White House Backs Bill To Strengthen US Powers To Ban TikTok (reuters.com) 100
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The White House said Tuesday it backs a bill in Congress to give the Biden administration new powers to ban Chinese-owned video app TikTok and other foreign technologies that could pose security threats. White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said the bipartisan bill sponsored by a dozen senators "would strengthen our ability to address discrete risks posed by individual transactions, and systemic risks posed by certain classes of transactions involving countries of concern in sensitive technology sectors."
"We look forward to continue working with both Democrats and Republicans on this bill, and urge Congress to act quickly to send it to the President's desk," he said. The bill in question is called the "Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act."
The bill, introduced by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Sen. John Thune (R-SD), doesn't single out TikTok to be banned. "Instead, Warner avoids making his bill all about TikTok," reports Ars Technica. "His office told Reuters that the RESTRICT Act will 'comprehensively address the ongoing threat posed by technology from foreign adversaries,' citing TikTok as an example of tech that could be assessed as a threat."
"[T]he RESTRICT Act is superior to the DATA Act because it provides a legal framework for the US to review all 'foreign technology coming into America,' not just from China, but also from Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. It's designed to give the US 'a systemic approach to make sure we can ban or prohibit' emerging technology threats 'when necessary.'"
"We look forward to continue working with both Democrats and Republicans on this bill, and urge Congress to act quickly to send it to the President's desk," he said. The bill in question is called the "Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act."
The bill, introduced by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Sen. John Thune (R-SD), doesn't single out TikTok to be banned. "Instead, Warner avoids making his bill all about TikTok," reports Ars Technica. "His office told Reuters that the RESTRICT Act will 'comprehensively address the ongoing threat posed by technology from foreign adversaries,' citing TikTok as an example of tech that could be assessed as a threat."
"[T]he RESTRICT Act is superior to the DATA Act because it provides a legal framework for the US to review all 'foreign technology coming into America,' not just from China, but also from Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. It's designed to give the US 'a systemic approach to make sure we can ban or prohibit' emerging technology threats 'when necessary.'"
Re:Careful (Score:5, Insightful)
Shut up, troll. We've been "positive reinforcement" with Russia since the late 90s and look where it got us. Another war on the European continent.
You can stop with the bullshit about war. China is not stupid enough to do anything over us banning a piece of software or even hardware. They'll whine and grumble like they always do, maybe impose some tariffs or cut off access to some things, but life will go on.
Here's an idea, if you want us to play nice with China then perhaps China should play nice. Things such as not stealing our trade secrets by forcing companies to intertwine with Chinese government. Funny how you never mentioned that.
Re: (Score:1)
We only have two options. 1. Positive reinforcement OR 2. Start a war with China immediately.
If you dont do number 1, number 2 is inevitable.. the less nukes they have the better, because at least we have a chance of winning. That is if you can call losing a large percent of our population winning.
Re:Careful (Score:5, Insightful)
We have been doing positive reinforcement for decades. Since Nixon.
All it got us was a bunch of harmless rice farmers turning into a huge county of thieving authoritarian slavers.
Yay! That was a good idea! Let's double down!
Re: (Score:2)
That's not my point. My point is that you can't be for negative reinforcement and against immediate nuclear war with both China and Russia. Those two views are not compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is going to end all life on earth because we stopped buying routers from china.
Re: (Score:2)
China is an authoritarian country that even regulates what software people can run on their own cell phones.
If we don't isolate ourselves, someday we may descend to the same depths of repression.
Re: (Score:2)
If we don't isolate ourselves, someday we may descend to the same depths of repression.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Re: (Score:3)
So well done.
Re: (Score:1)
But hey, at least our Electronics are cheap!
Re: (Score:2)
But unless we are prepared for a war with China, and its ally, Russia this policy of trying to isolate them will have blowback.
Isolating fascist regimes like Russia, China, North Korea, etc... historically has worked. Yes, sometimes they flail and thrash and throw tantrums, but eventually they go out like the USSR did in the 1980s, whimpering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Ah yes, WW2, the conflict preceded by *checks notes* the APPEASEMENT POLICY instead of shutting the nazis the fuck down...
The appeasement policy and other nations inaction were clearly ineffective.
But I'd agree that in the many decades leading to the 1930s rise of Hitler's led Nazi party, in a broad sense, isolation towards Germany didn't work either.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably they are still going to prefer to not die.
MAD doesn't stop working just because they are offended.
Bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
More power to the feds is a bad idea. Even if you trust the Biden administration with this power, it'll be in the hands of the opposition at some point.
Tiktok is a cancer, I agree, but it should be met with a PR campaign, not new powers afforded to the feds.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you trust the Biden administration with this power
It isn't clear what "this power" is. Should the government have the power to ban any software use by private citizens just by jumping up and down and chanting, "National security! National security!"? If they can ban software, can they also ban websites? TV programs? Books?
This is a horrible precedent that is 100% certain to be abused.
Tiktok is a cancer
Meh. More like an outbreak of jock itch.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some classes of software that should be regulated. Take for instance the Sony copy protection rootkit from 2005 that was auto-installed on windows computers when you inserted a music CD into your CDROM drive. You could argue that the offense was the auto-installing nature of the rootkit. I would argue however that even if the user agreed to install it via the EULA, it should *still* be illegal and a federal criminal offense to install rootkits on computers as part of some completely unrelated p
Re: (Score:1)
Debate about whether or not TikTok should be regulated is fine, but I'm absolutely in favor of certain classes of abusive software being regulated at the Federal level. It's just a question of what should be regulated and why.
Then it's a question of when the feds invent whatever "why" you come up with.
Governments abuse power whatever power is given to it, virtually never to the betterment of the governed.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's a question of when the feds invent whatever "why" you come up with.
Governments abuse power whatever power is given to it, virtually never to the betterment of the governed.
So what's your proposal then? Anarchy?
Re: (Score:1)
False dichotomy. Obviously we need the federal government for some things. I'd only suggest that they are currently far more powerful than is healthy for us; less is more when it comes to the megalomaniacs in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
False dichotomy. Obviously we need the federal government for some things. I'd only suggest that they are currently far more powerful than is healthy for us; less is more when it comes to the megalomaniacs in charge.
The grandparent post said "Debate about whether or not TikTok should be regulated is fine...It's just a question of what should be regulated and why". You responded back with (paraphrasing) "The feds will just invent a pretextual 'why' to justify anything they want to do because Governments abuse power whatever power is given to it". It's hard for me to not interpret that as an argument that the government cannot be trusted with any power (aka anarchy).
If you agree that the government should be given s
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not in principle opposed to regulation on harmful software (presuming we can come up with a decent definition of "harmful"), but why on earth are we limiting it to software from China or other "foreign adversaries"? If there's a strong argument to be made that a bit of software, app, or social media network is harmful, why are we regulating it based on origin? Why does it matter if the app/software doing harm is developed by ByteDance, Meta, Google, or Sony?
Pass a general data protection law and be d
Re: (Score:2)
This is a horrible precedent that is 100% certain to be abused.
The "So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause." scene from Star Wars was taken straight out of the history books. Give people a bogeyman to fear so they're willing to grant you powers to fight it, and then such power inevitably corrupts.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you trust the Biden administration with this power, it'll be in the hands of the opposition at some point.
The only reason there's even any bi-partisan support on this issue is that both parties believe they have something to gain by controlling the narrative on social media. That in itself should be scary enough.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd loooove to see your PR campaign that convinces my 14 yo that she should stop using TikTok because of national security. Lmao
Ok now back here in reality land, I had several long chats with her about it, blocked it on everything but her old phone which can only view on cell service. So she can still see it but has to put in some effort and only on her old shitty phone. Being the tech snob she is, her TikTok use has dropped dramatically.
What was your plan?
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty much that. Target parents. Be open, be transparent, be honest.
You have to admit, the government's never tried that approach before. Might produce different results.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd loooove to see your PR campaign that convinces my 14 yo that she should stop using TikTok because of national security.
It is not the government's job to make up for your shortcomings as a parent, nor should they be making it the law of the land because you feel other parents shouldn't have the right to make such choices for their own children.
Re: Bad idea (Score:2)
Why is tiktok âoea cancerâ and what exactly is negative about it? Other than being idiotic, of course.
I still fail to find any real evidence of anything actually wrong with tiktok, other than the fact that it is popular with kids, blows away instagram and snapchat in terms of popularity, and it being owned by a chinese company.
None of these things justify it as being âoea cancerâ. A security risk, maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
> evidence of anything actually wrong with tiktok
How about using the platform to spy on US journalists, track their locations, and send that data off to China?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/0... [nytimes.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/e... [forbes.com]
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/22... [cnn.com]
Re: Bad idea (Score:2)
Your links are self referential. There is no evidence that these people are somehow targeted at any rate statistically higher than Bob Smith from Des Moines, Iowa, retired sexist schoolteacher, who likes to watch attractive women dancing on his phone.
If your argument is that political activists and people who might be endangered by being identified shouldnâ(TM)t use tiktok, then just say that.
Also, you fail to justify the âoecancerâ adjective.
Re: (Score:2)
but it should be met with a PR campaign
A PR campaign will do nothing. People don't care. I support the government having the power to shutdown social media. They just have to do Twitter and Facebook next.
Re: (Score:2)
> it should be met with a PR campaign
No. Not a PR campaign, a GDPR campaign. We should pass a similar law here, especially with regard to the provisions about exporting users' data outside the country without their permission and to enemy nations in general. Then we could go ahead and give TikTok a chance. If they can prove themselves to be an honest, respectable, and legitimate corporate citizen, then so be it. Let the stupid narcissists pretend to be their favorite K-POP dancers. But if so much a
Re: (Score:3)
i'm not sure i agree with the notion that corporations are deserving of first amendment protections; despite the legal scum's claim otherwise, they are NOT people.
i don't know/care enough about the particulars of the disney vs desantis nonsense, but why did they deserve a special tax setup to begin with anyways?
Re: (Score:2)
The issue at hand was respect for legal precedent. If one believes corporations aren't entitled to 1A protection, then go through the proper judicial process to challenge it. The moment we have leadership that is ignoring the rule of law, we have lawlessness.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
And just because you're a midwit progressive doesn't mean your opinion is worth a god damn :)
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks to the supreme court and their ruling on Citizens United, corporations are people. I’ll agree with that when Texas executes one.
Re: (Score:2)
A horrible ruling I expect to be over turned eventually. As we know, the USSC occasionally fucks up and sometimes fucks up really big time. That was one of the really big ones. They also correct on occasion, too.
Corporations are not people and should not be afforded the rights of citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to the supreme court and their ruling on Citizens United, corporations are people. I’ll agree with that when Texas executes one.
Disney wouldn't even need to invoke a corporate personhood defense. Let's start with the 1A, for reference:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is Disney "the press"? In a word, yes. [wikipedia.org] It also turns out there's existing precedent [wikipedia.org] where Florida (why is it always Florida?) trie
Re: (Score:1)
But you don't understand, men are dressing in funny clothes! How will children handle ever recover that? It isn't like they have monthly drills to practice not being shot, oh wait.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm gonna respond to your post rather than the AC, but a common thread here seems to be the belief that some speech is just too dangerous and that people are incapable of forming their own opinions. If Disney is allowed to speak that could lead to people thinking it's okay for middle schoolers to read pornographic books. If there's a dumb TikTok challenge, people have no choice but to follow it. When there's an ad for TVs on sale at Walmart for low rollback prices, you immediately have to stop what you'r
Re: (Score:2)
there are over 113.3 million American users on TikTok.
You misspelled "there are millions of American users having their data harvested by a Chinese-government-created spying tool."
Also, several other problems with your claim:
#1 - That's the numbers put out by Tiktok themselves (claiming number of accounts equates with number of real-person users, meaning major inaccuracy at best if they're not simply lying).
#2 - That also doesn't pass the smell test given that the USA's population itself is ~336 mi
Re: (Score:2)
That would mean around 38% of the USA's population are using it.
Why do you find that surprising?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw this coming after Republicans uttered barely a peep when DeSantis went after Disney for opposing Florida's Parental Rights in Education bill. If Disney can't even keep their 1A rights from being trampled upon, what hope do the rest of us have?
I saw this coming when the previous administration tried to do this.
Then I saw this coming when the current administration promised to study the issue.
Then I saw this coming when other nations and the EU did this.
WTF does the tit-for-tat between the state of Florida and Disney corporation? ANd just to be clear, you are arguing that corporations have first amendment rights? (The company's special tax status has nothing to do with free speech, explain to me why Disney Corporation deserves special tax status t
Re: (Score:2)
WTF does the tit-for-tat between the state of Florida and Disney corporation have to do with this?
Re: (Score:1)
Did I use those liberal terms correctly?
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Florida so I followed this pretty closely.
DeSantis literally made a press release stating that Disney's special tax district would be re-examined as a result of the company pushing their "woke California values" upon Florida. It was like an employer straight up admitting they're firing you for being black.
Ultimately, what ended up happening is that Disney's district was renamed (with the previous tax arrangement kept intact, I guess they truly didn't have much of a problem with that part after al
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is nothing like being fired for being black. It is nothing like being fired.
Disney had special tax status. They had their own little kingdom. Literally.
They stupidly brought negative attention on themselves, a result of which is the governor said, "oh hey what's up with those guys?" and realized Disney provided nothing special to the state for that status so they lost it. Words and actions have consequences. Boo hoo.
Now Disney will be treated exactly like every other company in the country. So
Re: (Score:2)
Driving is a default "privilege" available to everyone who can pass a basic rules of the road and safe driving sense.
Having your own kingdom is not something any other company has ever had nor is there a standard process anywhere in the country to allow a company to apply for such.
You are talking apples and giraffes.
He doesn't need a fake reason. He is directly punishing them for getting involved in local politics. So what? That's exactly the point and the message and it's a great message: corporations a
Re: (Score:2)
No one was outlawed. Omg. So much drama.
Disney World is still open, they're still making cartoons and movies. Jesus, dude, get over it.
And no, corporations should not have rights. That the USSC erred in giving them full human rights is what has created a fair amount of our current bleakness.
I am fully in favor of real human beings have real human rights. Corporations are legal fictions and sociopathic entities. No rights deserved as humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Newspapers have rights as journalists not because they're corporations. Those right pre-date CU by uh forever.
Outlawed? I'm unfamiliar with the NAACP being at risk for being "outlawed". Is this another of your hyper dramatic statements similar to how poor Disney has been outlawed or was like fired for being black or how their so-called corporate 1a rights were trampled?
Do you own Disney stock? Sheesh.
Disney is a mega corporation. It is not human. It had no moral or ethical existence. It has no human
Re: (Score:2)
Then I saw this coming when other nations and the EU did this.
The EU banned TikTok from official government devices, not for the citizens of EU nations. That's an important distinction. source [cnn.com]
WTF does the tit-for-tat between the state of Florida and Disney corporation have to do with this?
Corporate first amendment rights have been established by legal precedent. You're free to read about the specific court cases on your own time if you'd like, and it's not the issue at hand, nor is whether you believe Disney should've been granted a special tax district to begin with. The issue at hand is that Disney faced repercussions for voicing their political opinion, wh
Re: (Score:2)
Disney can go to the USSC to fight for their 1A rights. Which are bullshit for corporations. Terrible ruling. I hope they do it (they wont - this isn't a 1A issue at all) so the USSC has the opportunity to correct their terrible error on Citizens United.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney probably won't make a legal stink unless the threats against the content put out by their studios turn out to be non-empty. In such a scenario, they actually would have a very good 1A case.
I don't feel bad for Disney. They have the resources to defend themselves, and that was my entire point. Disney can fight the government muscling in on their speech, your average TikTok content creator/influencer just has to roll over and accept their fate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the Court usually only considers the effect of legislation, not the intent, when determining constitutionality under the 1st Amendment.
Which is very likely why there hasn't been any legal action taken by Disney as of yet. It is still worrying to see freedom of speech chilled under legal technicalities, and that's exactly what's happening with TikTok. "We're not trying to silence the millions of Americans who use the platform, we're doing it in the name of national security!"
It's very odd to see the same folks who play the role of constitutional originalist when it's an issue they find near and dear, but are more than happy to look for lo
Re: (Score:2)
No one is losing a job for having posted on tiktok, no one is getting prosecuted, they just have to choose a platform which doesn't send their location to China. Of which there are plenty.
Re: (Score:2)
they just have to choose a platform which doesn't send their location to China. Of which there are plenty.
How's that whole choose a new platform thing been working out for the former president? I seem to recall significant gnashing of teeth when Twitter originally gave him the boot.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems fine. He has a platform, the press reads and quotes him from it, his followers seem to follow him there. What's the issue?
Re: (Score:2)
Seems fine. He has a platform, the press reads and quotes him from it, his followers seem to follow him there. What's the issue?
I recall it being a bigger deal prior to Twitter's change of ownership. Something about the town square being controlled by a bunch of folks with an agenda who were too quick to censor and ban anything they didn't like. Must've imagined it.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney is a corporation. What free speech rights? And yes I am aware of the horrible USSC ruling the other way.
All he did to them was take away their super special privileges that not a single other corporation or other non-governmental entity in the entire country has. Why should Mouse Corp get to literally run their own kingdom?
Now they can follow the same rules as everyone else. Oh boo hoo they lost their 1A rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney is a corporation. What free speech rights? And yes I am aware of the horrible USSC ruling the other way.
So, we're not really a nation of rules, laws and legal precedent whenever you personally disagree with it. Got it. If someone burglarizes your home, I guess I can just say "well, I am aware of those horrible personal property laws, but clearly the thief needed your stuff more than you did."
All he did to them was take away their super special privileges that not a single other corporation or other non-governmental entity in the entire country has.
Wrong, and wrong. The Villages in Florida also has a similar arrangement, and has already been widely reported, no such privileges were revoked. The district was renamed and DeSantis appointed new staff to oversee the
Thank you mommy! (Score:2)
where would we be without our benevolent mommy to protect us from such things?
omg we cannot be trusted to choose what retarded apps to have on our surveillance (domestic only apparently) devices
sarcasm aside, what a horrible fucking precedent to set.
Re: (Score:2)
thank you for invalidating my point completely over a typo. kudos anon!
This has nothing to do with national security (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The billionaires must control the narrative, where, for example, it is impolite to call Ron DeSantis a fascist.
Impolite is putting it mildly. Sued for a minimum of $35k is more like it. [nbcnews.com] Gee, I wonder where they even came up with that amount? Oh, right. [audacy.com]
Didn't... (Score:3)
Didn't the last administration try and ban Tik-Tok? Why is this still an issue? Where is the in-depth, comprehensive report the current administration promised us?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the last administration try and ban Tik-Tok? Why is this still an issue?
Why? Maybe we should get an MBA in here to run a word cloud campaign on the previous administration. Let's see if the word "competent" actually shows up at all.
The last administration didn't try to do anything other than stay in power, consolidate more power, and pretend nothing in America was ever wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Systemic risks" (Score:4, Informative)
One of the reasons is that the Chinese Constitution REQUIRES all Chinese people and companies assist the CCP intelligence services without question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Very bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
While I don't disagree with the banning of a CCP propaganda tool, it is not an excuse for increasing the power of the government. If they pass this bill, it almost certainly be abused for other political purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're going to use this for something else (Score:2)
Data = Information = Speech (Score:2)
US techs say disrupt everything... (Score:1)
Reciprocity (Score:1)
bad idea (Score:2)
What's to keep this from being used to censor pretty much anyone? Twitter allows false theory of lab leak to be spread, threatening national security --twitter now banned.
If you want to do this, pass a law that says exactly what the offender has to do or be to be guilty, then have an actual trial in a court to determine guilt or innocence. Do not just hand authority to some executive branch schemer.
Foreign adversaries (Score:2)
"We're not just making it about Tiktok... it's about all foreign adversaries" So surveillance capitalism is good, but surveillance capitalism in the hands of other countries is bad. Why interfere just because they're foreign? This is blatant protectionism and nothing more. They're completely happy for American companies to do this but want to shut out competition.