Why pass unenforceable laws?

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,113
3,533
136
What are the cops in Montana going to do?

Pull you over and ask for your license, registration, proof of insurance, and phone?

WTF 2.gif


WashingtonCNN —
Montana became the first US state on Friday to pass legislation banning TikTok on all personal devices, sending a bill to Gov. Greg Gianforte prohibiting TikTok from operating within state lines and barring app stores from offering TikTok for downloads.

The legislation marks the furthest step yet by a state government to restrict TikTok over perceived security concerns and comes as some federal lawmakers have called for a national ban of TikTok.

Lawmakers in Montana’s House voted 54-43 to give final approval to the bill, known as SB419. Should Gianforte sign the bill, it would take effect in January. But the legislation could quickly face significant legal challenges.

The legislation specifically names TikTok as a target of the bill, and outlines potential penalties of $10,000 per violation per day. The penalties would also apply to any app store found to have violated the law. Individual users of TikTok, meanwhile, would not be penalized for accessing TikTok.

“The governor will carefully consider any bill the legislature sends to his desk,” said Brooke Stroyke, a spokesperson for Gianforte. In December, Gianforte banned TikTok from state government devices and the following month urged the Montana University System to follow suit, which it did.

In a statement, TikTok hinted at potential legal action to oppose the bill.

“The bill’s champions have admitted that they have no feasible plan for operationalizing this attempt to censor American voices and that the bill’s constitutionality will be decided by the courts,” said TikTok spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter. “We will continue to fight for TikTok users and creators in Montana whose livelihoods and First Amendment rights are threatened by this egregious government overreach.”

Numerous governments worldwide, including in the United States, have used their authority over official devices they control to restrict TikTok from smartphones, computers and WiFi networks. But those restrictions do not extend to personal devices.

US officials have widely expressed fears the Chinese government could potentially gain access to TikTok user data through its links to TikTok’s parent, ByteDance, and that such information could be used to benefit Chinese intelligence or propaganda campaigns. There is so far no public evidence the Chinese government has in fact accessed the personal information of TikTok’s US users or used that data to influence them. But FBI Director Christopher Wray has told Congress that “we’re not sure that we would see many of the outward signs of it happening if it was happening.”

The US government has called for TikTok to be spun off from its Chinese owners, while TikTok has said that it can address the national security concerns by erecting a “firewall” around US user data, part of an initiative it calls Project Texas.

The plan has not deterred TikTok’s critics, however. More than half of US states have clamped down on TikTok in some fashion, and Friday’s House vote in Montana underscored the breadth of support for limiting TikTok on even non-government devices.

But the future of Montana’s legislation is uncertain. NetChoice, a technology industry group that counts TikTok as a member, said Friday that SB419 violates the US constitutional prohibition against so-called “bills of attainder,” or legislation that seeks to punish a person without trial.

“This move from the Montana legislature sets a dangerous precedent that the government can try to ban any business it doesn’t like without clear evidence of wrongdoing,” said Carl Szabo, NetChoice’s vice president and general counsel. “The US Constitution clearly forbids lawmakers from passing laws to criminalize a specific individual or business. Gov. Greg Gianforte should veto this clearly unconstitutional law.”

Design it For Us, a coalition of youth activists pushing for changes to platform regulation, lamented that the perspectives of internet natives were not reflected in the bill.

“We believe that social media can be good for young people if they are designed for us,” said Zamaan Qureshi and Emma Lembke, the group’s co-chairs. “Bans like this one forgo a real opportunity to proactively address kids’ safety and privacy concerns on these platforms.”

A group representing app developers said Friday the bill could encourage governments to legislate on an app-by-app basis, creating a patchwork of laws that would “weigh heavily on small app companies.”

“While it might begin with TikTok, it clearly won’t end there,” said Morgan Reed, president of The App Association, which receives more than half its funding from Apple.

Other civil society groups have alleged SB419 violates Montanans’ First Amendment rights to free expression and access to information. This week, a joint letter to state lawmakers led by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that there is a high constitutional bar for government restrictions on speech.

“SB 419 is censorship — it would unjustly cut Montanans off from a platform where they speak out and exchange ideas everyday, and it would set an alarming precedent for excessive government control over how Montanans use the internet,” the letter read.

The legislation also references the presence on TikTok of “dangerous content” and “dangerous challenges,” language that Lynn Greenky, a First Amendment scholar and associate professor at Syracuse University, said raises an instant “red flag” triggering stricter constitutional scrutiny.

“Only in exceptional circumstances will content-based restrictions be constitutionally permissible under the First Amendment,” Greenky said. “Certainly, the Montana government has a compelling state interest in protecting the health, welfare, and privacy of its citizens, but the statute is so vague that it is virtually unenforceable. A vague statute is, by definition, not narrowly tailored, and as such it will wither under First Amendment scrutiny.”
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
19,728
4,641
136
I'm way behind the curve here, but it seems to me that if the Chinese want to see boobs and stupid kids, why shouldn't we let them trim a few points off their collective IQ?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
31,813
14,134
136
Wait…so China might do to TikTok what the US does with Facebook and Twitter? Or is there more to it than this?


The issue really seems to be that social media can be used to brainwashed the masses unwittingly like it always has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
24,753
21,501
136
Bitching about how Tik Tok may or may not use data mined from the app and focusing only on Tik Tok completely glosses over the need for actual real data protection laws in this country.
 
Last edited:

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
5,304
1,263
136
Bitching about how Tik Tok may or may not use data mined from the app and focusing only on Tik Tok completely glosses over the need for actual real data protection laws in this country.

None of that data protection and privacy crap here! That's crazy talk! That's woke liberal shit!
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
10,781
6,750
136
This is all because the governor doesn't want any more videos of him assaulting a reporter going viral again.
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,113
3,533
136
So, a cop pulls you over for (fill in the blank.). He asks for your license, reg, etc..

He then asks you for you phone to check for Tik Tok.

Do you hand it over? 🤔
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
32,726
6,864
136
Wait…so China might do to TikTok what the US does with Facebook and Twitter? Or is there more to it than this?
In theory, the app would collect data such as your physical location(s). Making targeting certain US assets far easier.
If China has design to go to war, then anything that would allow them free reign over our information space could be considered highly dangerous.
Knowing when / where you work, eat, and sleep. Which people you visit and for how long.

That can make spying and targeting people in certain industries extremely easy. Imagine if instead of having to do recon, the subject's phone did it all for you. Not only one subject, but millions with pre-loaded info just waiting to be selected and exploited in some way. You do not want a nation you are at war with to have that sort of intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VirtualLarry

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
32,726
6,864
136
What are the cops in Montana going to do?
If I was the one enforcing it, then this would be a legal matter to sue the app stores unless they either removed the app entirely, or restricted its use in the state. Action taken if anyone in the state can prove they have access to that app from Apple or Google.

Enforcement would have nothing to do with the end user.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,193
17,410
146
If I was the one enforcing it, then this would be a legal matter to sue the app stores unless they either removed the app entirely, or restricted its use in the state. Action taken if anyone in the state can prove they have access to that app from Apple or Google.

Enforcement would have nothing to do with the end user.

As this unfolds, don't be surprised when a battle for VPN access comes up. Which I'm confident is a big part of the goal here anyways. It's never been about our security or safety.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
24,753
21,501
136
In theory, the app would collect data such as your physical location(s). Making targeting certain US assets far easier.
If China has design to go to war, then anything that would allow them free reign over our information space could be considered highly dangerous.
Knowing when / where you work, eat, and sleep. Which people you visit and for how long.

That can make spying and targeting people in certain industries extremely easy. Imagine if instead of having to do recon, the subject's phone did it all for you. Not only one subject, but millions with pre-loaded info just waiting to be selected and exploited in some way. You do not want a nation you are at war with to have that sort of intel.

Do you think those concerns about data collection should be limited to only Tik Tok?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
12,615
10,459
146
Sure about that? They don't need a warrant to make you open your trunk when they pull you over.
Probable cause is required, and I'm not sure if there's ever been a warrantless probable cause case for searching a phone.

In fact...
However, police cannot search the cellphones of criminal suspects without a warrant and they need to establish probable cause to obtain one.

This principle was reinforced in an important 2014 Supreme Court case. The nation’s highest court decided search warrants are required to search phone records, reported CNN.
No warrant, no searchy.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY