3 ms·
So, they're clearly trying to describe what they're doing in general terms. I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if that's partly a constitutional matter -- just goin
by abeppu 4y ago
So, they're clearly trying to describe what they're doing in general terms. I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if that's partly a constitutional matter -- just going after TikTok by name based on a knowledge of _past_ access to American data by staff in China would sound like an ex post facto law. So they have to frame it as being about a class of services with relationships to a group of foreign adversaries. But then are there other companies that might fall afoul of this? Yandex?
- ellisv 4y agoIf you were to name a company specifically, the company could fold and reopen under a new name. But moreover, laws should be about behavior. You don’t ban Philip Morris, you ban selling tobacco to kids and smoking indoors.
- abeppu 4y agoYou _should_ have laws about behavior. This is not that. But Congress has had years of opportunities to develop actual data privacy laws and they haven't. They held proceedings focused on a single company. The tagline for this post is specifically "Senate Bill to Ban TikTok" for good reason: it was written to target a single company. We _should_ be concerned about companies which have personal data on basically everyone and have no real limitations on how it's used, but FB is gonna keep operating. We _should_ be concerned about a government that can gather private data about Americans by secretly working with a corporation. But AT&T's cooperation with the NSA never really hurt it.