• @Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -38 months ago

    The big point is, how does that power get used?

    There is no due process. So someone like Trump could just declare a company to be a foreign adversary. If this was like an Anti-Trust case that had to be built and proven in court we wouldn’t have a problem with it. But it’s not. You’re just literally declaring it, no evidence required.

    • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      If ByteDance continues sending the outlined Data to any offshore location defined as an adversarial nation, then:

      So, this is an FTC Enforcement. Since you clearly have no idea what that means, the chairmen of the FTC vote on the specifics of the enforcement and then unless the company accepts the terms it almost certainly becomes contested in the courts where lawyers explain to the judge that they think this is or is not constitutional and lawful action by the FTC to which the judge gives their opinion, and then appeals courts can send the decision to other courts some of which may rule on the case voluntarily such as the SCOTUS (although that is quite rare).

      EXAMPLE: Over their handling of data and disruption of local elections the FTC fined Facebook 5Bn USD on July 12, 2019. Facebook will be making installment payments for over a decade. This was a historic record fine, up from the previous highest being 168 Million USD in 2017 against Dish Network.

      • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -28 months ago

        The company having to appeal in court is not due process. It’s not due process if you break a law and it’s not due process if they break a law. If you think the FTC making a declaration is due process then remember Ajit Pai and net neutrality. The rulings of those agencies can swing wildly between administrations. So right now it’s ByteDance. But in the cursed world where the GOP gets this power it’s whatever organization they don’t like. Ever wonder if this could be used against a Union? They’ve wondered. And without a need for real evidence, (citing secret intelligence reports is also precedent), they don’t even need to get an infiltrator into the Union’s administration.

        The courts are not the constitutional safety valve you want them to be. They’ve proven that time and time again. Rights require the people themselves to defend them. If you’re in any doubt of that check out the difference between how we treat the 4th amendment and the 2nd amendment. And then realize SCOTUS ruled that police aren’t soldiers because words (police didn’t exist in 1792), and as such the 3rd amendment is a dead letter.

        As to your example, The FTC had to have the DOJ file charges in court. So even in the example you found, they are using due process. This power is new, overly broad, and unconstitutional.

          • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -2
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Not after the fact. They are due process when the government has to prove it’s case before it can take punitive action. If the government is allowed to take punitive action without going to court to prove it’s needed than there is no due process.

            Why is that so hard to understand?