Anti-TikTok policies show the worst tendencies of American pols

It’s clear enough by now to say that Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-Mo.) attempt to force a vote in the U.S. Senate to block the popular social media app TikTok is a sideshow. Today, his stand was reduced by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who voted against Hawley’s proposal on the grounds that a ban would be unconstitutional and an affront to American values. But efforts remain in the US political apparatus to ban the app, which is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance Ltd.

This article is taken from The Node, CoinDesk’s daily roundup of the top stories in blockchain and crypto news. You can subscribe to get the whole newsletter here.

These machinations reveal a growing and ugly tendency among American political leaders to limit and control technological progress, and to expand the surveillance state over American citizens and our allies. CoinDesk readers are likely familiar with “Operation Choke Point 2.0,” a phrase coined by Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter to explain an apparently coordinated effort by the Biden administration, the Federal Reserve, the US judiciary, elected politicians and unelected financial regulators to force out crypto. as we know it.

Of particular concern is the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats Endangering Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act, introduced by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), which has received bipartisan honors in the Senate and a statement of support from the administration. The law, if passed, which seems likely amid the anti-TikTok ferment, would give the US Commerce Department the power to impose restrictions on essentially any “foreign” technology that poses national security risks.

Essentially, the RESTRICT bill gives wide latitude to the US executive branch to survey and restrict “information and communications technologies” developed by “adversary nations.” If that sounds surreally broad, that’s because it is—the bill cites “desktop,” “mobile” and “online” applications by name. So all you can do with a computer? Well, yes, if it happens to use “software, hardware, or other products or services integral to telecommunications” developed in China or another hostile nation.

RESTRICT doesn’t specifically mention blockchain, but crypto will certainly be covered as is everything from landlines to satellites to edge computing.

The legislation can be updated, but as it is, it poses a serious risk to technological development and individual human rights. Virtual privacy networks (VPNs), used for web browsing privacy, may be adversely affected. It could fragment the global development process of technology, including crypto, and essentially move us toward a world where who uses which app is determined based on national borders. That’s at least part of the reason why technologist Balaji Srinivasan called RESTRICT Act the US version of China’s Great Firewall.

Elsewhere, the Biden administration has opened a review of TikTok, and appears to be trying to force ByteDance to divest the app. On February 24, Representative Michael McCaul (R-Texas) introduced the Deterring America’s Technological Adversaries (DATA) Act in the House of Representatives, which would allow the president to block transactions related to the import or export of Americans’ “sensitive data”—including in the national security name. At the same time, US lawmakers are weighing the renewal of the 9/11-era Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gives the US government the power to compel US tech giants (i.e. Google, Meta Platforms and Apple) to spy on non-US citizens’ emails , telephone and online communication.

Look, I’m not one of the 150 million US users of TikTok — I think almost everything that comes from the app isn’t worth headspace, except for the flamboyant lawyer telling viewers not to talk to the police — but I don’t think so it should be banned. Especially based on such false accusations as Senator Hawley and ex-President Donald Trump tried to promote: that it is a tool of extrajudicial espionage by the Chinese Communist Party. No doubt that TikTok not only rots brains, but intentionally misuses or unintentionally mishandles user data.

I also understand that the DATA and RESTRICT Acts and other measures can be used to rein in the well-documented privacy and data abuses by the US-based tech giants. At some point the government will have to figure out how best to regulate Big Tech, but there is a right way and a wrong way. Balkanizing the internet through irresponsible executive powers is not the way to go. For decades, the US government has protected the free flow of information and services on the open internet. We should preserve it, especially in contrast to how US adversaries China and Russia manipulate their local networks.

It is all the more important that laws like this not be passed – that the United States not become its enemies. Especially because the alternative – crypto – is getting the boot.