5 ms·

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. What, specifically, in the RESTRICT/DATA acts is doing surveillance or censorship things? I don't dou

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. What, specifically, in the RESTRICT/DATA acts is doing surveillance or censorship things? I don't doubt that this is the case, I just want to know the actual contours of the law. This article had three linked Tweets, one of which is a political opinion, one of which is a video, and the last is a screenshot from the "In General" section of the bill. The "In General" section is not the actual law itself, it just describes what the law is intended to do. The thread that the third tweet is a part of provides more information, but it's still very hard to follow. For example, one of the tweets claims: > If you recall from before, “Foreign Individuals” can now also be US citizens that are deemed a national security threat. Once designated, the bill grants authority to enforce any action deemed necessary to mitigate the threat, with no due process and few limits on punishments. This is very fucking scary! However, the associated images do not include anything that says US citizens. The only thing that would apply would be if a US citizen conspired with a designated foreign asset to violate... whatever is in this bill. You need to present your information better, rather than just saying that something is bad and then handing a bunch of algebra to the reader to figure out.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
> If you recall from before, “Foreign Individuals” can now also be US citizens that are deemed a national security threat. Could this potentially be unconstitutional?
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  Not on it's own, because the constitution doesn't say "Congress shall make no law that binds US citizens". It says a handful of specific things that Congress cannot do, and without knowing exactly what is being blocked, banned, or spied upon I can't say if it's unconstitutional or not.
rektide 4y ago
The last is https://twitter.com/lpmisescaucus/status/1639934790026555394 https://twitter.com/lpmisescaucus/status/1639934790026555394 which is a thread showing a long long series of horrifying intrusive new powers & maximalist authoritarianism. This is absolutely the most craven anti-people hood power grab my generation has seen in America. Absolutely as bad as the Patriot Act. Truly wretched way to take fear mongering & use it to intrude absolutely on anything the military or the government does not like. Fuck this, fuck these people.
- calgarymicro 4y ago
  The excerpts in that thread do not back up the central claim they make in the first tweet, which is that > It gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad I personally don't think this TikTok panic is justified. The bill grants the executive the authority to designate entites under the jurisdiction of a foreign adversary (like China) as threats to national security and to prohibit transactions with those entities. That seems bad enough; it should be discussed in terms of what it does, and not along sensationalist lines.
  - rektide 4y ago
    On the one hand, using fear to justify colossal incursions by the government into every possible concern has absolutely no place in my heart & I spit at the premise. Fear doesn't justify making an awful bill. Fear didn't justify rescinding American rights broadly for the Patriot Act. Even after that horrible day. It was shit then, it's worse pandering pathetic fear-shit now. 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/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
timmytokyo 4y ago
A random substack article that cites the Mises Caucus [1] and Tim Pool as authorities? Color me shocked that it doesn't make a good argument. I'm open to the idea that this is a bad bill, but this article isn't making a persuasive case. [1] https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/25/mises-caucus-could-it-sway-libertarian-party-hard-right https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/25/mises-caucus-...
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  >The MC and its members have argued for limited immigration enforced by property owners on the border and police action against Black Lives Matter and antifa protesters. They’ve also made anti-trans remarks. Mises-controlled Montana removed the right to abortion from its platform. Aah yes, my favorite kind of freedom-loving libertarians: temporarily embarrassed dictators.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    The mises caucus isn't a unified thing, and those folks hardly ever agree on anything other than hating central banks.
    - KerrAvon 4y ago
      And sending our colored cousins home again. Big-L Libertarianism is back, baby, and racist as it’s always been. Soon, I expect Jason Calcanis to arrive to explain how this somehow makes the MC the last bastion of the true moderates.
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        Lysander Spooner was one of the thinkers who lead to American libertarianism, and was first and foremost an abolitionist. Painting a whole intellectual tradition with such a broad brush based on the late in life nonsense spouted by Rothbard or the shitty newsletter Ron Paul used to publish is intellectually dishonest. Among contemporary American Libertarians you'll also find a lot of readers and admirers of Zora Neale Hurston who is often considered along side Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson as a founding mother of American libertarianism. You'll also find that American libertarians have long criticized Woodrow Wilson for re-segregating the government, opposed interracial marriage laws, opposed mass incarceration, and on and on.
AgentK20 4y ago
Reading through the actual text of this bill (obligatory I am not a lawyer), I don't see _anything_ that actually would allow a Person ("a natural person, including a citizen or national of the United States or of any foreign country.") to be considered a "Covered Entity". The language for "Entity" _clearly_ specifies that it is only referring to artificial entities e.g. LLCs, Trusts, etc. I have my own opinions on the bill, but I don't see a legal pathway in this bill to apply any of the restrictions on it to a Person, only onto companies.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

