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.
TheRealPomax|2 years ago
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.
kube-system|2 years ago
Not that I agree with the premise above, but:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-by...
diogenes4|2 years ago
ac54321|2 years ago
digging|2 years ago