What purpose, though? Because if the purpose is "you're not allowed to spy", you can't ban software until you prove they're spying. And the US already has multiple laws that cover that problem, with courts being entirely allowed to rule that a product must be taken off the US market, be that a physical product or software.
This is congress trying to ban a named product by bypassing the courts, in order not to have to bother with the whole "burden of proof" thing, rather than the justice department bringing a case to the courts to get existing laws enforced.
And yes, technically it's "congress makes the laws, the courts enforce those laws", but congress is bound by the constitution, and if congress singles out a specific individual or company, that's (amazingly, because it almost never is) an actual first amendment violation.
Whereas taking a company to court in order to get it banned for "spying on behalf of a foreign nation" is not.
I'd rather you expound what what part you don't agree with, because what that link tells us is that the DoJ didn't consider that severe enough to push for a ban on the product.
It doesn't surprise me that they don't care, setting policy for forward looking national security matters isn't their job.
The part I disagree with is the idea that "they're using the app to spy on us" is a benchmark that some in the government care about, or a reasonable benchmark at that.
On this topic there are often people asking for evidence that TikTok has done anything wrong, but that's really besides the whole point. Governance can be an issue whether or not someone has abused a power. Past performance is not the be-all and end-all of security; means and motivations are also something to consider.
Wait, hold up, you're saying that the DoJ, which is definitely "some in government" (because congress is not government, it's just one part of the government, there are many more parts) don't use the law as their benchmark?
Because that would be literally the opposite of reality O_o
The question is around whether the DoJ can make things stick, and the DoJ doesn't waste its time, and doesn't burn its budget, on cases they know they can't make stick.
Given the Snowden revelations any kind of reciprocity in the international community regarding that principle would make basically all US tech companies US-market only...
It’s a weird duality with import taxes acting as a middle ground. It seems the belief that a conflict with China is inevitable is becoming more pervasive. So much of the US economy relies on reselling Chinese goods that to stop trading completely would be calamitous. I think the idea is to keep trading right up until the war starts. I’ve already stocked up on goods and materials that are only available from China as I include myself as one of those who believe a great power conflict is coming.
I do small scale manufacturing as a hobby which covers quite a gamut of fields from woodworking, machining, electronics, chemistry etc. So a huge amount of tools and industrial consumables. A lot of electronics modules. Basically anything I think I might need I buy and store. My plan for war breaking out is to stay home and do engineering work.
> It seems the belief that a conflict with China is inevitable is becoming more pervasive.
An actual kinetic conflict would result in a complete destruction of the world economy and WWIII. You can't take these people seriously without carefully examining their motivations (certainly most notably, to build up the capacity of our own military).
They don’t start that way, they start as regional conflicts and grow. ‘How could we not help the poor so and sos that we’ve signed some tangling alliance with…’
This is congress trying to ban a named product by bypassing the courts, in order not to have to bother with the whole "burden of proof" thing, rather than the justice department bringing a case to the courts to get existing laws enforced.
And yes, technically it's "congress makes the laws, the courts enforce those laws", but congress is bound by the constitution, and if congress singles out a specific individual or company, that's (amazingly, because it almost never is) an actual first amendment violation.
Whereas taking a company to court in order to get it banned for "spying on behalf of a foreign nation" is not.