Technology

59653 readers

2807 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

558

Senate passes TikTok ban bill, sending it to Biden, who has already committed to signing it (www.theverge.com)

submitted 7 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

245 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 175 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (69 children)

I posted this in the other thread, but..

Now congress can tell any company to get fucked and sell to the highest bidder (edit: via bills crafted to target them specifically)? So much for free market republicans.

China will just find another company to buy our data from, because as it turns out, the problem isn't just TikTok, it's the fact the it's legal for companies (foreign and domestic) to sell and exchange our data in the first place. TikTok will still collect the same data, and instead of it going straight to China, it'll go to a rich white fuck first and they'll be the ones to sell it to China instead.

And if the problem is the fact that it's addictive, well, we have plenty of our own home grown addictions for people to sink their time into. You don't see congress telling those companies to get sold to a new owner.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 40 points 7 months ago (25 children)

Incorrect, the Bill is broad but it's not any company for any reason.

The "PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024" has this to say:

(a) Prohibition.—It shall be unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, provide access to, or otherwise make available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to—

(1) any foreign adversary country; or

(2) any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.

(b) Enforcement By Federal Trade Commission.—

(1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.—A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or a deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).

(2) POWERS OF COMMISSION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section.

(B) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.—Any person who violates this section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

(3) AUTHORITY PRESERVED.—Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.

and then like a bunch of pages of hyper-specific definitions for the above terms.

[+] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today -16 points 7 months ago (7 children)

Ah, so congress can just write hyper specific definitions that only apply to one company (as long as they don't directly name said company). Got it, seems like great precedent to me.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 18 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I feel like you might've completely misunderstood what I meant, they defined words like Photography and what a Data Broker is hyper-specifically, like a dictionary might. If they wanted to they could have named the company directly. They're literally the highest power in the US Federal government, they have full authority. They wanted to remove a gap in our system of laws to prevent anything similar from ever occurring in the future. I think technically Kaspersky and a few other companies could qualify with these terms.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I actually don't think they can name the company directly. If I remember right that's unconstitutional.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 7 months ago

I cannot imagine why that would be unconstitutional, please explain it to me.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Not American, but that doesn't sound right... whose rights are being violated in that case? A multinational corporation?

I can see why you shouldn't name an actual person, though.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Our Corporations have the same rights we do with one exception. If my rights and my employer's rights come into conflict, say on religious freedom, I'm forced to accept the corporation's right to force me into religious practice. So they have first class and we have second class.

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I didn't completely misunderstand, I just used the term hyper specific (rather confusingly, I admit, since you used it too) to refer to the wording of the bill. I would be surprised to see this used for other companies - the recent happenings with Kaspersky are not related to this bill.

to prevent anything similar from ever occurring

What are you referring to here? What occurred? Do you mean the creation of another foreign TikTok?

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (21 replies)

load more comments (64 replies)