Patriot Act on steroids: anti-TikTok Trojan horse for censorship, surveillance

> He was after all the instrument of the Iraq war before Bush

You'll be less confused when you understand that the American electorate generally has no issues with invading other countries.

And even when it does have an issue with it, it holds its nose, and votes anyways. Both parties are generally ran by people who have similar opinions on this question.

I'm from a post-Soviet country, that might explain why I have this less than pacifist view.

In case anyone is curious, there is exactly one person in Biden's cabinet (16 people total) that previously served in Obama's cabinet: the Secretary of Agriculture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Vilsack

If you further consider "cabinet-level" positions (25 people total), two more people are included: the current Secretary of Veterans Affairs was previously the White House chief of staff and the current White House chief of staff was previously the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_McDonough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Zients

Of the 5 people mentioned by name in the parent comment, 3 have never been in the Cabinet and none were in both Obama's and Biden's Cabinets.

My best guess for the unnamed person is the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency (previously a cabinet-level position!) and who was Acting Secretary of State under Obama? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Burns_(diplomat)

But in this case it's more like if a policeman stalked and sniped someone that they had an arrest warrant for. They defined a US citizen as a target and drone striked him when they were able.

How exactly this would play out if a country tries to arrest a head of state which travels with security is unclear. I highly doubt any leader or nation would attempt to travel to a country where there is that risk of such a confrontation.

The reports mentioned that multiple people vanished after getting dragged into their offices, even with video evidence. That makes your point kinda moot in my opinion.

But. I agree:

> it should be discussed in terms of what it does, and not along sensationalist lines.

Both myself and the link I've provided have been remarkably sensationalist, yes. But there's also so many massive escape hatches that give this proposal unlimited blanket power, again and again and again. The start itself is auspiciously broad.

> The Secretary ... is authorized to and shall take action to identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing, and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines

Off to a brilliantly open start, to pursue not just any potential threat from anyone at all associated with foreigners, but to pursue anything that is in any way even risky.

If something "otherwise poses [ed: under not already listed vague dangers] an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons", and the Secretary of Commerce "determine[s] ... if such transaction poses an undue or unacceptable risk" and if found to be an unnacceptable risk can then determine "any other action [that] should be taken to mitigate the effects of the covered transaction".

The Secretary of Commerce has to consult with some other heads of government, but then seemingly can say anything is a risk and determine any course of action on their own in response. Sensationalism ahoy but: the Secretary of Commerce just became the 5th branch of government, nice job everyone. Within the first 438 words of law-making we've created a brand new power to do anything against any threat (so long as it has any link or relationship whatsoever to foreigners aka "covered transactions").

Again, this is all the first law-making section (after S1 Short Title, S2 Definitions), "S3. Addressing Information and Communication Technology Products and Services that Pose Undue or Unacceptable Risk." Now, "S4. Addressing Information and Communication Technology Products and Services Holdings That Post Undue Or Unacceptable Risk", throws a little twist in. This time, the Secretary doesn't have any license to "any other action" they deem over any risk arising from a covered transaction. They instead make recommendations to the president over any covered holding that is of a foreign adversary or anyone who the Secretary says might be related, and who "poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons." The president can then do whatever they want: "the President may take such action as the President considers appropriate to compel divestment of, or otherwise mitigate the risk associated with, such covered holding to the full extent the covered holding is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States", with again "otherwise mitigate the risk" standing in as a "whatever the fuck we say" carte-blanche statement, as this Restrict act so continuously unlimitedly keeps handing out to everyone, with no checks in sight.

As for how this all goes down? "In carrying out the responsibilities under this Act, the Secretary may establish such rules, regulations, and procedures as the Secretary considers appropriate." So the Secretary can literally make new rules, regulations & procedures on the fly to do anything they want. Hello again 5th Branch.

How can the Secretary find stuff out? Oh they can now ask anyone anything anytime. "The Secretary may require any party to a transaction or holding under review or investigation pursuant to this Act to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, at any time as may be required by the Secretary, complete information relative to any act, transaction, or holding, subject to the provisions of this Act."

There's a whole new class of crimes defined by this Act. There's a whole new "Specific Unlawful Acts" section, finding a variety of ways to make unlawful anything that stands in the way of this act or who does not fully participate or who does not turn over a requested piece of information or who in any way aids anyone who does anything to hinder this act. And in case we haven't built a "specific unlawful act" yet, there's the general unlawful act, "It shall be unlawful for a person to violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or cause a violation of any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued under this Act" which just says anything slowing down the Secretary of Commerce in any way whatsoever is illegal, period.

The Secretary of Commerce has all the cards. Congress can deny adding a Foreign Adversary or removing one. But the Secretary is sole deteminer of who is acting in any way in concordance with a Foreign Adversary or potentially aiding their cause. There's seemingly no one else in the system here. We've created a super-powered position of unlimited enforcement capabilities, with near-infinite purview.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...

If we do ban the web page, on what grounds? If we claim that the web page collects too much data and is a national security threat, then doesn't that same argument apply to all of the millions of web pages out there?

Or do we just skip all pretense and start strengthening the national firewall?

Tik-tok operating in the US just isnt in the US's interests. It's as simple as that. They don't need to pass your purity test nor prove anything to you.

> What you are suggesting is a malicious, technocratic conspiracy theory that is racist adjacent.

This is laughable. How is it 'racist adjacent?'

The US seems to be trying very hard to win the race to the bottom these days though.

TikTok is a way to collect personality profiles, and a way to push adversarial content to take advantage of these profiles. It can be used as a radicalization machine with very little way of detecting it with counterintelligence.

Now, whether China ever intends to use it this way is another question, as are the appropriate limits of freedom of speech for foreign actors. But the main reason they want to ban it is: it’s a weapon.

Imagine a basketball game where one team is getting away with fouls. If the other team starts doing it and gets called on it, they can't say "well I know we're doing it, but so is the other team." That exemplifies your point.

Now consider "free" trade. There is no referee. There are no rules akin to the rules of basketball that each team agrees to. It is just two parties that are deciding what is in their own best interest. When one party feels like they have been cheated, why should they carry on as if nothing happened? How is that in their best interest? There are no overarching rules or governance which both parties are subject to. So "not stooping to their level" isn't going to be commended or rewarded by some party.

It's like if you were playing basketball at the park and your opponent repeatedly fouled you but insisted fouls are legal. If you want to perform well, either you find a different team to play against or you start fouling back.

edit: Looks like he thought they should be legal.

The situation that is most likely is that the government will make it so that nobody really wants to use TikTok anymore, or possibly, that TikTok can't afford to operate in the states.

This sort of stuff the us does all the time (cryptocurrency exchanges, online gambling, porn sites, e.g.).

The us also has a history of redomiciling companies. For example that one time the US redomiciled the entire us operations of a pharma company that was, you know, supporting a genocide.

If some politician wanted to be clever, all they would have to do is say if any company more than 10% owned by a state or with any state employees in management positions sells arms to Russia or Russian countries, then all companies more than 10% owned by that state or with that state's state employees in management positions is subject to sanctions. Kill two birds with one stone.

The US government has detained or killed many more people like me than China has. I don't think that's brainwashing, that's just the reality.

> Why did China hack OPM (every personal data on every fed employee),equifax (credit on all americans) and every major company being hit by their hackers?

Probably the same reason the NSA grabs all that data.

That doesn’t excuse any government from being terrible but “enemy” is definitely a relative term here.

Some kind of irony hey? (which may be more related to "how the West dies")

To be perfectly clear: I'd rather be living under US rule than Chinese, not that it should matter to this discussion.

Ha! This is pure propaganda. As if it came out of tiktok's press office. I am not even going to address the ridiculousness of that statement

In any case, in order to put TikTok on the App Store, they have to pay to join the Apple Developer program; Apple would be prohibited from taking the money if TikTok was designated a national security threat. The same might even go for facilitating the installation of TikTok via the App Store.