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.
Comment on Senate passes TikTok ban bill, sending it to Biden, who has already committed to signing it
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 6 months agoIncorrect, 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 6 months ago
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 6 months ago
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.
AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 6 months ago
I didn’t completely misunderstand, I just used the term hyperspecific 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?
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
I actually don’t think they can name the company directly. If I remember right that’s unconstitutional.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 6 months ago
I cannot imagine why that would be unconstitutional, please explain it to me.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 6 months ago
But 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 6 months ago
According to some of these guys Congress could order everyone with the name Steve deported and that’s okay because we voted for them.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The big point is, how does that power get used?
There is no due process. So someone like Trump could just declare a company to be a foreign adversary. If this was like an Anti-Trust case that had to be built and proven in court we wouldn’t have a problem with it. But it’s not. You’re just literally declaring it, no evidence required.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 6 months ago
So, this is an FTC Enforcement. Since you clearly have no idea what that means, the chairmen of the FTC vote on the specifics of the enforcement and then unless the company accepts the terms it almost certainly becomes contested in the courts where lawyers explain to the judge that they think this is or is not constitutional and lawful action by the FTC to which the judge gives their opinion, and then appeals courts can send the decision to other courts some of which may rule on the case voluntarily such as the SCOTUS (although that is quite rare).
EXAMPLE: Over their handling of data and disruption of local elections the FTC fined Facebook 5Bn USD on July 12, 2019. Facebook will be making installment payments for over a decade. This was a historic record fine, up from the previous highest being 168 Million USD in 2017 against Dish Network.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The company having to appeal in court is not due process. It’s not due process if you break a law and it’s not due process if they break a law. If you think the FTC making a declaration is due process then remember Ajit Pai and net neutrality. The rulings of those agencies can swing wildly between administrations. So right now it’s ByteDance. But in the cursed world where the GOP gets this power it’s whatever organization they don’t like. Ever wonder if this could be used against a Union? They’ve wondered. And without a need for real evidence, (citing secret intelligence reports is also precedent), they don’t even need to get an infiltrator into the Union’s administration.
The courts are not the constitutional safety valve you want them to be. They’ve proven that time and time again. Rights require the people themselves to defend them. If you’re in any doubt of that check out the difference between how we treat the 4th amendment and the 2nd amendment. And then realize SCOTUS ruled that police aren’t soldiers because words (police didn’t exist in 1792), and as such the 3rd amendment is a dead letter.
As to your example, The FTC had to have the DOJ file charges in court. So even in the example you found, they are using due process. This power is new, overly broad, and unconstitutional.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 6 months ago
Courts of law aren’t due process? Lmfao.
Blxter@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
Am I misunderstanding something this actually sounds like a positive thing. Although I wish it was not just for “foreign adversary country; or any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.” And instead just in general
PhAzE@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Yea, it’s not as bad as this thread is trying to make it out to be.
p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world 6 months ago
But muh silly dancing app!!1one
PhAzE@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Hot take approved
PugJesus@lemmy.world 6 months ago
No, some of them are pretending it’s gross censorship only because Amerikkka Bad and Biden Bad and CCP Good.
My favorite was “China sowing chaos is Good, Actually”
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 6 months ago
I’ve been pretty optimistic about it from the start so I might be pretty biased, but it is very vague on what exactly the FTC can do to the companies in violation. If anything, it creates precedent for protecting Americans from corporate interests, so hopefully more to come in the future.
Some things were excluded from my comment such as the 60 day limitation being listed after the definitions, and the definitions are quite long so there could be some important facets in there that I have missed.