Wikipedia posts, so start there. It opens with a link to the bill text Crabgrass readers can follow. Quoting:
The RESTRICT Act (S. 686) is proposed legislation that was first introduced in the United States Senate on March 7, 2023.
Introduced by Senator Mark Warner, the Act proposes that the Secretary of Commerce be given the power to review business transactions involving certain information and communications technologies products or services when they are connected to a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and pose an "undue and unacceptable risk" to the national security of the United States or its citizens.
Overview
The RESTRICT Act is described as "a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats to the security and safety of Americans."[1][2] It grants the Secretary of Commerce the authority to review transactions by certain foreign entities who offer "information and communications technologies products or services" (ICTS), in order to identify, investigate, and mitigate "undue and unacceptable" risks to the national security of the United States or its citizens. This includes but is not limited to:[3]
- Impact to the country's critical infrastructure and digital economy,
- "Sabotage or subversion" of ICTS in the United States
- Interference and manipulation of federal elections
- Undermining the democratic process to "steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States".
The Act applies to ICTS entities that are held in whole or in part by, or otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of a country or government that is designated under the Act as a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and has more than one million active users or units sold in the United States.[1][2] The initial text of the Act classifies China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Cuba, Iran, Russia, and the Nicolás Maduro regime of Venezuela as foreign adversaries.[3]
It would be unlawful for any person to violate any order or mitigation measure issued under the RESTRICT Act, with civil penalties of up to $250,000 or twice the value of the transaction that served as the basis of the order, whichever is greater, and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and up to 20 years imprisonment.[4][3]
Reception
While it was not mentioned by name by its sponsors, the RESTRICT Act has been characterized as a means to potentially restrict or prohibit the Chinese-owned video sharing service TikTok from conducting business in the United States.[1][2][5][4]
The bill has faced bipartisan criticism for having a lack of judicial oversight and transparency in its enforcement mechanisms,[6] and for containing wording broad and vague enough to potentially cover end-users (such as, for example, potentially criminalizing use of a VPN service or sideloading to access services blocked from doing business in the United States under the Act, due to the text stating that no person may "cause or aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, permit, or approve the doing of any act" that violates orders issued under the Act).[5][4] Many individuals have negatively compared the bill to the Patriot Act.[6][7]
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed their opposition, arguing that the blocking of entire services violates the First Amendment rights of citizens.[6][7] Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) believed in regard to the bill's implied target that the federal government should instead prioritize internet privacy legislation that also impacts U.S.-based companies.[6]
Republican U.S. Senators J. D. Vance, Josh Hawley, and Rand Paul have all expressed their opposition, with Paul considering it contradictory for Republicans to advocate "censor[ing] social media apps that they worry are influenced by the Chinese" while at the same time being opposed to censorship.[6] Vance and Hawley both noted that while they support a ban on TikTok, they felt the RESTRICT Act possessed too many negative implications.[6][7] Several Democratic officeholders, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also criticized the legislation, with Ocasio-Cortez believing that it was being rushed, and citing that Congress had never received any classified national security briefings related to TikTok.[6] Libertarian groups including the Mises Caucus and Reason Foundation condemned the bill, with the former arguing that it "gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad."[6][7]
Warner's office stated that the bill was intended to target corporate entities "engaged in 'sabotage or subversion' of communications technology in the U.S." (such as causing harm to "critical infrastructure" or tampering with federal elections), and not target end-users necessarily, despite such wording not having been used in the bill itself, and has not commented on complaints about possible uses beyond the bill's stated intent.[5][4][6]
Israeli interference in our elections is not included, and they interfere far, far more than any other nation, so that is a non-starter.
AOC, the ACLU, EFF and Josh Hawley all are critical. That is some spectrum.
Also, look at this thought from within the Wikipedia item:
While it was not mentioned by name by its sponsors, the RESTRICT Act has been characterized as a means to potentially restrict or prohibit the Chinese-owned video sharing service TikTok from conducting business in the United States.[1][2][5][4]
Well, if there is no hidden agenda to worry over, why not draft a bill saying, Tik Tok will be banned; dressed up a little but simply that, and be done?
Okay. There must be a hidden agenda, or as many critics think, overreach.
Looking at cosponsorship of the bill is a bit of a hoot. At least as presently aligned.
The bill gives the Commerce Secretary far reaching new censorship powers, and yet neither the Chair nor Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee - Maria Cantwell and Ted Cruz respectively - have signed on as sponsors.
Strange indeed.
Next what's with White House opinion, one way or another, on what's characterized as primarily intended as a proposed Tik Tok ban bill? What does Biden say? Well, go to whitehouse.gov and search, Biden says nothing, Jake Sullivan likes it and wants prompt passage. So ---- Huh? The bill gives the Secretary of Commerce powers, and neither Commerce nor Biden go on record?
Jake Sullivan? Have a look.
 |
| click image to enlarge and read |
The full explanatory Sullivan statement, in its entirety:
We applaud the bipartisan group of Senators, led by Senators Warner and Thune, who today introduced the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act. This legislation would empower the United States government to prevent certain foreign governments from exploiting technology services operating in the United States in a way that poses risks to Americans’ sensitive data and our national security.
