Privacy Archives - Dr. Rich Swier

Tag Archive for: Privacy

The TikTok Tussle of Concerns and Legislation

December 3, 2023/in Culture War, Elections, Hot Topics, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues/by Amil Imani

The TikTok Tussle of Concerns and Legislation

Currently, the TikTok ban debate is swirling through the USA and raising concerns about national security and parental frets. Like vigilant conductors, the concerned moms lead the chorus against TikTok’s potential negative influence on their children.

The composition includes worries about inappropriate content, age appropriateness, psychological impact, behavior influence, and safety, as well as the content maestros at TikTok potentially exposing their little ones to unsuitable tunes. Indeed, on the parental front, it is the age-old melody of parental anxiety that echoes, questioning the appropriateness of content and its potential influence on the impressionable minds of children.

A trio of lawmakers is tuning their instruments to legislate a ban on TikTok. The proposed bill to ban TikTok, known as the RESTRICT Act, aims to prevent transactions with social media giants from countries deemed foreign adversaries. The bill seeks to empower the Secretary of Commerce to decide which technologies Americans can or cannot access, and it could potentially exempt lawmakers from providing details about their decision process.

A new movement begins as lawmakers draft legislation forcing app owners to disclose ownership information. Transparency becomes the critical refrain, potentially harmonizing trust among users and attracting a larger audience to the app.

In the ongoing symphony of the TikTok debate, the security movement takes the lead, orchestrating concerns about data safeguarding from the Chinese government. The FBI has also raised the curtain on national security concerns surrounding TikTok’s U.S. operations. The potential for the Chinese government to sway American users or gain control over their devices is immense. FBI warnings give rise to apprehensions about data collection, algorithm manipulation, and the ominous prospect of device compromise on a massive scale.

The ability to compel data sharing upon request and concerns about gathering intellectual property and personal data add a dissonant note to the melody. TikTok, owned by China’s ByteDance, acknowledges a potential breach in fortifying U.S. user data by allowing non-U.S. employees access – a revelation that resonates like a haunting refrain.

However, there are several legal and constitutional challenges to this bill. The First Amendment protects American freedom of speech, and the Berman Amendment restricts the President’s power to regulate or forbid the free flow of information in and out of the country. These laws make banning TikTok for all American citizens an unconstitutional decision. Another critical point is who owns the data garnished from these apps or any other platform? I strongly believe Congress should pass laws or a Data Bill of Rights into the constitution as inherent no different than our identity or image.

Moreover, the RESTRICT Act could be used to challenge these constitutional protections. It would require any ban to be justified by a significant governmental interest and would have to be narrowly tailored to address that interest. This means that ByteDance, the Chinese-based company that owns TikTok, could easily challenge a possible ban in court on constitutional grounds.

China’s National Intelligence Law, a law with an absolute stance on supporting national intelligence efforts, injects an element of suspense. Skepticism surrounds the law’s potential for punishment, raising questions about the compliance dance that foreign and domestic firms may be forced to perform.

The symphony turns unexpectedly as critics argue that the data issue is merely a prelude. The genuine concern lies in TikTok’s potential to manipulate opinions, a potential front-runner in controlling political discourse. The platform’s influence on shaping public sentiment becomes a haunting refrain in the minds of skeptics.

The accusation that TikTok allows access to American data, including sensitive biometrics, heightens the concerns about national security. The risks posed to individual privacy and the broader national security landscape amplify the circumstances surrounding this digital symphony.

Amidst the security overture, proposed legislation emerges as a regulatory intermezzo, introducing potential impacts on app owners and their operations. This legislative sonata could reshape the tech industry’s landscape in significant ways.

The curtain rises on the Increased Transparency Act. App owners may need to pull back the curtains on their ownership structures and operational bases, creating a more transparent tech industry. This shift could harmonize trust among users, potentially attracting a larger audience to the app.

The demand for increased regulatory compliance will only increase, and due to this, App owners may find themselves at the center of this regulatory maelstrom, necessitating robust data security measures and policy updates and potentially altering their business models. Like echoes through the concert hall, the impacts could be felt across financial, operational, and strategic dimensions.

The concerns and legislation continue as the TikTok turmoil reaches its zenith, leaving audiences anticipating the final movement. Will the security overture find a resolution, or will the discord persist, impacting the digital stage? Only time will tell as this intricate symphony unfolds its final notes.

