3 ms·

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer nor a legal/constitutional expert. TLDR: The bill doesn't ban TikTok, it gives the executive branch the power to ban companies lik

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer nor a legal/constitutional expert. TLDR: The bill doesn't ban TikTok, it gives the executive branch the power to ban companies like Tiktok. IMO this is an entirely reasonable measure. As someone with strong libertarian leanings, I am generally opposed to the trend of the executive branch gaining arbitrary legislative authority but this bill appears entirely reasonable to me despite some concerns of vagueness. It gives the Secretary of commerce the responsibility of consulting with agencies to determine if software companies from "foreign adversaries" pose a national security threat. If the secretary seems it does then it gives the president the authority to ban the company.

pc_edwin 4y ago
I'll also add that its pretty interesting to see China in the list of "Foreign Adversaries". I think this probably the first time they are recognised as such in an official capacity in recent times.
pc_edwin 4y ago
Upon further research, I retract this comment. I wont delete it for the sake of transparency. My initial reading of the text was that it gives the executive branch the right to force companies from a selected list of "foreign adversaries" to divest if it deems it a threat to national security. I personally believe thats entirely reasonable both from a national security and trade-relations point of view but upon further research this bill looks like an extension of the Patriot Act giving the executive branch Heres the new information regarding the vagueness that changed my mind: - It punishes citizens for using the "banned" product. - It gives way more arbitrary power to the secretary of commerce to decide whats a threat to national security than I initially realised. - It allows the government to regulate VPN, essentially removing our write to privacy. As a side note, this is exactly why many people like me have trust issues with the government and other institutions. I don't understand how these smart lawyer types don't realise the immense damage they are doing to public trust.

pc_edwin 4y ago

I'll also add that its pretty interesting to see China in the list of "Foreign Adversaries". I think this probably the first time they are recognised as such in an official capacity in recent times.

pc_edwin 4y ago

Upon further research, I retract this comment. I wont delete it for the sake of transparency. My initial reading of the text was that it gives the executive branch the right to force companies from a selected list of "foreign adversaries" to divest if it deems it a threat to national security. I personally believe thats entirely reasonable both from a national security and trade-relations point of view but upon further research this bill looks like an extension of the Patriot Act giving the executive branch Heres the new information regarding the vagueness that changed my mind: - It punishes citizens for using the "banned" product. - It gives way more arbitrary power to the secretary of commerce to decide whats a threat to national security than I initially realised. - It allows the government to regulate VPN, essentially removing our write to privacy. As a side note, this is exactly why many people like me have trust issues with the government and other institutions. I don't understand how these smart lawyer types don't realise the immense damage they are doing to public trust.