The information and communications technology products and services supply chain is integral to the lives of Americans and the functioning of U.S. businesses. This bill presents a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats to the security and safety of Americans. This legislation would provide the U.S. government with new mechanisms to mitigate the national security risks posed by high-risk technology businesses operating in the United States. Critically, it would strengthen our ability to address discrete risks posed by individual transactions, and systemic risks posed by certain classes of transactions involving countries of concern in sensitive technology sectors. This will help us address the threats we face today, and also prevent such risks from arising in the future.
We look forward to continue working with both Democrats and Republicans on this bill, and urge Congress to act quickly to send it to the President’s desk.
He likes it.
Either the search function on the site is crap, or somebody is bullshitting us, with all that unrelated stuff showing up via the site's search function, and only Jake saying "love it."
Not that whitehouse.gov is being used by the Biden administration to inform us of much anyway. (Why depart from precedent?)
But, Jake Sullivan. With vague "national security" doublespeak. Only. Short, sweet, do it.
Noteworthy, a little over two year ago, this June 9, 2021, Executive Order required an investigation of Tik Tok and We Chat, etc., in more general terms of threat to private sector data of firms and individuals, to wit:
Not later than 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other agencies as the Secretary of Commerce deems appropriate, shall provide a report to the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor with recommendations to protect against harm from the unrestricted sale of, transfer of, or access to United States persons’ sensitive data, including personally identifiable information, personal health information, and genetic information, and harm from access to large data repositories by persons owned or controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of, a foreign adversary. Not later than 60 days after the date of this order, the Director of National Intelligence shall provide threat assessments, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide vulnerability assessments, to the Secretary of Commerce to support development of the report required by this subsection.
No security briefing to Congress. With Biden ordering that inquiry, way back then, it is equally if not more noteworthy, as Salon reports, and AOC emphasized that Congress has NOT yet been briefed about anything related to the RESTRICT Act bill, nothing, zippo, (with Director Homeland Security and NSC boss Jake Sullivan being the persons to direct the staff report to Biden, on that two-year-old time frame):
Ocasio-Cortez actually joined the platform in response to the recent TikTok hearings, her first video included her thoughts on the bill's lack of congressional oversight.
"Do I believe TikTok should be banned? No," she said.
"The government can't impose this type of total ban unless it's necessary to prevent extremely serious immediate harm to national security."
Describing the legislation as "putting the cart before the horse," Ocasio-Cortez called out the rushed nature of the bill after Congress' recent marathon committee hearing where members grilled TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew.
"Usually, when the United States is proposing a very major move that has something to do with significant risk to national security, one of the first things that happens is that Congress receives a classified briefing," Ocasio-Cortez said in her video.
"And I can tell you that Congress has not received a classified briefing around the allegations of national security risks regarding TikTok."
Rep. Jamaal Bowman, a New York Democrat whose district adjoins Ocasio-Cortez's, stood outside the Capitol to lead a protest against a TikTok ban during the questioning of Chew. Surrounded by supporters who noted that Facebook and other platforms collect just as much data as TikTok, Bowman argued that TikTok has become a platform for small business and commerce — a crucial tool for a generation of gig workers and side-hustlers.
Bowman, who supports data privacy legislation that focuses on consumer protection, has become the voice of TikTokers on the Hill and now leads the push against a full ban on the app. He says he's willing to listen to national security concerns, but so far has heard "a lot of fear-mongering and speculation and not as much actual evidence."
While Republican-led inquiries into TikTok and other social media platforms have been increasingly aggressive, not all members of the GOP are on board. That much became clear on Thursday when a vote on the measure was blocked in the Senate amid an intra-party fray.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., for instance, has called out the Restrict Act for failing to actually ban TikTok. Hawley has a competing bill that he claims would do that.
All of this has a miasma to it. As if Tik Tok is waved around as somebody's bad excuse for imposing constraints on citizen freedom, potentially if not directly, via turgid and lengthy language that has a frighteningly vague but broad reach. Why that much? What benefit is there, to whom? Why do it, anyway? What problem is there, really, to Tik Tok speech? Censorship always must be questioned.
............................
On YouTube Reclaim The Net dislikes it. Tucker Carlson dislikes it. A lesser known critic simply reads from the bill to make a point.
As to posted text, ACLU here, EFF, here, here and here. Ars Technica.
websearch = restrict-act critical online content
Trying that websearch with "favorable" substituted for "critical" seems to not return different links.
Who, besides Jake Sullivan and bill sponsors like it? You tell me. It seems the public, generically, smells a big-time anti-freedom rat. Calling it Patriot Act 2 is not meant to be complementary.
The most favorable coverage Crabgrass found online by mainstream outlets, Politico. And that covered what bill sponsors had to say, and did not get into bill text at all. Again, as noted, the opening Wikipedia link itself links over to the bill text. As long and as Draconian as it reaches, it does not get into naming Tik Tok, nor does it to do anything to constrain the extensive Israeli mucking around we see in U.S. elections.
UPDATE: commerce.gov did release a March 7, 2023, tout item favoring RESTRICT Act passage. It differed little from the Jake Sullivan item on the White House site. Clearly the Biden administration wants it passed, with little analysis and even without Biden himself directly touting it.
Presuming the Republican controlled House might pass something, Senate passage of the RESTRICT Act would take things to a conference committee, so the nation might see some form of legislation passed into law. Hopefully final language, if any, might be more constrained than "Patriot Act 2" fears contemplate. Yet with what is now in the Senate, worded as it is, "Patriot Act 2" fears are well grounded.