Welcome to another week of The Runback. Have you been enjoying The Duckpin? Do you have comments or suggestions? Do you want to write for us? Let me know at theduckpin@gmail.com. And please be sure to follow on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. Thanks in advance.
Thanks for reading The Duckpin! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
News and Politics
Yet Another Harris Board of Elections Appointee Flails: Watch for yourself as Christine McCloud goes down in flames before a Senate Committee
Maryland GOP Forgets How to Spell Maryland: Is there ANYTHING Nicole Harris and Adam Wood can do right?
Lamone Retirement Highlights Harris Election Board Snafus: Harris Missteps may leave Republicans without a vote or a voice in the selection of Lamone's replacement
Why is Luke Clippinger Refusing to Pass a Full Child Pornography Ban? There is a loophole that protects customers of child pornography. Why does Luke Clippinger want to protect these heinous and immoral people?
April 2023 GOP Presidential Power Rankings: The only list in the world where a 34-count indictment makes your victory more likely...
Sports
Shameless Plugs
I appeared on another episode of JB’s Drive-In Podcast to discuss Wrestlemania and to review the 1986 Roddy Piper movie Body Slam.
The Monday Thought
Much discussion has come and gone about the “TikTok Ban” bill that seems to have bipartisan support.
Now, even as somebody who uses the app, I recognize concerns about TikTok’s ownership and security practices. But there are, of course, First Amendment concerns about banning particular apps.
But the “TikTok Ban” bill has virtually nothing to do with TikTok and everything to do with a lot of other policies that would destroy the internet as we know it:
A bill dubbed the ‘RESTRICT’ act that was submitted to Congress could have severe consequences for virtual private network (VPN) users in the United States.
U.S. lawmakers are widening their sights when it comes to cracking down on finance and technology.
The bipartisan “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT)” act was unveiled in early March.
It was initially dubbed the “TikTok Ban Bill,” but it has far wider ramifications. Furthermore, VPN users could face hefty fines or jail sentences under the bill.
Just that sentence should make you realize that the RESTRICT Act gives off very serious PATRIOT Act vibes.
The RESTRICT Act, in case you haven’t gotten the memo, is a very, very troubling bill indeed.
The bill could have implications not just for social networks, but potentially security tools such as virtual private networks (VPNs) that consumers use to encrypt and route their traffic, one said. Although the intention of the bill is to target apps or services that pose a threat to national security, these critics worry it may have much wider implications for the First Amendment.
“The RESTRICT Act is a concerning distraction with insanely broad language that raises serious human and civil rights concerns," Willmary Escoto, U.S. policy analyst for digital rights organization Access Now told Motherboard in an emailed statement.
Riana Pfefferkorn, researcher scholar at the Stanford Internet Observatory, told Motherboard in an email “This bill certainly is troubling in that it would grant a great amount of power to the executive branch. That should be unsettling in any context: recent examples around the world, from Israel to China, are showing us the risks that arise from upsetting checks and balances to favor executive power.”
“It absolutely does implicate those free speech rights for Congress to give the President the power to take ‘appropriate’ action—up to and including banning—against a particular ICTS in the name of national security or Americans’ security and safety. (Even if you trust Joe Biden with this power, would you trust Donald Trump — who tried to ban TikTok as well as WeChat while in office — with it?),” she added.
The ambiguity of the bill is a bug, not a feature.
The bill’s language includes vague terms such as “desktop applications,” “mobile applications,” “gaming applications,” “payment applications,” and “web-based applications.” It also targets applicable software that has more than 1 million users in the U.S.
“The RESTRICT Act could lead to apps and other ICT services with connections to certain foreign countries being banned in the United States. Any bill that would allow the US government to ban an online service that facilitates Americans' speech raises serious First Amendment concerns,” Caitlin Vogus, deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology’s Free Expression Project, told Motherboard in an emailed statement. “In addition, while bills like the RESTRICT Act may be motivated by legitimate privacy concerns, banning ICT services with connections to foreign countries would not necessarily help protect Americans' privacy. Those countries may still obtain data through other means, like by purchasing it from private data brokers.”
Escotofrom Access Now added, “As written, the broad language in the RESTRICT Act could criminalize the use of a VPN, significantly impacting access to security tools and other applications that vulnerable people rely on for privacy and security.”
“Many individuals and organizations, including journalists, activists, and human rights defenders, use VPNs to protect their online activity from surveillance and censorship. The RESTRICT Act would expose these groups to monitoring and repression, which could have a chilling effect on free speech and expression,” Escoto wrote.
The RESTRICT Act is not about TikTok at all. It’s merely a Christmas tree of a bill that includes a whole bunch of wishlist items from certain agencies that would never be given the time of day otherwise. Under the guise of TikTok being a national security threat, TikTok is being used as the excuse for passing sweeping legislation that will change the internet as we know it making us, ironically, more like Communist China. Something that few Senators but Rand Paul seem to understand.
The RESTRICT Act is a disaster for data privacy, the First Amendment, and for technological advancement. It should not pass.