You'd have to ban TikTok based on something it does, and any such law would impact a lot of other companies too.
Or I guess you could ban all Chinese software using trade laws, but that has even bigger ramifications.
> proposes that the Secretary of Commerce be given the power to review business transactions involving certain information and communications technologies products or services when they are connected to a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and pose an "undue and unacceptable risk" to the national security of the United States or its citizens.
A court could still find it unconstitutional depending on how its targeted and the statements of its sponsors, but textually it is a ban based on broad criteria.
Arguments aren't a source of law, and what's permissible in legislation is defined by the constitution.
Oh, sweet, summer child.
Reading the full text of the constitution won't do much but put you a toe past the starting line in understanding what is and is not "constitutional" in the US.
If you decide that "no Chinese social network is allowed", you can create a law for that. But the TikTok ban is not like this.
Impact to the country's critical infrastructure and digital economy,
"Sabotage or subversion" of ICTS in the United States
Interference and manipulation of federal elections
Undermining the democratic process to "steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States".
A blanket ban on "Chinese tech" is immeasurably broad, and would harm legitimate business interests. Should Microsoft, Cisco and Oracle stop doing business in the country if they're selling products and services to Chinese tech firms?
Correspondingly, Tencent has holdings in many American companies, Reddit and Twitter being two. Should Reddit be forced to buy out their holdings?
I mean, yeah maybe. If there's a real national security risk it would make sense. Not that I think either of those companies are in any way trustworthy, but let's not compound the dangers to the public with CCP interference.
Precisely. But as it stands, they even haven't made a case against Tiktok, let alone private investments by Chinese companies.
There's nothing stopping the DOJ from laying charges against Tiktok US (the corporation) if there's evidence of contravening US law. But there is plenty of political hay to be made by suspecting that there might be. What laws, you ask? That too hasn't been clear, which helps explain why these bills fail again and again.
China doesn't allow such social media networks from the US.
I got no problem banning theirs.
When did this happen?
You might see wonderful flowers, rainbows, and ads for friendship bracelets while another person might see death, destruction, conspiracy theories, and ads for food prepping. Selective targeting is a power that politician have wanted for many decades. That was last available through Facebook Ads and became controversial years later with Cambridge Analytica.
On one hand, TikTok might be powerful enough to change the outcome of elections in more countries than just the US. On the other hand, access to information is generally a good thing and you want people to be knowledgeable and to make more informed decisions.
But yes on social media.
I don’t see any issues with that.
The government can go suck eggs.
An actual kinetic conflict would result in a complete destruction of the world economy and WWIII. You can't take these people seriously without carefully examining their motivations (certainly most notably, to build up the capacity of our own military).
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp...
I don’t believe TikTok and Pegasus belong in the same category.
Regarding Twitter, only Elon can answer how much of American’s Twitter data is flowing through KSA, though I believe it’s zero.
Edit: I’m fully behind any moves to ban Pegasus.
This is congress trying to ban a named product by bypassing the courts, in order not to have to bother with the whole "burden of proof" thing, rather than the justice department bringing a case to the courts to get existing laws enforced.
And yes, technically it's "congress makes the laws, the courts enforce those laws", but congress is bound by the constitution, and if congress singles out a specific individual or company, that's (amazingly, because it almost never is) an actual first amendment violation.
Whereas taking a company to court in order to get it banned for "spying on behalf of a foreign nation" is not.
Not that I agree with the premise above, but:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-by...
The part I disagree with is the idea that "they're using the app to spy on us" is a benchmark that some in the government care about, or a reasonable benchmark at that.
On this topic there are often people asking for evidence that TikTok has done anything wrong, but that's really besides the whole point. Governance can be an issue whether or not someone has abused a power. Past performance is not the be-all and end-all of security; means and motivations are also something to consider.
Because that would be literally the opposite of reality O_o
The question is around whether the DoJ can make things stick, and the DoJ doesn't waste its time, and doesn't burn its budget, on cases they know they can't make stick.
I think for some reason since this is more public facing people seem to think it is somehow different than bans on Russian firearms or engaging with literally any commerce with Iran.
A bill that says it is criminal to have ever had TikTok on your phone or it is criminal to have every distributed TikTok in the US would likely be a bill of attainder.
A bill that says that after some date that future it becomes illegal to have TikTok or distribute it would not be a bill of attainder.
I guess you could institute privacy laws and regulations to protect consumers from all software.
I think it's fine to incarcerate suspected terrorists first and ask questions later. Since the courts most definitely won't allow that on American soil, we'll incarcerate them in Guantanamo. If we find out later they aren't terrorists we'll just release them. /s