ABOUT SUZANNE HARP

Suzanne Harp (Republican Party) candidate for election to the U.S. House to represent Texas’ 3rd Congressional District. She declared her candidacy for the Republican primary scheduled on March 5, 2024.

HICE: U.S. Government Seeks Permission to Spy on American Citizens

April 13, 2023/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Elections, Hot Topics, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Social Issues, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

The phrase “Big Brother” has been used in reference to the government’s attempts to control the lives of Americans for decades. Following 9/11, amid an outcry for greater security, a chilling and intrusive surveillance of citizens took an unprecedented uptick in individual monitoring across the nation. In the wake of tragedy and horror, politicians pushed through the Patriot Act in the name of terrorism deterrence.

The Patriot Act ushered in a new era, and America would never be the same so far as individual privacy is concerned. While the intentions of the legislation might have been good, the consequences of its enactment have invaded the privacy of millions of Americans. It essentially gave the government a free pass to spy on people in their homes and beyond. Without any previous notification requirements, federal intelligence agencies could examine and have unhindered exploration into the financial records, medical histories, travel patterns, and more of individuals.

As is often the case with unrestrained government power, the overreaching scrutiny produced by the Patriot Act is no longer enough. There is a new and disturbing movement to provide Big Brother even more access into your private life. Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) has introduced the RESTRICT Act, formally known as “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology” Act. This legislation would essentially expand the sentiments of the Patriot Act to the technology sphere, so that internet activity by citizens would be accessible to federal agents.

Thankfully, while there is a substantial bipartisan effort to block the use of TikTok in the United States over concerns about the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of the platform, some Washington politicians are withholding their support for the RESTRICT Act. For example, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) recently told reporters that he is very worried about “creating, effectively, a PATRIOT Act for the digital age.”

He is correct. Once unbridled access is given to the government to monitor internet activity, personal privacy will be but a memory of America’s past. Moreover, allowing the government and federal agencies access to personal devices and advanced technology usage by individuals could very well lead to domestic espionage. Such meddling should never be allowed. While efforts to block foreign adversaries from spying on Americans and the U.S. government operations should be made, efforts cannot be allowed to permit our own government to violate people’s constitutional right to privacy.

At a time when even the most sacred branch of government, the judiciary, is being politicized, it is crucial to avoid further intrusion into the lives of Americans. The RESTRICT Act would allow the government to pursue any person it deems as a “national security risk.” To this day, some protestors from January 6th, 2021 are still sitting in jail, having been denied their legal rights under the law. And potentially, other individuals advocating for their right to justice could be labeled as “national security risks” and have their privacy stripped away as well.

The U.S. government is already too big and intrusive. Further, a two-tiered system of justice is increasingly becoming more apparent and alarming. Do we really need to bolster government with unfettered access into the private data of American citizens? No! Not only is the RESTRICT Act a terrible idea but it is unconstitutional. The First Amendment grants freedom of personal and private religious belief. The Third Amendment protects privacy in our homes. And the Fourth Amendment guarantees that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Make no mistake, Americans have a right to privacy! The government does not possess sufficient legal “interest” to invade the most personal aspects of people’s lives.

Ultimately, at risk with the RESTRICT Act is personal and constitutionally protected liberty. Congressional leaders need to hear from constituents about this invasive legislation. For the sake of defending our God-given rights, we should reject this egregious attempt by government to enter our personal space and monitor our private lives. If allowed to become law, this Act could produce a government-run and politically driven “terrorist” of its own making. Don’t let that happen!

AUTHOR

Jody Hice

JORDAN FIRED UP! Judiciary Chair UNLOADS After Learning Biden DOJ Infiltrating Religious Orgs

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Intelligent Debate: Data and Privacy

June 12, 2015/in National Security, Policy, Politics/by Henry Jackson Society

A political row is once again brewing over data and privacy. This week David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation published his report into the future of surveillance legislation.

In it he accepted that our intelligence agencies need to carry on being able to access data in bulk and he remained open to enhancing our ability to get more data if an operational and legal case can be made (which means revisiting the so-called “Snoopers’ Charter”). He accepted the need for the retention of powers introduced in emergency legislation last summer and suggested a number of reforms including a new commissioner to provide oversight on the entire system.

But potentially problematically he also proposes getting much more involvement from the judiciary in the process. This includes all authorisations for interception warrants (such as the content of emails) to be taken away from the Secretary of State and handed over to a judge. This is a big step and a potentially very unfortunate one. Politicians are able to assess the diplomatic landscape when approving warrants, and not just the legal technicalities; they may need to sign warrants in the middle of the night in an emergency; and are ultimately accountable in a way judges are not.

Of course this whole area is one over which there is a huge public interest. HJS has involved itself in that debate for two principle reasons. The first is that the debate needs to be far better informed than it currently is. As David Anderson himself said this week, an exceedingly small number of people actually know what they are talking about in this area. We would add, however, that almost everybody has an opinion. The gap between interest and knowledge in this area urgently needs to be addressed.

But the second reason is that the gap should be filled by people who are not hostile to the principles of intelligence and national security. In scoping out the ground for our recent report we discovered that almost all of the organisations and groups who have been most vociferous and most quoted in these matters are groups which (with the obvious exception of government agencies) have expressed a remarkable degree of hostility to matters which are absolutely essential for the proper running of a national security apparatus. These are groups and organisations who simultaneously wish to criminalise our intelligence services, make them so transparent they could not possibly operate and transfer almost all oversight powers from politicians to lawyers.

We believe that there is a public interest in the intelligence agencies being able to do their job of keeping the public safe and that politicians are best placed – and ultimately most accountable – to oversee that process. This is not, or should not be, a minority pursuit. It is, rather, a matter of the utmost public and political significance.

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK

It’s often the case that you can assess whether you are hitting the mark, or not, as an organisation, by what your detractors say about you. If you have gotten them sufficiently riled that they feel the need to spend time and resources on combating your message, then it is a safe bet to assume you are succeeding. If they don’t even attempt to engage in intellectual debate and instead try to attack you as an organisation – playing the ‘”man” rather than the “ball” as it were – then you’ve pretty much hit the bullseye. Thus it proved this week with the convening of a conference at the University of Bath which spent a good portion of its time mentioning The Henry Jackson Society as standing in the way of its pro-Islamist and anti-Western agenda.

Featuring such luminaries as Norman Finkelstein and Max Blumenthal as its star attractions, HJS was honoured to receive a whole panel session dedicated to itself at the conference. Our session was headlined by the Director of the Cordoba Foundation – an innocent-sounding organisation until you realise that no less a person than British Prime Minister David Cameron has called it a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood” – and the notorious former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg, Director of pro-terrorist group CAGE. HJS has of course been instrumental in public education about CAGE’s pro-terrorist agenda in past months.

As I have written before, we wear criticism from sources such as these as a badge of pride. We are clearly doing something right if strenuous efforts are being made to oppose us by some of Britain’s most dangerous ideologues. I don’t think it is any coincidence that as our effectiveness in researching and highlighting public policy problems in the counter-terrorism and extremism areas has increased in recent years, so has the level of ire directed at us.

So I would like to conclude this week by thanking our staff for their dedication to their work and in ensuring that our message continues to get heard. Their jobs are not easy ones. But it is of the utmost importance that they are prepared to do them for the greater good.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

Ten Bills, Ten Solutions to save America

February 26, 2014/in Economy, Education, News, Policy, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

Russ Vought, Political Director for Heritage Action for America, notes, “During the State of the Union address, President Obama called for 2014 to be a year of action. We agree, but Americans deserve action that will take the nation in the right direction. That’s why, with no clear goals or mandate from the Washington Establishment, we hosted the first Conservative Policy Summit.

On February 10th, Heritage Action brought together leaders to highlight conservative bills that would improve the lives of hardworking Americans. 10 speakers. 10 solutions.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/26d0H5Wl43M[/youtube]

Conservatives must lead through action. And we are. Heritage Action brought these leaders together on February 10th. The Conservative Policy Summit highlights the bills they have introduced, showing Americans a winning conservative reform agenda. Watch important discussion about our nation’s most pressing issues and learn about the conservative answers.

Privacy – Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ)
Social Welfare – Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
Health Care – Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
Health Care – Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN)
Energy – Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Housing – Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
Transportation – Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA)
School Choice – Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)
Higher Education – Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
Religious Freedom – Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Claude Covo-Farchi. The use of this image does not in any way that suggests that Covo-Farchi endorses Heritage Action or the use of the work in this column. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic.