• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I feel like you might’ve completely misunderstood what I meant, they defined words like Photography and what a Data Broker is hyper-specifically, like a dictionary might. If they wanted to they could have named the company directly. They’re literally the highest power in the US Federal government, they have full authority. They wanted to remove a gap in our system of laws to prevent anything similar from ever occurring in the future. I think technically Kaspersky and a few other companies could qualify with these terms.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I actually don’t think they can name the company directly. If I remember right that’s unconstitutional.

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Not American, but that doesn’t sound right… whose rights are being violated in that case? A multinational corporation?

        I can see why you shouldn’t name an actual person, though.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Our Corporations have the same rights we do with one exception. If my rights and my employer’s rights come into conflict, say on religious freedom, I’m forced to accept the corporation’s right to force me into religious practice. So they have first class and we have second class.

    • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I didn’t completely misunderstand, I just used the term hyper specific (rather confusingly, I admit, since you used it too) to refer to the wording of the bill. I would be surprised to see this used for other companies - the recent happenings with Kaspersky are not related to this bill.

      to prevent anything similar from ever occurring

      What are you referring to here? What occurred? Do you mean the creation of another foreign TikTok?