Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) called on senators backing the RESTRICT Act, which has been described as a “Patriot Act on steroids,” to repent and withdraw their support for the controversial bill.
Conservatives have increasingly lashed out against the RESTRICT Act, or the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information Communications Technology Act, which has been sold to the public as a “TikTok ban.”
However, as Breitbart News’s Allum Bokhari has explained, the bill is more onerous than a simple TikTok ban.
Bokhari: With RESTRICT Act, the Deep State Seeks to Beat China by Becoming China https://t.co/nGVJiIfgaL via @BreitbartNews
— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) March 31, 2023
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sponsored the bill, which would allow the federal government to unilaterally designate any nation a “foreign adversary,” ban online services and products that are “even indirectly controlled by an entity in their jurisdiction,” and then punish Americans who use the service.
Americans can be punished for merely using a virtual private network (VPN) service, which many citizens use to increase their privacy online.
“The first tool in the government’s arsenal is a civil penalty of up to $250,000, imposed by the Secretary of Commerce on anyone who conducts a transaction that violates the act,” Bokhari noted.
He continued:
As to what counts as a transaction, the bills takes an impossibly broad approach, classifying it as “any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as managed services, data transmission, software updates, repairs, or the provision of data hosting services, or a class of such transactions,” as well as “any other transaction, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act.”
But the $250,000 fine is the least of the penalties. American citizens found to be in violation of the Act would also face a potential criminal fine of up to $1 million, as well as a jail sentence of up to 20 years.
And then there’s asset seizure: bill allows the feds to seize and access a laundry list of devices and services of American citizens.
Davidson, a House Freedom Caucus member and a staunch privacy advocate, lambasted senators for backing the bill.
Davidson wrote, “26 US Senators propose a domestic police state for America – using legitimate concerns about TikTok and data privacy as a foil. The RESTRICT Act is an assault on our Constitution and values. Mark Warner, the bill’s sponsor, and these 25 cosponsors should repent.”
The Senate cosponsors include:
- John Thune (R-SD)
- Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
- Deb Fischer (R-NE)
- Joe Manchin (D-WV)
- Jerry Moran (R-KS)
- Michael Bennet (D-CO)
- Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
- Susan Collins (R-ME)
- Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
- Mitt Romney (R-UT)
- Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
- Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM)
- Tim Kaine (D-VA)
- Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
- Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
- Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
- John Hickenlooper (D-CO)
- Thom Tillis (R-NC)
- Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
- Mark Kelly (D-AZ)
- Angus King (I-ME)
- Mike Crapo (R-ID)
- John Boozman (R-AR)
- Peter Welch (D-VT)
Graham, who is still listed as one of the cosponsors of the bill, said in late March, that he does not think he can support the RESTRICT Act:
The Constitution trumps the statute. So, let me come back and give you a better explanation. Here’s the problem as I see it: China is the parent company of TikTok, and my nieces like TikTok. I don’t mind them using TikTok. I just don’t want the Chinese government to seize all their data and manipulate the information America sees for political purposes. China is helping drug cartels in Mexico. China is not a friend. The Chinese espionage is at an all-time high against American business interests. So, I want to push back against China, but within a constitutional framework. You’re right about that. So, you’ve made these allegations and I will come answer better next time.
Instead of pushing the RESTRICT Act, he called for passing three simple to give Americans more control over their privacy:
- Protect privacy, as expected by the 4th Amendment.
- To protect privacy, recognize that every individual has a property right to their own data and protect it with my bill – It’s your data! Act. Informed consent required except for warrants & subpoenas.
- Use existing export controls to limit the export of personally identifiable data.
What should be done?
1. Protect privacy, as expected by the 4th Amendment.
2. To protect privacy, recognize that every individual has a property right to their own data and protect it with my bill – It’s your data! Act. Informed consent required except for warrants & subpoenas.…— Warren Davidson 🇺🇸 (@WarrenDavidson) April 6, 2023
TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew enflamed controversy at a recent House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing when he did not deny that TikTok’s Chinese parent company, has access to Americans’ data:
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Chew also said that “spying” was not the word he would use for when ByteDance used TikTok to spy on journalists:
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Sean Moran is a policy reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.