Also TikTok hasn't violated US laws, then where is the case for banning them?
Banning something that is perfectly legal seems absurd to do in our legal system.
Also US government hasn't made a specific claim of any imminent security threat posed by TikTok.
From a data security point of view the expert opinion seems to be that there isn't a clear cut case for singling out and banning tiktok.
The ban is therefore undoubtedly a political move, and that is problematic. Things should not be banned on political whims by using executive or administrative measures.
Even legislative has limits, even if Congress passes a legislation banning TikTok, that legislation is likely to be struck down by the court is my guess.
Ultimately banning TikTok is not a tenable democratic solution to whatever real or perceived problems it is causing.
Some of the commenters here seems to want the democratic US government to suddenly grow authoritarian powers.
Either TikTok has right to operate in US or it does not. Is there any letter or terms or conditions of the US law that is prohibiting TikTok from operating? I don't think so.
Also it has been allowed to operate for years till now, What sudden change of circumstance has occurred that banning it is imperative now? The government has not made any explanation.
Ideal solution in this case would be to define a data security and privacy legislation through Congress applicable to all social networking apps/services and clarify the terms under which they can operate. Then if TikTok is complying with them they can operate and if they are in violation they face necessary consequences.
Instead what is happening is arbitrary misuse of executive/administrative powers to promulgate a ban without due process, and based merely on fear and speculation.
It's not nearly as back and white as you would appear to like it to be. I do not see any laws being broken or US Citizen rights being trodden on with this ban. They're not even setting a new precedent with this ban. It is completely within the executive branches power to ban a foreign corporation for national security reason, reasons that may not be completely clear to the public.
Though I think the reason is very clear, at least their official one. If you are a China based company the CCP by law has access to your data and they have abused access to sensitive and private data time and time again. Just because nothing has happened yet doesn't mean we shouldn't be proactive against China.
And I wish Congress would do something about it. The Chinese government deserves so much more then a TikTok ban and Congress could give the ban a more stable foundation then a executive order from a controversial administration.
As a European I can‘t resist but to say that I wish that we would start banning all of the American internet cooperations that are required by law to share their data with the US government which has time and time again shown that they are willing to abuse access. Remember the time they wanted to wiretap Angela Merkel? Good times!
It‘s really astonishing to what extent people are willing to be hypocrites not only but especially in the US... American exceptionalism, what a f*cking joke... Might explain how the Republican party and American establishment could create such a mess of the country. It would be funny if it wasn‘t so damn sad and dangerous for all the other countries and people. /rant
>They're not even setting a new precedent with this ban.
They are though. The powers of executive order used for the ban are specifically limited to prevent any banning or stopping the information flow of any forms of media and communication.
i.e. The U.S. President can't use executive orders to circumvent the first amendment.
I'm absolutely not an expert, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect the CCP/Tiktok has no constitutional rights in the US and the President can take any action against a government controlled foreign business if there's even a hint of a national security risk. Not saying it's right it wrong, only that it's within their power.
I think the information age has really pushed the limits of what we find acceptable to leave to independent choice in democratic societies. Freedoms in democracy are being abused left-and-right to highlight specific weaknesses fundamental a democracy's healthy function.
When it comes to TikTok, frankly I'm not sure if a foreign business under the thumb of the CCP is more or less a threat than businesses operating in our own country abusing the same freedoms for personal gain. You would assume those abusing the system located in the US had a vested interest in stability of the country for continuation of their lofty positions in society, but given broad anti-consumer and labor practices, both foreign and domestic are gutting the foundations of the social contract that make citizens want to believe in and support a democracy.
I think the biggest blow we've had in this country is widespread undermining and exploitation of its citizens for personal gain, which have left many unable or in some cases, unwilling, to support the continuation of the system being used against them.
> frankly I'm not sure if a foreign business under the thumb of the CCP is more or less a threat than businesses operating in our own country abusing the same freedoms for personal gain.
The difference is that a foreign business under the thumb of the CCP is essentially a CCP propagandist, capable of spreading pro-CCP, anti-US propaganda. US business's abusing US citizens are doing so purely for profit. This is bad and needs to be stopped, but IMO is the lesser of immediate concerns.
Now of course the US government can (and indeed has) abused its own citizens for political manipulation too, via these tools. But the key difference is that the US government is (at least, in theory, and I agree more needs to be done here...) accountable to US citizens. The CCP is not. The CCP isn't even accountable to its own citizens, both in theory and in practice, which is exactly why many are against the CCP's modus operandi in the first place.
> I think the information age has really pushed the limits of what we find acceptable to leave to independent choice in democratic societies. Freedoms in democracy are being abused left-and-right to highlight specific weaknesses fundamental a democracy's healthy function.
This is precisely what the US's adversaries want; they want democracy to fail, because its failure strengthens their legitimacy as "the correct way" to govern, to any would-be naysayers.
Why should it? Trading with other nations has never worked like that. No one has a right to a specific social media service, especially a foreign owned one at that.
Let's just think practically about what could happen. Suppose the chief executive has a grudge against an individual person. He or she bans them from owning anything produced overseas. Legal or not, I think we can agree that shouldn't be possible.
You violate US law by spying on citizens, you get banned. As a foreign company you don't get a right to a trial.
The US Government does not have a relationship with your users - you do. If you get banned, your users have a right to sue you to recoup their costs. The US Government does not owe your users anything.
If you get banned from the supermarket for not wearing a mask, the supermarket doesn't owe anything to whoever you were making dinner for.
> Also TikTok hasn't violated US laws, then where is the case for banning them? Banning something that is perfectly legal seems absurd to do in our legal system.
Cuban cigars haven't broken any laws. Iranian ceramics haven't broken any laws.
The power to sanction / embargo is a very well established power of the government, and it doesn't require a trial. China has long been in violation of the Trafficking in Persons report[1] and, more recently, the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act[2]. Violation of the TIP report especially gives a very strong precedent for trade sanctions.
TikTok has been described as a national security threat multiple times by multiple political leaders. You may disagree with that designation, but the resulting ban itself is strongly supported by law and precedent.
Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security?
[a] And before the “ByteDance isn’t American, so the Constitution doesn’t apply” argument, they actually do employ US citizens in a US office. There’s also the fact that the Constitution doesn’t differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, but that seems to be ignored nowadays.
The Bill of Attainder is something completely different. a _Bill_ of Attainder is an illegal piece of legislation that targets a specific individual. For example, a law that says "It's illegal to be Bill Bryson" is an Bill of attainder, and is forbidden by the constitution.
That does not apply on a number of levels.
1) this ban is an act of the executive, not the legislature. It is not a bill.
2) this ban does not declare tik tok illegal (It's not clear what it even means for a product to be against the law).
3) The department of Commerce has a long history of... regulating commerce. It's what it does. If this kind of trade regulation was indeed unconstitutional, someone would have noticed by now.
The executive powers do not come from nothing; the legislature has delegated certain of its powers to the executive branch. In order to be banned from being imported, in the form of downloads, TikTok would have to be a threat to national security (the government said how yet, but they don't have to until trial) or involved in terrorism (the government has not argued this). They have to make a reasonable case as to how this is not simply banning speech they do not like.
It's also not clear whether a download is actually an importation, or whether the Department of Commerce has any bearing on a US company (Google) manufacturing new copies of a product based on a foreign design. (The Huawei case is far from decided!)
As for your third point: Someone did notice, and filed a lawsuit in federal court! This is an article about the ongoings about that case.
> Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security?
> A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial.
1) The action was not taken by the legislature,
2) I do not believe it declares TikTok to be "guilty" of any crime,
3) I'm sure the district court judge knows what a bill of attainder is, would have said so if this was one.
> The ban is therefore undoubtedly a political move, and that is problematic.
Another possibility is that objective physical reality contains some information (some of which is Top Secret) that does not exist in your internal mental model of reality. An exact, always up to date copy would require something akin to omniscience.
It's extremely ironic that the Trump administration (& their supporters) justify their control over US people and companies, preventing them engaging in normal everyday activities with Chinese partners, by saying "[X] is controllable by the CCP". Even whilst there is no evidence of the latter actually happening.
This is not even "pot meet kettle", this is the pot calling a fridge a kettle.
Further the CCP has already done the same to Western companies across the board. Let's not forget not only the atrocities committed against Uigher people, but the censorship of those atrocities.
Also US government hasn't made a specific claim of any imminent security threat posed by TikTok.
From a data security point of view the expert opinion seems to be that there isn't a clear cut case for singling out and banning tiktok.
The ban is therefore undoubtedly a political move, and that is problematic. Things should not be banned on political whims by using executive or administrative measures.
Even legislative has limits, even if Congress passes a legislation banning TikTok, that legislation is likely to be struck down by the court is my guess.
Ultimately banning TikTok is not a tenable democratic solution to whatever real or perceived problems it is causing.
Some of the commenters here seems to want the democratic US government to suddenly grow authoritarian powers.