Warner, Thune Try to Appease Civil Liberty Concerns About TikTok Bill

The Senate Commerce Committee is considering a hearing on the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (Restrict) Act (S-686), Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told us in March (see 2303290048). Warner introduced the legislation with Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. The bill has 25 co-sponsors and would allow the Commerce Department to effectively ban apps like TikTok over national security concerns, though it doesn’t explicitly name the Chinese-owned app (see 2303170043).

Warner told us he has had “good” conversations with Cantwell and he’s working with Thune to address some of the “attacks” on the bill: “We don’t think they’re accurate, but we’re trying to go the extra mile on legislative text to make clear” there aren’t penalties for individuals and this isn’t “some massive expansion of government power.” Some of the attacks are the result of TikTok’s own “misinformation” campaign, said Warner.

Thune agrees with Warner that many of the claims “leveled against the bill are inaccurate, and he has personally debunked many of them, as have various fact-checkers,” his office said in a statement. They cited his counter arguments about the legislation from April. Thune has always believed the Restrict Act “would benefit from a regular-order process so members could provide input and improve the product,” his office said. “This isn’t a messaging bill for him. He’s interested in a substantive, bipartisan result that could pass both chambers and be signed into law.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has major reservations about the points Warner addressed: penalties for individuals and civil liberty concerns about expanding the executive branch’s ability to collect information. This includes the potential for criminalizing routine practices like using a VPN to access services or sideloading apps, said Civil Liberties Director David Greene. EFF is also concerned about the potential for authorizing the government to issue “gag order-laden” information requests without judicial review. The bill lacks clarity about what new authority the government would gain, he said: “We don’t like the government being able to demand information that’s not subject to judicial review. If this sets up that system, that’s something we would object to and that people should be very concerned about.” The bill “needs to be more clear that it’s not expanding the executive branch’s ability to demand information,” he said.

The bill could be used against any social media platform or technology tool without much burden of proof for the government, said Sarah Phillips, who works on campaigns at Fight for the Future, an organization that opposes attempts to ban TikTok. “You’re giving this power to any sitting president, and we’ve seen that without a lot of protections for free speech, giving this kind of power to the executive branch is just not a good idea because the burden of proof will be low,” she said: The better solution is to pass federal privacy legislation.

TikTok defended itself again this week against claims the company is allowing Chinese employees to access users’ personal information. According to a Forbes report, the company has been storing users’ sensitive financial information in China and allowing Chinese employees to access that data. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr drew attention to the report this week: “TikTok said U.S. user data doesn't even exist in China. Then leaked audio showed ‘everything is seen in China’ ... Next its CEO testified that, while accessed from China, the data is stored in U.S. &Singapore ... Now @Forbes reports that sensitive data on U.S. users is stored in China.” TikTok said in a statement Thursday: "We remain confident in the accuracy” of CEO Shou Zi Chew’s testimony before the House Commerce Committee (see 2305080041).