609
US can’t ban TikTok for security reasons while ignoring Temu, other apps, TikTok argues
(arstechnica.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
609 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
58133 readers
4730 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A US Citizen might be protected by Article 1 Section 9, but courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder:
And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3 unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down.
Also, the tiktok ban was passed alongside a bill outlawing sale of data to China, Iran, Russia, etc. So if FB is still selling to China it is also illegal.
The bill doesn't target the CCP, it targets a US subsidiary of a Singapore-based multinational.
A rule that applies exclusively to the US subsidiary of TikTok.
It would be akin to passing a law that says @finitebanjo must have all of his possessions seized in the next nine months, because he took money from the Canadian government. Canada isn't the target of the legislation and the scope of the legislation isn't universal - it's only assigning a punishment to a single domestic resident - and entirely on the grounds that the current chief executive doesn't like Justin Trudeau.
It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo's friend Jose must no longer act as a proxy between Finite Banjo and Jose's friend Juan, as Finite Banjo is not constitutionally protected but Jose is, or Jose must cut all contact with Juan because Finite Banjo is harming Juan.
The fact that you think you can remove all context in an attempt to win an argument is just evidence of your inability to comprehend complexity.
Except, again, the business being penalized is the American subsidiary.
The context is that the commercial assets and employees being threatened by the US government are all within US territory.
You mean the CCP is not an "individual or group"?
#3. Number 3. The third part. THREE. Learn to read. All three are required conditions.
The parent company don't have judicial protections. They're based in China and are state owned and operated. The US-Based subsidiary isn't being punished, they're explicitly allowed to operate if the parent company divests, but are choosing to shut down instead.
But the subsidiary does.
And the subsidiary has explicit permission to continue operating if the parent company divests.
But explicit prohibition on continued operation if they don't. ByteDance is not affected outside of the US. Only US employees are being threatened.
Lmao, that's quite the stretch. The way I see it, US employees AND citizens would be protected from foreign spyware.
if the XI's China could stop trying to interfere with the world beyond its border they could also probably stop themselves from being targeted by legislature aimed at protecting citizens of countries outside China.
ByteDance employees chose to work for a Chinese PsyOp parent company who refuses to sell ByteDance. If anything, those employees are suffering because the CCP were given too many rights and protections for owning a business in the USA.
So you're agreeing this is a Bill of Attainder limited to a single group of American citizens?
Thanks.
The single group of American Citizens are facing no repercussions from the US Government. They're being thrown under the bus by the Chinese.