For those unaware, the U.S. government has been generating some (arguably justified) hysteria regarding TikTok/Bytedance over the past few months, citing national security, data privacy, and the fact that the U.S. ultimately doesn't have exclusive control over the data generated and handled by TikTok. In fact, a higher-up from Bytedance was grilled by a congressional committe over the firm's ties to the Chinese government, which he vehemently denied. Ultimately, this has culminated in the RESTRICT Act (RESTRICT standing for "Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology") being floated, which is arguably an overbroad piece of legislation.
At its core, RESTRICT is meant to block foreign firms and persons from conducting transactions (either monetary or in regards to data handling) which may pose "an undue or unacceptable risk" to the security of the United States. However, conducting "transactions" with foreign "adversaries" may result in up-to $1,000,000 in fines, a maximum of 20 years in prison, or both, which, as several outlets have pointed out, merely using a VPN to utilize services that would be blocked would invoke that penalty, which seems overbroad, as using a VPN is going to hide your web traffic from your ISP; therefore, you'd have to scrutinize all users of VPNs, Tor, or other anonymizing protocols in order to have any rate of efficacy in terms of blocking access to blocked services.
In fact, the bill is even backed by the likes of Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who introduced the EARN IT Act (EARN IT standing for "Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act"), which effectively sought to eliminate end-to-end encryption in the name of scanning every message for child sexual exploitation material. However, as is natural, when grilled on the bill, Graham pretended he backed it without knowledge of what it contained. RESTRICT has bi-partisan support, however, the majority of the co-sponsors are Republican (13), while only 11 co-sponsors are Democrats (in spite of being introduced by Mark Warner [D-VA]); this pattern mirrors the USA PATRIOT Act, where the only senator to vote against the law was Russ Feingold (D-WI).
With the aforementioned in mind, the bill's overbroad provisions and terminology imply that an ordinary U.S. citizen can be persecuted for merely accessing TikTok (or other banned services, for that matter), or for purchasing products from a scrutinized firm, such as Lenovo, whose products have been met with scrutiny for governmental use (due to the firm's ties to the Chinese government), yet remain on store shelves throughout the USA. Even if this law were to pass, I still believe that persecutions would be hard at best, since many Americans use VPNs, either in workplaces (for professional use), to bypass filters imposed on internet connections in public places (i.e. airports, restaurants, and schools), or for non-nefarious purposes, such as merely hiding their traffic from their ISP or accessing geo-blocked content; and, in terms of physical products (such as the aforementioned Lenovo hardware), there will likely always be "middlemen" importing those products from places such as Latin America or Europe (wherever there's not sanctions, in reality) and reselling them to Americans.
Worth noting is that a less overbroad bill was considered in January of 2023; the No TikTok on United States Devices Act, which sought to specifically target TikTok/Bytedance, with no mention of prosecuting civilians for accessing TikTok (or any blocked service for that matter) by using a VPN or any other means. Additionally, the prior bill didn't seek to persecute civilians just for using TikTok, instead just to block TikTok from conducting business directly with U.S. citizens and firms.
Some politicians have even floated the idea of forcing Bytedance to sell TikTok, an idea which would likely prove unpopular with China, as I've heard several people speculate, the Chinese may not want a foreign firm owning TikTok's technologies.
Generally, I can see (and fear) RESTRICT passing, given the hysteria right now regarding China, foreign data handling, and the effect of TikTok on "the youth." However, if we're going to target TikTok on the basis of data privacy and youth mental health, why aren't we targeting Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and other such platforms? I can take an educated guess as to why: its because they're under almost exclusively U.S. jurisdiction-- therefore, the U.S. government has effectively absolute access to the data hosted on those platforms, unlike TikTok.
Copyright 2023, Econobox_ (d.b.a konat.neocities.org)