Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Electronic Frontier Foundation Government Privacy United States

'The Broad, Vague RESTRICT Act Is a Dangerous Substitute For Comprehensive Data Privacy Legislation' (eff.org) 76

Posted by BeauHD from the cause-for-concern dept.
The recently introduced RESTRICT Act, otherwise known as the "TikTok ban," is a dangerous substitute for comprehensive data privacy legislation, writes the Electronic Frontier Foundation in a blog post. From the post: As we wrote in our initial review of the bill, the RESTRICT Act would authorize the executive branch to block 'transactions' and 'holdings' of 'foreign adversaries' that involve 'information and communication technology' and create 'undue or unacceptable risk' to national security and more. We've explained our opposition to the RESTRICT Act and urged everyone who agrees to take action against it. But we've also been asked to address some of the concerns raised by others. We do that here in this post. At its core, RESTRICT would exempt certain information services from the federal statute, known as the Berman Amendments, which protects the free flow of information in and out of the United States and supports the fundamental freedom of expression and human rights concerns. RESTRICT would give more power to the executive branch and remove many of the commonsense restrictions that exist under the Foreign Intelligence Services Act (FISA) and the aforementioned Berman Amendments. But S. 686 also would do a lot more.

EFF opposes the bill, and encourages you to reach out to your representatives to ask them not to pass it. Our reasons for opposition are primarily that this bill is being used as a cudgel to protect data from foreign adversaries, but under our current data privacy laws, there are many domestic adversaries engaged in manipulative and invasive data collection as well. Separately, handing relatively unchecked power over to the executive branch to make determinations about what sort of information technologies and technology services are allowed to enter the U.S. is dangerous. If Congress is concerned about foreign powers collecting our data, it should focus on comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation that will have a real impact, and protect our data no matter what platform it's on -- TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, or anywhere else that profits from our private information. That's why EFF supports such consumer data privacy legislation. Foreign adversaries won't be able to get our data from social media companies if the social media companies aren't allowed to collect, retain, and sell it in the first place. EFF says it's not clear if the RESTRICT Act will even result in a "ban" on TikTok. It does, however, have potential to punish people for using a VPN to access TikTok if it is restricted. In conclusion, the group says the bill is similar to a surveillance bill and is "far too broad in the power it gives to investigate potential user data."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'The Broad, Vague RESTRICT Act Is a Dangerous Substitute For Comprehensive Data Privacy Legislation' More

'The Broad, Vague RESTRICT Act Is a Dangerous Substitute For Comprehensive Data Privacy Legislation'

Comments Filter:
  • From this administration and congress, what a joke! This administration is the Man. And they won't let go of power!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by lilTimmy ( 6807660 )
      Dude, have you even seen the descent into fascism in the red states? Banning books, controlling curriculum, legislating women's bodies. Your ridiculous party of small government is anything but that.

      • Don’t forget Kansas voting to inspect children’s genitals. https://www.newsweek.com/kansa... [newsweek.com]

  • Patriot Act part 2 on steroids. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06, 2023 @09:12AM (#63429976)

    "Section 6: Patriot Act 2.0: Gag orders, secret FISA court proceedings, public information blackouts and special administrative exemptions? If that all sounds familiar from the post-9/11 era, you'll get where this is going. If you happen to know a first-year law student, have them read this and watch how wide their eyes get"

    https://www.salon.com/2023/04/... [salon.com]

  • Not to use a VPN (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @09:16AM (#63429994)

    have potential to punish people for using a VPN to access TikTok if it is restricted

    This bill seem to have a VPN ban built into it. As it contains criminal provisions against circumvention.

    This bill also seem to have Bi-Partisan supported and will Probably sweep through both houses and get an easy signature within months; compared to much more beneficial legislation having to wait years before even being discussed.. I'm afraid that any lobbying efforts against it will ultimately be in vain, As one thing the powers that be can agree upon is they want the government to have more power over digital communications and communications technology to curtail information or services they see as a threat.

    • This is a frontal assault on competition to FedNow by way of the necessary supporting technologies.

      VPNs are collateral damage. TikTok was an afterthought.

    • Re:Not to use a VPN (Score:4, Interesting)

      by StreetFire.net ( 850652 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @09:28AM (#63430034) Homepage

      have potential to punish people for using a VPN to access TikTok if it is restricted

      This bill seem to have a VPN ban built into it. As it contains criminal provisions against circumvention.

      This bill also seem to have Bi-Partisan supported and will Probably sweep through both houses and get an easy signature within months; compared to much more beneficial legislation having to wait years before even being discussed.. I'm afraid that any lobbying efforts against it will ultimately be in vain, As one thing the powers that be can agree upon is they want the government to have more power over digital communications and communications technology to curtail information or services they see as a threat.

      You may be right that the bipartisan support means this has a lot of inertia to overcome, but there is one clear solution to stop this tide, contact the campaign donors to your local congressional supporters and complain to them about the actions of "their" candidate. Boycott the donor's products, and raise question of their subversion of our freedom to assemble on the Internet. Raise the questions publicly and loudly. When the money changes it's mind, so to will their government puppets.

      • Do our congress critters have a list of sponsors we can contact? That'd be massively helpful.

      • but there is one clear solution to stop this tide, contact the campaign donors to your local congressional supporters and complain to them about the actions of "their" candidate.

        You should realize this is about control. The people who want control will not be swayed from their goal through money. 1984 is inevitable(?)... and it will destroy civilization and may even wipe out the human race entirely (unlikely).

    • For one, OF COURSE this bill will pass with flying colors in record time. Any bill that gives the government yet more creepy-ass control over our lives will be shoved through as fast as possible by those that want more power.

      And who would lobby against this? More control means the big business actually running our government get more control too. More control over the internet keeps the small players either so microscopic in scale they're no threat, or they get shoved out through regulations they can't jump

    • Dunno.

      It seems we have a moral panic ever decade or so with corresponding legislation attempting to be rammed through (thus far with limited success).

      Think they might have overplayed their hand and now is an ideal time for policy wonks to present a comprehensive privacy protection plan in lieu of the RESTRICT Act. Make the hypocrisy glaring enough and something good might actually come of this.

      • Dunno.

        It seems we have a moral panic ever decade or so with corresponding legislation attempting to be rammed through (thus far with limited success).

        Think they might have overplayed their hand and now is an ideal time for policy wonks to present a comprehensive privacy protection plan in lieu of the RESTRICT Act. Make the hypocrisy glaring enough and something good might actually come of this.

        Only every decade? Hell, I tripped over six moral panics on my way through the parking lot this morning. What utopia you living in?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by r_naked ( 150044 )

      have potential to punish people for using a VPN to access TikTok if it is restricted

      This bill seem to have a VPN ban built into it. As it contains criminal provisions against circumvention.

      I currently have no social media of any kind, however, if this passes I will install the scourge that is TikTok and make sure it is KNOWN that I am using a VPN to access it.

      This is a hill I will die on. They will NOT get away with telling me what I can and can not access. FUCK THAT!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        if this passes I will install the scourge that is TikTok and make sure it is KNOWN that I am using a VPN to access it.

        Sure.. I mean good luck. Not that this would put the VPN users on the government's radar; Instead they will likely pursue their criminal actions against whatever hosting companies are providing people in the US the software and services.

        It doesn't happen immediately that all VPNs get turned off, but it gives the government tools which will be used to get all VPN services shut down, mod

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by r_naked ( 150044 )

          Essentially... the Act lets the government build the "Great Firewall of USA"

          Yes it does, and that is why I will become ungovernable. If this passes, everyone needs to protest this by ignoring it. If the majority of the populace ignores a law, what are they going to do?

          This is a blatant violation of the first amendment. I can post speech on TikTok, this takes that freedom away -- there is literally no other way to interpret it.

    • This bill also seem to have Bi-Partisan supported and will Probably sweep through both houses and get an easy signature within months [...] one thing the powers that be can agree upon is they want the government to have more power[...]

      I for one am SHOCKED, shocked I say! Imagine those in power voting to give themselves more power! And in the name of security no less. Who could imagine our brave leaders trading our freedom for their security?

      /sarcasm

  • (YES even HTTPS) SHOULD NOT be allowed over national borders! Hard not to laugh.
    in reality I can see this administration going all in and using it domestically on their political opponents and those they disagree with. The DOJ and FBI are already doing it. FISA was not even a speed bump to them they just ignored it. And the closer the election comes the more vicious the the man will get.

  • Lots and lots (and lots) of relatively-conservative streamers/radio personalities have services like NordVPN as a sponsor. Kiss your sponsorship dollars goodbye if this bill passes.

    Looking at you, Ben Shapiro [expressvpn.com].

  • Congress doesn't want an on-the-record vote to ban TikTok. The Restrict Act is Congress' attempt to deflect calls for this vote.

    The Restrict Act will fail to get a vote because it's Orwellian. Then they'll point fingers elsewhere and claim they tried.

  • $1 million fine for using TikTok?!?! (Score:3)

    by fjorder ( 5219645 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @11:15AM (#63430338)
    You know, I've lived outside the US for 20 years, and it clearly seems the common notion of 'freedom' has changed. It's shocking that someone could even propose this bill. This bill will let the Secretary of Commerce ban an internet service, and afterwards anyone who uses it could be fined $1 million or be put in jail for 20 years (!). Isn't that insane? Is it so important to outlaw TikTok that we need to make such a horribly oppresive and dangerous law?

    • Like TFA says, it is not even clear the bill bans TikTok. The bill is more about the government banning any means for you to hide from them what you are doing in your life. Which might sound all nice and dandy, if you are afraid of the criminals, but will sound something else if you are afraid of the government or the thought police. And seeing where the US is going, it is becoming more and more obvious where you should put your worries.

      About the meaning of freedom. There really ever has been three kinds of

  • Foreign actors (Score:5, Interesting)

    by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @12:05PM (#63430480)

    I don't know if provisions of this act are good or terrible, but everyone seems to forget that for the past over 90 years, foreign ownership of broadcasters in the US has been severely limited -- Communications Act of I think it was 1931. The idea that foreigners must not be in control of information is nothing new.

    • Broadcasters control election costs as mass media is the only thing that effectively keeps challengers to incumbents at bay. Foreign control of domestic election costs are unacceptable to the political class. Now selling a road or port to overseas interests that is ok.

  • To me, this act is as much about blocking Tik-Tok as the CDA was about "protecting children online". At best, it sort of works, but at worst, it can wind up with a lot of people facing hefty criminal charges for almost nothing.

    I almost wonder if the anti-VPN provisions are more of to keep people from hitting their favorite torrents than it is about blocking foreign propaganda sites.

  • Just starting to read this. Toward the beginning, it gives a vague description the kinds of governments the author doesn't like, then states a specific list of countries and individuals:

    8) FOREIGN ADVERSARY.—The term “foreign adversary”—
    (A) means any foreign government or regime, determined by the Secretary, pursuant to sections 3 and 5, to have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons; and

    That could be whoever the current administration doesn't like. There's no specific set of actions or requirements. Is there a way to be removed from the list?

    (B) includes, unless removed by the Secretary pursuant to section 6—
    (i) the People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Macao Special Administrative Region;
    (ii) the Republic of Cuba;
    (iii) the Islamic Republic of Iran;
    (iv) the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea;
    (v) the Russian Federation; and
    (vi) the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela under the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros.

    Naming Nicolas Maduro specifically violates Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution AKA "No Bills of Attainder." (Although realistically, i

  • China restricts all sorts of websites because they don't want the people to know anything but what the government tells them. Tik-Tok does track people as the Chinese seem to want to know everything foreigners are doing. As long as government employees and businesses that have secrets they want to keep disallow the use of Tik-Tok, who cares about tracking the whereabouts of children dancing on a website? Better to limit Tik-Tok's use than ban it all together.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.

Close