RESTRICT Act

The “RESTRICT Act”, colloquially called the “TikTok ban” has been introduced into the U.S. congress by a bipartisan collection of mustelids, including the following senators:

  • Warner
  • Thune
  • Baldwin
  • Fischer
  • Manchin
  • Moran
  • Bennet
  • Sullivan
  • Gillibrand
  • Collins
  • Heinrich
  • Romney,
  • Capito

Here is the full text of the bill.

Of course, as every other piece of … legislation intended to forge the shackles to enslave subjects of the United States, the name is cute acronym for “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act”, with its stated purpose “To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries, and for other purposes.”

“other purposes”, indeed.

It lists the following “foreign adversaries” whose access can be restricted:

(i) the People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Macao Special Administrative Region;

(ii) the Republic of Cuba;

(iii) the Islamic Republic of Iran;

(iv) the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea;

(v) the Russian Federation; and

(vi) the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela under the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros.

and restricts:

(3) any software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to data hosting or computing service that uses, processes, or retains, or is expected to use, process, or retain, sensitive personal data with respect to greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including—

(A) internet hosting services;

(B) cloud-based or distributed computing and data storage;

(C) machine learning, predictive analytics, and data science products and services, including those involving the provision of services to assist a party utilize, manage, or maintain open-source software;

(D) managed services; and

(E) content delivery services;

and

(6) software designed or used primarily for connecting with and communicating via the internet that is in use by greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including—

(A) desktop applications;

(B) mobile applications;

(C) gaming applications;

(D) payment applications; or

(E) web-based applications; or

(7) information and communications technology products and services integral to—

(A) artificial intelligence and machine learning;

(B) quantum key distribution;

(C) quantum communications;

(D) quantum computing;

(E) post-quantum cryptography;

(F) autonomous systems;

(G) advanced robotics;

(H) biotechnology;

(I) synthetic biology;

(J) computational biology; and

(K) e-commerce technology and services, including any electronic techniques for accomplishing business transactions, online retail, internet-enabled logistics, internet-enabled payment technology, and online marketplaces.

What big teeth you have!

(b) Civil penalties.—The Secretary may impose the following civil penalties on a person for each violation by that person of this Act or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization issued under this Act:

(1) A fine of not more than $250,000 or an amount that is twice the value of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed, whichever is greater.

(2) Revocation of any mitigation measure or authorization issued under this Act to the person.

(c) Criminal penalties.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.

(2) CIVIL FORFEITURE.—

(A) FORFEITURE.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—Any property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, used or intended to be used, in any manner, to commit or facilitate a violation or attempted violation described in paragraph (1) shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States.

(ii) PROCEEDS.—Any property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, constituting or traceable to the gross proceeds taken, obtained, or retained, in connection with or as a result of a violation or attempted violation described in paragraph (1) shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States.

(B) PROCEDURE.—Seizures and forfeitures under this subsection shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code, relating to civil forfeitures, except that such duties as are imposed on the Secretary of Treasury under the customs laws described in section 981(d) of title 18, United States Code, shall be performed by such officers, agents, and other persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General.

(3) CRIMINAL FORFEITURE.—

(A) FORFEITURE.—Any person who is convicted under paragraph (1) shall, in addition to any other penalty, forfeit to the United States—

(i) any property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, used or intended to be used, in any manner, to commit or facilitate the violation or attempted violation of paragraph (1); and

(ii) any property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, constituting or traceable to the gross proceeds taken, obtained, or retained, in connection with or as a result of the violation.

(B) PROCEDURE.—The criminal forfeiture of property under this paragraph, including any seizure and disposition of the property, and any related judicial proceeding, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsections (a) and (d) of that section.

Well, we’ll just take 'em to court! No you won’t.

(b) Administrative and judicial review.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, actions taken by the President and the Secretary, and the findings of the President and the Secretary, under this Act shall not be subject to administrative review or judicial review in any Federal court, except as otherwise provided in this section. Actions taken by the Secretary under this Act shall not be subject to sections 551, 553 through 559, and 701 through 707 of title 5, United States Code.

Well, we’ll just have to keep a close watch on what they’re up to. Errrrm…no you can’t.

(f) No right of access.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—No provision of this Act shall be construed to create a right to obtain access to information in the possession of the Federal Government that was considered in making a determination under this Act that a transaction is a covered transaction or interest or to prohibit, mitigate, or take action against a covered transaction or interest, including any classified national security information or sensitive but unclassified information.

