Law The RESTRICT act aims to tackle TikTok. But it’s overly-broad and has major privacy and free speech implications. - It gives the government more power over ALL forms of communication.

The RESTRICT act aims to tackle TikTok. But it’s overly-broad and has major privacy and free speech implications.
RelcaimTheNet (archive.ph)
By Didi Rankovic
2023-03-27 18:07:40GMT

restrict00.jpg
Senator Mark Warner's Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (“RESTRICT”) Act is currently in Senate procedure, as is widely thought to be targeting China's TikTok in particular.

However, those who bothered to read the text of the proposed act – which will next be considered by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, are warning that it is not merely about TikTok, but aims to grant wide powers over all forms of domestic and foreign communications to the government – such as enforcing “any” mitigating measure to deal with risks to national security.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here. (archive.org)

And, observers critical of these legislative activities note, there would be no due process in taking these measures, and not much in terms of safeguards.

restrict01.jpg
The Libertarian Party's Mises Caucus notes that the draft text states that the act's goal is to authorize the US secretary of commerce to review and prohibit “certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries, and for other purposes.”
restrict02.jpg
restrict03.jpg
Observers note that if somebody or something is designated as a threat to national security, under the proposed legislation, the government would be given full access to these entities.

The text of the act singles out several usual suspects as foreign adversaries, such as Russia, China, Iran, etc., but, the director of national intelligence and the secretary of commerce are free to add new “foreign adversaries” to the list, while not under obligation to let Congress know about it.

They would also be given 15 days before notifying the president.

Critics make a point of the fact that US citizens marked as national security threat can also be considered and treated using the provisions of this proposal as “foreign individuals.”

And when this designation is in place, then the threat of “any action deemed necessary” to mitigate it kicks in, which could result in people being ordered to pay a million dollar fine, spend 20 years in prison, or lose all assets (and these forms of punishment would be meted out without due process).

No limits are put on the funding and hiring to enforce the act, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would not apply.

All that just to “ban” TikTok?

Either way, The White House is in favor of passing RESTRICT Act. (archive.ph)
 
This is a real honest-to-god Happening, and deserves a LOT more attention.

This is how the act defines the things it's interested in:
(3) COVERED HOLDING.—The term “covered holding”—
(A) means, regardless of how or when such holding was or will be obtained or otherwise come to have been held, a controlling holding held, directly or indirectly, in an ICTS covered holding entity by—
(i) a foreign adversary;
(ii) an entity subject to the jurisdiction of, or organized under the laws of, a foreign adversary; or
(iii) an entity owned, directed, or controlled by an entity described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii); and
(B) includes any other holding, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
ICTS means internet and communications technologies. (B) is left vague so they can define anything as falling under the purview of this act.

(5) CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.—The term “critical infrastructure” has the meaning given the term in section 1016(e) of the USA PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)).
Thanks, Bush.

(10) ICTS COVERED HOLDING ENTITY.—The term “ICTS covered holding entity” means any entity that—
(A) owns, controls, or manages information and communications technology products or services; and
(B) (i) has not less than 1,000,000 United States-based annual active users at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered holding is referred to the President; or
(ii) for which more than 1,000,000 units have been sold to persons in the United States before the date on which the covered holding is referred to the President.
Notice it's active users, not unique active users. 1 million page requests? Yep, you're now covered in this.

Here's how the act defines a service:
(11) INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.—The term “information and communications technology products or services” means any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information or data processing, storage, retrieval, or communication by electronic means, including transmission, storage, and display.
Vague as shit. Mastodon fits the definition. ActivityPub fits the definition. Alpine Linux fits the definition. TELNET FITS.

Yeah I'm mad. I was a kid when the Patriot Act fucked us. I was in college when the bank bailouts fucked us. They just fucked us with COVID. And now it's this bullshit.

And you know it's going to get passed. The Valley hates Tik Tok because it took away all their ad revenue. DC hates Tik Tok because they can't find a way to fit a glowie into the company office like with FB, Twitter, etc. They're loving this gift-wrapped moment, because everyone's just talking about if Tik Tok should be banned or not.

EDIT: Here's the URL for the Act, the PDF is just a snapshot, they'll be updating it as it moves around: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text.
 
ICTS COVERED HOLDING ENTITY.—The term “ICTS covered holding entity” means any entity that—
(A) owns, controls, or manages information and communications technology products or services; and
(B) (i) has not less than 1,000,000 United States-based annual active users at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered holding is referred to the President; or

This is indeed scary, and potentially a very bad news for KF, if it indeed means that they get to do whatever the fuck they want with anyone with 1M traffic.

There are many blogs which would meet this threshold with ease. This basically covers anyone with a moderately successful website.

Would this not be against the freedom of press or whatever? Even though the journos are already cucked, they like to think of themselves as detectives of sorts. At the very least, some should feel threatened enough to say something.

Unfortunately, this kind of shit is so common in many countries. One party will draft a law that the other party would not have any clear objection for, and they will include shit to pass other things they want to happen. Then, you just hope nobody notices.
 
>You get to live to see amerimutts even more cucked of free speech than your europoor self
>inb4 Eurpooristan is... compelled... to adapt similiar legislation
The problem with the EU aside from it being a corrupt kleptocratic oligarchy is that they usually lap on tyrannical humiliation rituals coming from DC within a heartbeat. The west collectively is run by weak psychotic paranoid (mostly) men that want to live rent-free in the heads of the normies forever. Burgers, keep your McAssault Rifles™. Loose them in boating accidents if you have to. Because if you don't, the clowns in the capital will pass more insane shit that will make the police state formerly known as the United Kingdom look like the golden age of free speech.
 
Where's SIGSEV to fedpost when you need him?
I don't know, but I might just do it for him. I work, I pay my taxes, I follow the law, why the fuck am I always a part of the demographic punished for the criminal actions of others? I hate the kleptocrats who push this shit, I cannot wait for them to get guillotined.

I will be the headsman if need be. I'm slowly beginning to not care about the outcome as long as they get what is coming to them.
 
This is indeed scary, and potentially a very bad news for KF, if it indeed means that they get to do whatever the fuck they want with anyone with 1M traffic.

There are many blogs which would meet this threshold with ease. This basically covers anyone with a moderately successful website.

Would this not be against the freedom of press or whatever? Even though the journos are already cucked, they like to think of themselves as detectives of sorts. At the very least, some should feel threatened enough to say something.

Unfortunately, this kind of shit is so common in many countries. One party will draft a law that the other party would not have any clear objection for, and they will include shit to pass other things they want to happen. Then, you just hope nobody notices.
This would be a death blow for the farms. No VPNs allowed? Restrictions on funding via crypto? Even US citizens can be declared foreign adversaries if they meet criteria based on whatever the fuck the government decides? No public accountability, at all? ffs, this bill allows them to take action on people and websites and not even have to tell the PRESIDENT about it.

And it's got punishments we usually reserve for terrorists and murderers attached for basic shit like using existing tech avoid surveillance. It's like Congress got together and decided to write a bipartisan piece of legislation specifically for the purpose of taking down the kiwifarms @Null
 
Back