South Carolina Republican John Thune, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner and 19 of their co-authors did the unthinkable. Their RESTRICT bill (the acronym for "Restriction") turned against not only China, but also people as diverse as left-wing American liberals and right-wing Trumpist Republicans. Both of them, behind the proposal of the bipartisan establishment, which has already been supported by the White House, see not just an attempt to ban TikTok in the United States, but a large-scale attack on the basic freedoms of Americans. Starting with freedom of speech.

The ornate bill would require the U.S. Department of Commerce, in order to protect national security, to identify and restrict information and communications technology transactions in which other countries deemed adversaries have an interest. We are talking about six states: China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela.

A broad interpretation will allow you to bring under the monastery any undesirables, the main of which, of course, is TikTok. A video application from the Chinese company ByteDance, according to senators, gives Beijing constant access to the flow of information about its American users, among whom young people predominate (manipulation of its consciousness is, by the way, another accusation). But the list of those who will be under the RESTRICT cap is much wider. Here is the Russian antivirus from Kaspersky, the use of which is now prohibited on computers of US federal structures. And equipment from Chinese Huawei and ZTE. But that's not even the main problem for Americans themselves.

The federal government (read: Biden) under the new law gets incredibly expanded opportunities to suppress any dissent.

Witch hunting is becoming a completely legal sport. RESTRICT is the license for it. What is the wording about "regulating transactions between persons in the United States and external adversaries." "Who will be appointed as an opponent?" the Trumpist Tucker Carlson, who is always going against the tide, sounds the alarm on Fox News. In Congress, Carlson is unexpectedly echoed by his implacable opponent, the left-liberal Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The fears of both are understandable. Behind the vague wording lies big brother's smirk. The bill says that the Secretary of Commerce will be provided with a number of tools up to the prohibition of technologies that can harm the United States. This, for example, may be a threat to elections. An even more abstract meaning is embedded in the concept of "transaction". Under this you can sum up absolutely any operation using any unwanted product in the field of IT. But the sentence is more than real. Up to 20 years in prison. Yes, at least for the fact that you oppose the war with Russia. As Carlson points out.

It is similar to the Patriot Act (also called the "Act to Unite and Strengthen America to Prevent Terrorism"), which was adopted in 2001 immediately after the September 11 attacks and for many years became the legal basis for tightening the screws in America.

The law expanded the FBI's eavesdropping and electronic surveillance rights. The Patriot Act allowed U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor Internet and telephone network users, as well as monitor major network resources and providers.

The shameful surveillance technologies described by Snowden (for example, the PRIS program) have their roots in the same place.

Having existed for 14 years, the scandalous law was replaced by the US Freedom Act, which, in particular, forbade the NSA to wiretap conversations and collect information about American citizens (foreigners, of course, do not care). However, by this time, private owners were quite successfully engaged in the collection of such information. The same Facebook* or Twitter know about their users today almost more than the conditional FBI.

But the American social networks RESTRICT, of course, will not touch. Like big brother's younger brothers.

* Meta product, the activity is recognized as extremist, is banned in Russia by the decision of the Tver Court of Moscow dated 21.03.2022.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.