Agreed.
Interesting. I did a search for the latest news on this.
Forbes posted an article yesterday, but seemed to have pulled it?
25 Senators Join RESTRICT Act For Risk-Based Process Against Tech Companies From Adversarial Nations
". . . .Contrary what many critics claim, the United States is still an exceedingly permissive environment for Chinese tech threats. There is no lawful authority to block all Chinese tech, or even to block some Chinese companies arbitrarily. Indeed, any restriction requires herculean exercise of bureaucracy and even then, laws can be challenged, lessened, and overturned. For years the federal government has suffered from an incoherent patchwork of policies that have mostly tried and failed to prevent the intrusion of dangerous Chinese tech companies. The RESTRICT Act is the bill we should have had in place 10 years ago."
I wonder why?
TikTok ban bill is so broad it could apply to nearly any type of tech product
RESTRICT Act could be read as criminalizing some VPN use, EFF says.
RESTRICT Act could be read as criminalizing some VPN use, EFF says.
arstechnica.com
US wouldn’t have to explain decisions
"The bill could allow bans on companies without the public ever learning "whether US officials actually have information to justify the mitigation measures authorized by the bill," the EFF said. There are a few reasons for this: for one, the bill lets Congress override a decision to ban or un-ban a company, but Congress would have no other role, the EFF said.
The executive branch wouldn't have to "publicly explain its application of the law if doing so is not 'practicable' and 'consistent with... national security and law enforcement interests,'" and those "interests" are not defined, the EFF said. Additionally, "any lawsuit challenging a ban would be constrained in scope and the amount of discovery—again, limiting what the public could learn about how the bill is applied," the EFF said.
"Overall, the law authorizes the executive branch to make decisions about which technologies can enter the US with extremely limited oversight by the public or its representatives about the law's application," the EFF says.
One misplaced concern in the EFF's view is the idea that the bill would authorize "investigations into any website that has a foreign entity's pixel embedded in it" and force those websites to provide user data to the Commerce Department. "We don't share this concern because it would require interpreting the law to say that merely using a website pixel means your site is holding of a foreign adversary," the EFF said. "Thankfully, the definition of 'holding' under the bill is not this broad."
But that's a small consolation given the other problems with the bill, according to the EFF. "The RESTRICT Act is absolutely the wrong approach to protecting data privacy," the group said. "It would open the door to wide-ranging government bans on hardware or software from foreign countries with no explanations needed, little transparency, limited challenges via litigation, and limited congressional oversight."
I get the sense, regardless of who is president, both would sign this.
Thus, drive by partisans, who don't care to look deeper into issues, would support this.
IMO? This should be the number one thread. Why isn't the MSM shouting from the rafters on this?
It is just another example of;
en.wikipedia.org
???
truthout.org
dossier.substack.com
theconservativetreehouse.com
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/TEQSQG5FXBMVZEEQYLM5EGEDTA.jpg)
www.reuters.com
