616
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
616 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
59196 readers
2383 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
Legally it is a very good argument. A law targeting a single company in name or effect is literally unconstitutional. It's called a "Bill of Attainder".
The counter argument is indicting Facebook because they never stopped selling information directly to the CCP.
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.