The Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act, or S. 686 introduced by Senator Warner (D-VA) and Senator Thune (R-SD), is not a mere TikTok ban - it is a sweeping authorization for the Federal government to surveil U.S. person’s internet traffic. The RESTRICT Act empowers the Secretary of Commerce and Executive to block “transactions” and "covered holdings” of “foreign adversaries” that involve “information and communication technology products or services.” That's quite a broad and vague mandate.

The sponsors of the bill justify its purpose on the grounds that it prevents “undue or unacceptable risk” to national security, citing a need to defend “election integrity” and “protect critical infrastructure.” These vague foreign threats cannot distract us from what the RESTRICT Act really is: an all encompassing leviathan of anti-privacy legislation.

Restore the Fourth opposes the RESTRICT Act in its entirety. The legislation is a dangerous distraction from what is actually needed: comprehensive privacy legislation. We need you to communicate your opposition to this bill and urge your representatives to say NO to the RESTRICT Act.

The vague threats posed by foreign adversaries that are cited by the RESTRICT Act's sponsors do not justify such a sweeping dilution of First and Fourth Amendment constitutional protections. The RESTRICT Act’s broad mandate and undefined mitigation measures have the potential to criminalize the use of VPNS, heavily restrict cryptocurrency transactions, and impose heavy burdens onto everyday citizens for simply accessing an app. These violations would come with burdensome criminal and civil penalties. Serving up to 20 years in prison for accessing commonly-used technology is an extreme civil liberties violation.

The RESTRICT Act alters portions of U.S. law known as the Berman amendments, which limits the president’s authority to restrict the free flow of “informational material” from hostile countries. These protections were later expanded to extend First Amendment-type protections to foreign media and communications. Altering such an important and long-standing check on executive authority is a dangerous expansion of state surveillance powers.

There is no doubt that there needs to be restrictions placed on companies that collect our personal and private information for profit, including both foreign companies like TikTok and American companies like Meta and Google. But, a ban on TikTok only further entrenches the market share of Big Tech giants, which renders their mass data collection even more impenetrable to legislative action.

The RESTRICT Act is a poor substitute for what we really need: comprehensive privacy legislation. A good starting point is legislation we previously advocated for, the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act, introduced by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). While not a replacement for a comprehensive privacy bill, it begins the long overdue task of limiting government purchasing of your data from private brokers, and is a much more effective pathway to privacy protection than outright bans on ICT and harsh criminal penalties.