559
Senate passes TikTok ban bill, sending it to Biden, who has already committed to signing it
(www.theverge.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
559 points (95.2% liked)
Technology
60041 readers
1711 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Incorrect, the Bill is broad but it's not any company for any reason.
The "PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024" has this to say:
and then like a bunch of pages of hyper-specific definitions for the above terms.
Am I misunderstanding something this actually sounds like a positive thing. Although I wish it was not just for "foreign adversary country; or any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary." And instead just in general
Yea, it's not as bad as this thread is trying to make it out to be.
But muh silly dancing app!!1one
Hot take: people are pretending this is a gross censorship violation only because they're addicted to the app and it might be going away, leaving them with nothing to scroll on endlessly into the day
Hot take approved
No, some of them are pretending it's gross censorship only because Amerikkka Bad and Biden Bad and CCP Good.
My favorite was "China sowing chaos is Good, Actually"
I've been pretty optimistic about it from the start so I might be pretty biased, but it is very vague on what exactly the FTC can do to the companies in violation. If anything, it creates precedent for protecting Americans from corporate interests, so hopefully more to come in the future.
Some things were excluded from my comment such as the 60 day limitation being listed after the definitions, and the definitions are quite long so there could be some important facets in there that I have missed.
That’s kinda the point though. They don’t give a shit about protecting our data. They’ve willingly engaged in the data trading markets themselves. It’s greatly enhanced their power. They’ve protected the practice by simple virtue of dumping fuck tons of money into it. But as soon as other players get into the game…”quick, to the gavel-mobile!”
This bill isn’t for us. It’s for them. I’m no fan of china—it’s an authoritarian state that forcefully exerts control over its people—but to the US, they’re just the next game in town. Because while china may be a little more overtly controlling, the US is in the same game. They just use the frontman of their independent corporations to more subtly exert influence. But when we start trying to wrest some control back? Sure, that’s when the gavels turn to batons and guns.
So, in short, they’re not protecting us. They’re protecting themselves and their established order. Cracks are starting to show because people on the whole seem to be realizing this order doesn’t work for us, but for them. They will start to more overtly flex their power as this trend continues.
The big point is, how does that power get used?
There is no due process. So someone like Trump could just declare a company to be a foreign adversary. If this was like an Anti-Trust case that had to be built and proven in court we wouldn't have a problem with it. But it's not. You're just literally declaring it, no evidence required.
If ByteDance continues sending the outlined Data to any offshore location defined as an adversarial nation, then:
So, this is an FTC Enforcement. Since you clearly have no idea what that means, the chairmen of the FTC vote on the specifics of the enforcement and then unless the company accepts the terms it almost certainly becomes contested in the courts where lawyers explain to the judge that they think this is or is not constitutional and lawful action by the FTC to which the judge gives their opinion, and then appeals courts can send the decision to other courts some of which may rule on the case voluntarily such as the SCOTUS (although that is quite rare).
EXAMPLE: Over their handling of data and disruption of local elections the FTC fined Facebook 5Bn USD on July 12, 2019. Facebook will be making installment payments for over a decade. This was a historic record fine, up from the previous highest being 168 Million USD in 2017 against Dish Network.
The company having to appeal in court is not due process. It's not due process if you break a law and it's not due process if they break a law. If you think the FTC making a declaration is due process then remember Ajit Pai and net neutrality. The rulings of those agencies can swing wildly between administrations. So right now it's ByteDance. But in the cursed world where the GOP gets this power it's whatever organization they don't like. Ever wonder if this could be used against a Union? They've wondered. And without a need for real evidence, (citing secret intelligence reports is also precedent), they don't even need to get an infiltrator into the Union's administration.
The courts are not the constitutional safety valve you want them to be. They've proven that time and time again. Rights require the people themselves to defend them. If you're in any doubt of that check out the difference between how we treat the 4th amendment and the 2nd amendment. And then realize SCOTUS ruled that police aren't soldiers because words (police didn't exist in 1792), and as such the 3rd amendment is a dead letter.
As to your example, The FTC had to have the DOJ file charges in court. So even in the example you found, they are using due process. This power is new, overly broad, and unconstitutional.
Courts of law aren't due process? Lmfao.
Not after the fact. They are due process when the government has to prove it's case before it can take punitive action. If the government is allowed to take punitive action without going to court to prove it's needed than there is no due process.
Why is that so hard to understand?
I guess parking tickets aren't due process either, then.
You realize the ticket is actually a court date right? Most people just choose to plead guilty and pay the fine.
That is literally analogous to an FTC fine in every way.
This isn't a fine. And there's no requirement to file charges in court and prove data is being mishandled.
If we're being semantic this isn't an anything because the only thing it says is that the FTC can do FTC things to any company that sends data to an adversarial nation.
Ah, so congress can just write hyper specific definitions that only apply to one company (as long as they don't directly name said company). Got it, seems like great precedent to me.
I feel like you might've completely misunderstood what I meant, they defined words like Photography and what a Data Broker is hyper-specifically, like a dictionary might. If they wanted to they could have named the company directly. They're literally the highest power in the US Federal government, they have full authority. They wanted to remove a gap in our system of laws to prevent anything similar from ever occurring in the future. I think technically Kaspersky and a few other companies could qualify with these terms.
I actually don't think they can name the company directly. If I remember right that's unconstitutional.
Not American, but that doesn't sound right... whose rights are being violated in that case? A multinational corporation?
I can see why you shouldn't name an actual person, though.
Our Corporations have the same rights we do with one exception. If my rights and my employer's rights come into conflict, say on religious freedom, I'm forced to accept the corporation's right to force me into religious practice. So they have first class and we have second class.
I cannot imagine why that would be unconstitutional, please explain it to me.
I didn't completely misunderstand, I just used the term hyper specific (rather confusingly, I admit, since you used it too) to refer to the wording of the bill. I would be surprised to see this used for other companies - the recent happenings with Kaspersky are not related to this bill.
What are you referring to here? What occurred? Do you mean the creation of another foreign TikTok?
According to some of these guys Congress could order everyone with the name Steve deported and that's okay because we voted for them.