Conservatives sour on bipartisan TikTok ban, cite concerns about government overreach

Conservative backlash against the bipartisan RESTRICT law is growing as they express concerns about the bill’s scope as they could become supporters of the anti-TikTok bill. Politico reported on Friday.

“I really don’t want Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, or Jake Sullivan to seize my Ring camera, Amazon Alexa device, or iPhone. [RESTRICT Act]they have that capability,” said Head of Corporate Governance at Strive Asset Management Justin Danhoff told Fox News Channel host Rachel Campos-Duffy on Saturday morning.

“There’s a reason National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, a ‘swamp creature,’ supports and supports the Restrictive Act,” he added.

The RESTRICT Act is an abbreviation for “Information and Communication Technology Act on Limiting the Occurrence of Dangerous Security Threats”.

of bipartisan The RESTRICT Act, introduced earlier this month, was sponsored by Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.). Senate co-hosts include 12 Democrats, 13 Republicans and 1 independent.

The law is commonly described as a TikTok ban aimed at stopping China from collecting data on Americans. However, the bill reportedly contains no specific mention of China-owned TikTok or TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance.

The RESTRICT Act contains language that some legislators see as government overkill.kentucky republican Senator Rand PaulFor example, one of my toughest critics.

“There are two main reasons we don’t want to do this,” Senator Paul said on the Senate floor on Wednesday.

Paul expressed concern that the bill’s vague language was an invitation to unintentional encroachment on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of Americans.

If passed, it will now be granted to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Gina Raimond, overwhelming power. Appointed cabinet officials are empowered to “identify, deter, hinder, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate … risks arising from covered transactions by any person or in relation to any property. ”. reason report.

Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown also highlighted concerns that the bill could criminalize virtual private networks. Senator Warner’s office denies it intends to do so.

VPNs is designed to keep the digital activities of Internet users private. For example, a VPN can mask a user’s girlfriend’s IP address or encrypt a user’s internet connection. Brown argues that the language used in the RESTRICT Act is so vague that he may in fact prohibit VPN use.

“The federal government wants to monitor everything you do on the internet. I mean everything: transactions, searches, clicks, scrolls, everything,” said the Fox News Channel host. One Jesse Watters said Wednesday in an interview with a Republican congressman from South Carolina. Senator Lindsay Graham.

“This is garbage…this is a crazy town,” Watters added.

Graham, who seems confused about the bill Watters is referring to, said at first, “I don’t think I support the Restriction Act.” Graham was one of its co-sponsors.

Meanwhile, other bills circulating in the House have more “teeth” than the Restriction Act and are aimed at thwarting TikTok in a more serious way. As Politico reported, they include the DATA Act and the ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act.

Watch Fox News Channel host Jesse Watters interview Senator Lindsay Graham, RS.C., on the impact of the Restrictions Act below.

Love Blaze News? Bypass censorship and sign up for our newsletter to have articles like this sent straight to your inbox. Sign up here! Sign up here!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *