Discover more from The Dossier
The Patriot Act on steroids: D.C. Uniparty wants to use anti-TikTok legislation as Trojan horse for censorship and surveillance
Beltway lawmakers are setting up a smokescreen to curtail rights.
TikTok is indeed a pestilence upon our society.
But there are right ways to go about minimizing this “digital opium” and its impact on our lives, and other means that will allow the American government to leverage the situation to further curtail our individual rights.
And unsurprisingly, the latter idea is making lawmakers in the beltway beyond giddy this week.
The Dossier is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act (S.686), which was introduced in the Senate earlier this month, would do much more than just ban TikTok.
This bill is no mere “TikTok ban,” it is a mechanism for a massive, sweeping surveillance and censorship overhaul.
The RESTRICT Act goes far, far beyond potentially banning TikTok. It gives the government virtual unchecked authority over the U.S. communications infrastructure. The incredibly broad language includes the ability to “enforce any mitigation measure to address any risk” to “national security” today and in any “potential future transaction.”
The Senate legislation currently has 19 cosponsors, all of whom are Uniparty members in good standing. It is fully “bipartisan,” consisting of 9 democrats and 10 republicans.
Timcast’s Ian Crossland fittingly described the legislation as The Patriot Act for technology.
The Mises Caucus published a great rundown on the threat posed by the Restrict Act:
A similar bill has been introduced in the House, called the Deterring America’s Technological Adversaries (DATA) Act, which has similar over the top security state initiatives.
Unfortunately, the ongoing TikTok hearings in D.C. have very little to do with protecting the rights of Americans from potential Chinese Communist Party data harvesting, and lots to do with protecting the Uniparty’s dominance over the communications and surveillance space.