(2) INAPPLICABILITY OF FOIA.—Any information submitted to the Federal Government by a party to a covered transaction in accordance with this Act, as well as any information the Federal Government may create relating to review of the covered transaction, is exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the “Freedom of Information Act”).

Some people are saying the civil and criminal penalties under this act might be interpreted to apply to a U.S. citizen who uses a virtual private network (VPN) to access TikTok when it is banned from access from U.S. Internet addresses, with penalties potentially of 20 years in the slammer and US$ 250,000. That’s a damned expensive cat video!

Read the whole bill and see what you think of it. Is the U.S. about to erect a Great Firewall that will make China’s look like a sieve? Is this the opportunity to RESTRICT the Internet and, as I wrote in “The Digital Imprimatur” in 2003, “put the Internet genie back in the bottle.”

8 Likes

In an opinion column published today in the Louisville, Kentucky Courier Journal, Rand Paul asks “Do Congressional Republicans really want to emulate China by banning TikTok?

Congressional Republicans have come up with a national strategy to permanently lose elections for a generation: Ban a social media app called TikTok that 94 million, primarily young Americans, use.

This GOP strategy comes while polls indicate that 71% of young women and 53% of young men voted for a Democrat candidate for Congress. Now admittedly, many Democrats have joined Republicans in calling for this ban but like most such issues, the blame will stick to Republicans more.

The First Amendment isn’t really necessary to protect speech that everybody accepts. The First Amendment is precisely there to protect speech that might be unpopular or might be controversial. U.S. courts struck down the Trump Administration’s ban and, I believe, will strike down any Congressional ban.

I hope saner minds will reflect on which is more dangerous: videos of teenagers dancing or the precedent of the US government banning speech. For me, it’s an easy answer, I will defend the Bill of Rights against all comers, even, if need be, from members of my own party.

5 Likes

Here is the Electronic Frontier Foundation on “Government Hasn’t Justified a TikTok Ban”, discussing the RESTRICT Act and the more limited “DATA Act (H.R. 1153)” (“Deterring America’s Technological Adversaries Act”) passed out of the house of representatives Foreign Affairs committee.

If the government banned TikTok, it would undermine the free speech and association of millions of users. It would also intrude on TikTok’s interest in disseminating its users’ videos—just as bookstores have a right to sell books written by others, and newspapers have a right to publish someone else’s opinion.

1 Like

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) doesn’t like the RESTRICT Act, “ACLU Raises Concerns About Senate Bill Aimed at Banning TikTok”. The ACLU had previously opposed the DATA bill in the house of representatives, “ACLU Condemns House Foreign Affairs Committee Vote on TikTok Ban Bill”.

“Unfortunately, the Senate bill is a roundabout route to the same bad place reached more directly by the House bill,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The Senate bill would ultimately allow the Commerce Secretary to ban entire communications platforms, which would have profound implications for our constitutional right to free speech. If the Secretary uses this newfound power to ban TikTok or other communications platforms without evidence of overwhelming, imminent harm, it would violate our right to freedom of expression.”

The bill, known as the RESTRICT Act, would significantly expand the Executive Branch’s power to control what apps and technologies Americans can access, while limiting Americans’ ability to challenge those actions in court. It would also impose civil and criminal penalties for violating bans imposed pursuant to the legislation, which could be used against people attempting to evade a TikTok ban.

(Emphasis in the original)

3 Likes

ChatGPT apparently thinks the RESTRICT Act is a parody of the PATRIOT Act.

5 Likes

Let’s see - RESTRICT Act + CBDC + Amendment II stealth repeal by a thousand cuts + “Woke” military + unlimited illegal aliens + zero enforcement of voting laws + AI-dictated “Official Truth” = a nation of timid slaves. A “republic”, “consent of the governed”? Surely you jest. The very fact that these things are already accomplished or being seriously proposed, is a testimony to the effectiveness of the Marxist long march through the institutions - especially “educational” institutions. It is truly hopeless.

6 Likes

So the recent hearing was a show hearing as usual. Like every hearing I have ever watched there was not even the intent from either party to learn from the testimony. Those with the answers don’t need input, information or for goodness sake’s disagreement.

4 Likes

What do you think of the current bill that passed the House?

Is this legislation necessary?

I thought the President or Congress already had the authority to ban or regulate TikTok or any foreign company under the guise of national security?