KatsBits Community

S.686 RESTRICT Act

kat · 2 · 21787

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2709
    • KatsBits
A Bill has been introduced to the US Congress, S.686 RESTRICT Act, that potentially affects everyone that uses the internat. Scanning through the proposed legislation, it grants the Government access to Users communications, potentially without a warrant, and potentially in violation of, for US Citizens, their 4th and 5th Amendment Rights, and other Nationals 'due process' Rights and laws. It also potentially further criminalises 'whistle-blowing'.

Quote
To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act" or the "RESTRICT Act".
(emphasis added) [source]



Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2709
    • KatsBits
The pertinent part is as follows;

Quote
SEC. 3. ADDRESSING INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES THAT POSE UNDUE OR UNACCEPTABLE RISK.
(a) In General.-The Secretary, in consultation with the relevant executive department and agency heads, is authorized to and shall take action to identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing, and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines-
(1) poses an undue or unacceptable risk of-

(A) sabotage or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology products and services in the United States;

(B) catastrophic effects on the security or resilience of the critical infrastructure or digital economy of the United States;

(C) interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal election, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; or

(D) coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; or

(2) otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons.
(b) Procedure.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the relevant executive department and agency heads, shall review any transaction described in subsection (a) to-

(A) determine, not later than 180 days after the date on which the Secretary initiates such review, if such transaction poses an undue or unacceptable risk under subsection (a)(2) and qualifies as a covered transaction; and

(B) with respect to a transaction found to pose an undue or unacceptable risk and qualify as a covered transaction, determine whether-

(i) the covered transaction should be prohibited; or

(ii) any other action should be taken to mitigate the effects of the covered transaction.


What this essentially says is the Government has the right to determine is they don't like something. BUT, how do they know that 'something' is valid as something that should be treated per the legislation without due process, i.e. due process is the process by which 'something' would be determined to warrant 'corrective' action. Once judged to warrant such action, such action would then be taken.

The legislation outlined above, completely BYPASSES due process and instead grants Government a unilateral 'right' to 'lawfully' assume 'something' to warrant action without actually knowing this to be the case. In other words, it throws due-process out the window, and the rights afforded to citizens therein.

The hyperbole that this is 'patriot act level spying' is, in fact, demonstrable true.

Worse yet, this effectively destroys whistleblowing (in the broadest sense), making it lawful to prosecute under the guise of "National Security".