> If you recall from before, “Foreign Individuals” can now also be US citizens that are deemed a national security threat. Could this potentially be unconstitutional?

kmeisthax 4y ago
Not on it's own, because the constitution doesn't say "Congress shall make no law that binds US citizens". It says a handful of specific things that Congress cannot do, and without knowing exactly what is being blocked, banned, or spied upon I can't say if it's unconstitutional or not.

rektide 4y ago

The last is https://twitter.com/lpmisescaucus/status/1639934790026555394 https://twitter.com/lpmisescaucus/status/1639934790026555394 which is a thread showing a long long series of horrifying intrusive new powers & maximalist authoritarianism. This is absolutely the most craven anti-people hood power grab my generation has seen in America. Absolutely as bad as the Patriot Act. Truly wretched way to take fear mongering & use it to intrude absolutely on anything the military or the government does not like. Fuck this, fuck these people.

calgarymicro 4y ago
The excerpts in that thread do not back up the central claim they make in the first tweet, which is that > It gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad I personally don't think this TikTok panic is justified. The bill grants the executive the authority to designate entites under the jurisdiction of a foreign adversary (like China) as threats to national security and to prohibit transactions with those entities. That seems bad enough; it should be discussed in terms of what it does, and not along sensationalist lines.
- rektide 4y ago
  On the one hand, using fear to justify colossal incursions by the government into every possible concern has absolutely no place in my heart & I spit at the premise. Fear doesn't justify making an awful bill. Fear didn't justify rescinding American rights broadly for the Patriot Act. Even after that horrible day. It was shit then, it's worse pandering pathetic fear-shit now. 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/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...

timmytokyo 4y ago

A random substack article that cites the Mises Caucus [1] and Tim Pool as authorities? Color me shocked that it doesn't make a good argument. I'm open to the idea that this is a bad bill, but this article isn't making a persuasive case. [1] https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/25/mises-caucus-could-it-sway-libertarian-party-hard-right https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/25/mises-caucus-...

kmeisthax 4y ago
>The MC and its members have argued for limited immigration enforced by property owners on the border and police action against Black Lives Matter and antifa protesters. They’ve also made anti-trans remarks. Mises-controlled Montana removed the right to abortion from its platform. Aah yes, my favorite kind of freedom-loving libertarians: temporarily embarrassed dictators.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  The mises caucus isn't a unified thing, and those folks hardly ever agree on anything other than hating central banks.
  - KerrAvon 4y ago
    And sending our colored cousins home again. Big-L Libertarianism is back, baby, and racist as it’s always been. Soon, I expect Jason Calcanis to arrive to explain how this somehow makes the MC the last bastion of the true moderates.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Lysander Spooner was one of the thinkers who lead to American libertarianism, and was first and foremost an abolitionist. Painting a whole intellectual tradition with such a broad brush based on the late in life nonsense spouted by Rothbard or the shitty newsletter Ron Paul used to publish is intellectually dishonest. Among contemporary American Libertarians you'll also find a lot of readers and admirers of Zora Neale Hurston who is often considered along side Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson as a founding mother of American libertarianism. You'll also find that American libertarians have long criticized Woodrow Wilson for re-segregating the government, opposed interracial marriage laws, opposed mass incarceration, and on and on.

AgentK20 4y ago

Reading through the actual text of this bill (obligatory I am not a lawyer), I don't see _anything_ that actually would allow a Person ("a natural person, including a citizen or national of the United States or of any foreign country.") to be considered a "Covered Entity". The language for "Entity" _clearly_ specifies that it is only referring to artificial entities e.g. LLCs, Trusts, etc. I have my own opinions on the bill, but I don't see a legal pathway in this bill to apply any of the restrictions on it to a Person, only onto companies.