them until.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by sikiriki ( 6723224 ) on Sunday September 20, 2020 @03:22PM (#60525240)

      Well, you didn't read the whole story, did you? Chinese internet is behind a firewall that blocks most of those chat services. Even if some are available right now, there is no guarantee that they will keep working.

      • Even if some are available right now, there is no guarantee that they will keep working.

        That's the kind of argument I give people for why IRC is better than Slack.

    • And how many of them are available in mainland China? That’s what’s driving the lack of alternatives. A lot of Chinese nationals in the US or Chinese-Americans with family still back in China can more or less only use WeChat to keep in touch.

    • Re:I was with them until.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by jasonwc ( 939262 ) on Sunday September 20, 2020 @05:35PM (#60525606)

      That's likely because you aren't in mainland China. Many of the commonly used chat applications in the US are banned in mainland China. For example, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Telegram are banned. Signal is not banned but it has very little usage among the population in mainland China, which is likely why it hasn't been banned. iMessage can be used but Apple controls the key management, which means the government can likely compel them to hand over keys for Chinese devices. Moreover, iPhones are much more prevalent in the US than in China. WeChat has a billion users - virtually everyone in China uses it - it's a chat, payment, and social media platform, and can even be used to pay your subway or cab fare in Shanghai. Moreover, for individuals with limited or no English proficiency, the options may be even further limited. The point is that chat software is only useful if the people you want to speak to are also using it. For communicating with people in China, there's no more prevalent app than WeChat. That doesn't mean it's not used for surveillance or propaganda. It's the only app I know of where your messages are censored in real time. Send a message about a controversial topic and it may never be delivered. You also may be interrogated the next time you enter China. It's a horrible app. Nonetheless, for many Chinese-Americans, it's essential for communicating with their family in Mainland China. Thankfully, a US-purchased device can use the US app store in China. US-purchased device + VPN to Tokyo = access to any software you wish to use.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jasonwc ( 939262 )

        It's not just chat software either. The Internet in China is very different than the Internet in the rest of the world. For me, it's virtually worthless without a VPN. When I was last in China, the two largest VPN services that advertise service in China (ExpressVPN and NordVPN) didn't work for an entire week because it was a politically sensitive period. Thankfully, an OpenVPN server I hosted worked fine. Almost all of the most popular sites in the US are blocked including all of Google/Alphabet's sit

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        That sounds like a problem with Chinese law, not US law. If the only form of communication that was permitted by China was punching people in the face repeatedly, would we say that punching people in the face must be legal because otherwise we could not communicate with the Chinese? Of course not! (LOL)

        A more realistic but less funny example: the EU has GDPR - so if WeChat does not follow GDPR, then it is illegal to use in the EU. It does not matter who it inconveniences.

    • I agree with the court overall, but this phrase:

      "especially given the lack of substitute channels for communication."

      Really? I have roughly ten different messaging services on my phone (plus it's a phone), because I can't convince all my friends to use the same one. How can the judge possibly believe there are not substitute channels for communication besides WeChat?

      Because you can't convince all your friends to use the same one.

    • Having not RTFA, but thinking logically, I would surmise that "communication" refers to downloading the app, and "channels" refers to the app stores, which do indeed have few if any practical alternatives. That may not be what the judge meant, but it would at least make sense.

      That was my gripe with the proposed ban: the government can arbitrarily restrict commerce (paying for an app) but it cannot arbitrarily restrict speech (publishing or downloading an app). My understanding is that the apps in question a

    • because I can't convince all my friends to use the same one.

      So how do you contact your friend if you are suddenly prevented from using one of them and they are not? Ironically your post supports the original point, not the point you think you're making.

  • Look folks, these are matters of "National Security." A [liberal] judge has no say in such matters...or so some thought.

    We (running the Administration) even do not have to present any evidence at all. All we need to do is to say something's got to do with "National Security."

    Others are gonna say..."I told you so..." , "POTUS is not that smart..."

    It's going to be interesting to watch this play out...Let me get my popcorn....

    • It is interesting to see this all play out to be sure.

      It's a little scary though to say the administration doesn't need to present any evidence at all however. I personally think it good that there is a collective check and balance sort of system in place to prevent abuse and to protect the constitution however. (disclaimer, I'm not American, this is my opinion which shouldn't be taken too seriously I guess) I expect if a judge were to block this, there would still be a sort of trial where the state could

  • all spying and datamining us, we gotta have china in on the datamining and spying too,

  • While Trump's tantrum about TikTok is due to it being used to prank his Tulsa rally, WeChat is a much more worthy and threatening target. Because it is effectively a required method of communication for some, It can actually be used by the communists to monitor and censor their own population and (perhaps more importantly) overseas nationals and overseas people in relationships with their citizens.

    • Considering that all that did was give them a long list of people they can send messages to, an indication of interest of people, and did not stop anyone who was actually interested in going from going that did nothing at all and Trump actually benefited from it.
      The people who did that prank did for more for helping President Trump then anything they will do to help ex-vice president biden.
    • It's not merely about pranking his Tulsa rally: it's also about Chinese operatives on TikTok instigating some of the riots in various cities. The closed Chinese consulate at Houston was suspected of having links w/ some of the riot organizers

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by spitzak ( 4019 )

        Chinese operatives on TikTok instigating some of the riots in various cities. Not Facebook? I really find this pretty doubtful.

  • Just another Activist(constitution? whats that?) Judge thinking they get to micromanage America from the bench.

    Orangeman/Orangeman Administration does anything == Dems have one of their judges block it from the bench. Rinse, Repeat, Rinse, Repeat, Rinse, Repeat

    Heck of a way to try and run a country from the back seat.
  • So the Internet has limited ways to communicate! Really?

    "especially given the lack of substitute channels for communication"
    didn't think you could not be truthful in legal documents. Maybe that is just the old non activist law and justice.
  • A ruling that a private platform is subject to free speech protections against government actions is now precedent that let's you charge platforms with civil rights violations for censorship and deplatforming.

  • https://qz.com/1904063/china-i... [qz.com]

    Everything Within The State, Nothing Outside The State, Nothing Against The State

  • That is a good point. Chinese and Chinese Americans in the US really have wechat as the only option for reaching out to family and friends who are in China. However the counterpoint is that this is in fact caused by China blocking all foreign made chat apps. The onus is hardly on the US.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be or not to be, that is the bottom line.

Close