Foreign adversaries can be 'any foreign government or regime' that the secretary deems a national security threat. The commerce secretary would be authorized to take steps to address risks posed by 'any covered transaction by any person,' right? So what counts as a covered transaction? The bill states that this means 'a transaction in which an entity described in subparagraph (B) has any interest.' Entities described in subparagraph B are a 'foreign adversary an entity subject to the jurisdiction of, or organized under the laws of, a foreign adversary and an entity owned, directed, or controlled by' either of these. The language describing who the RESTRICT ACT applies to is confusing at best. These include federal elections, 'information and communications technology products and services,' and 'critical infrastructure or digital economy,' as well as 'coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or 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.' secretary of commerce the broad power to 'identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate … any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property' that the secretary determines to pose 'an undue or unacceptable risk' in several different areas. Warner's ' Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act,' or the RESTRICT Act, doesn't specifically mention TikTok or ByteDance.

The latest legislation is more extensive-and even more invasive. Hawley's bill would direct the president to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to specifically 'block and prohibit all transactions' and to 'prevent commercial operation of' TikTok parent company ByteDance in the U.S. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) introduced one TikTok ban bill back in January. citizens, but include us it does, as both Republicans and Democrats get more and more gung-ho about banning the popular video platform TikTok. geoblocking) and other forms of internet censorship.įor this reason, VPNs are popular in countries that exercise authoritarian control over what their citizens can access online. It's sad that this contingent could soon include U.S.

It's a great way to get around location-based firewalls (a.k.a. address and encrypt your internet connection. Using a VPN with your computer, phone, or another internet-enabled device can do things like mask your I.P. VPN stands for virtual private network, and there are several different kinds, but their general aim is the same: keeping your digital activities and location private. And the act is still insanely far-reaching and could have a huge range of deleterious effects, even if it doesn't criminalize people using a VPN to access TikTok. Warner's office has said his bill wouldn't do this… but its broad language leaves room for doubt. the TikTok ban bill-criminalize the use of VPNs? That's the rumor floating around about the legislation, which was introduced in the Senate by Sen.

Sunvox parameter lock