Serendipitously, or not – depending on who you talk to, I was previously scheduled to be in DC at the moment of inflection for the passage of HR7521, the proverbial “TikToK Ban Law.” Allow me to encapsulate the issues and present the point of those who say there is nothing to worry about.
First, the context that should matter (it doesn’t because the USIC are in charge here) is that every element that preceded the passage of the Patriot Act is being duplicated in the passage of the TikTok ban. Which is to say everyone is deferring to this ridiculous need to support USA National Security.
We The People have been burned by this approach before, yet so many refuse to see the similarity.
Second, the essential shield for those who support the bill [READ HR7521] comes down to the term “Foreign Adversary” which is defined in the bill as Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. As they make the case, TikTok ban advocates cite the content or platform of issue must originate from, and/or be controlled by, a foreign adversary…. so quit worrying.
However, the legislative language cites Foreign Adversary Controlled Application (FACA), which applies to content providers, apps, websites, social media and hosting platforms. This is where things get sketchy, because “under the direction of” is language that is included in the legislation, and the determinations of “at the direction of” are made by the Attorney General.
If the content, platform, website, or social media app generates content that is considered a national security threat, and providing information therein that is deemed to be under the control of a “foreign adversary,” it is the content within, not necessarily the platform ownership itself, that transfers compliance inquiry to the U.S government (DOJ Attorney General) for definitions.
If, for example, a U.S. company (think Twitter or CTH) is deemed to be providing information that is controlled by Russia, or actors who participate in the platform content on behalf of Russia (expand your FARA thinking here), then the U.S. or non-Foreign Adversary designation, may result in review subject to the terms of service as created and defined by the DOJ. In this example the “Foreign Adversary” designation is simply a nose under the tent.
The DOJ through this act, essentially becomes the overarching determination of terms of service (TOS) that can supersede the TOS of the platform or website. Want to fight the definition or determination… prepare to spend big money fighting a battle exclusively in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, as that’s the only place you can appeal the determination of the govt.
As multiple people on the Fox News conservative side of the equation, and a host of seemingly oddly trusting voices who have previously presented themselves in alignment with common principles of freedom, all seem to accept the government would never weaponize this authority. THAT, I find frustratingly odd.
All of the totalitarians (bad people) support this bill, and almost all of the popular conservative voices seemingly agree with them. Color me frustrated.
I do not wish this post to be a bookmark for the time when “Itoldyaso’s” hold weight; but at this point it seems like this is the only value in discussion. Too many people on both sides of the political continuum are in favor of HR7521 to seemingly stop it. Now it’s up to the Senate, who will find a way to make money from it and then support it.
Despite my pointing out that Joe Biden previously indicated how he would define these terms; [A conspiracy minded reviewer of the HR 7521 language should look at EXECUTIVE ORDER 14034] my reference point was met with crossed-eyes and the customary look as if a cow just licked them on the face.
(c) The term “country of concern” means any foreign government that, as determined by the Attorney General pursuant to section 2(c)(iii) or 2(f) of this order, has engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons, and poses a significant risk of exploiting bulk sensitive personal data or United States Government-related data to the detriment of the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons, as specified in regulations issued by the Attorney General pursuant to section 2 of this order.
(Section 7 definitions, item (C) – LINK Feb, ’24)
Look, I’m not nuts… and I understand how these silos of contained information work. That citation above, was created before HR-7521 was in the public psyche. What is cited above is part of a Biden intent to “Protect Americans’ Sensitive Data from Foreign Adversaries,” and it was updated about six weeks ago.
It is almost “as if” that executive order was updated purposefully to be used in combination with HR7521. I think it was. However, DC-minded people think I am crazy for using that citation as part of the argument about how the DOJ will define the terms in the TikTok law.
From my perspective, the two issues [HR7521 and XO 14043] are directly related. They both apply to the exact same issue. I believe that recent executive order was created by people behind the Biden administration who were proactively positioning themselves in advance of the new legal authority that was going to be provided by congress in the TikTok ban. But everyone tells me I’m crazy and asks, “how the F**K did you remember that?”
♦ If you look at HR7521 from the position of intent to control online information (not data collection), and if you take a more cynical view of how HR7521 is purposefully vague, and if you overlay how XO-14043 lays out the definitions that Biden will use, then you might find yourself more in agreement with my concerns.
♦ If you do not look at it that way, then yes – CTH is a crazy conspiracy website with a track record of predicting outcomes from a crazy conspiratorial point of view. Exactly the type of website that must be under the influence of a foreign adversary, an independent way of looking at the constructs of government that end up manifesting later in our reality.
I digress.
On the intent of the TikTok ban law, everyone pretends to forget the Patriot Act intent; I don’t.
For a tldr summary; watch the video in this TWEET
What Does the TikTok Bill ACTUALLY Say? pic.twitter.com/SfpBChwdNb
— DV (@DV2O24) March 14, 2024
