Hacker News Reader

Comment by abfan1127 | Hacker News Reader

I've tried to follow this, but I still don't understand what legal standing gives the US government the authority to force a divestment? Does anyone know the statutes?

View on HN

US courts generally won't reign in the executive as long as the executive says "national security". They often won't even hear the case (for instance there has been no ruling on the legality of most NSA activities). This is how the internment of Japanese Americans in ww2 worked: an executive order is law until a court will overturn it and they generally won't interfere in anything to do with foreign policy, national security, espionage etc...

Come on, man. Don’t give credence to the US internment camps. There is a legitimate argument to be made that TikTok is funneling private US data to China, weakening natural security. There is no evidence to suggest that interning US Japanese in any way contributed to national security.

Grindr got sold off by the same reasoning and no one complained because it’s a legitimate concern.

What is the legitimate argument here?

How is the comment you are referring to giving "credence to the US internment camps"? It's using it as an example of how you can get away with whatever you want, including really terrible things like our internment camps or family separation for that matter, if you do it by EO and whisper "national security".

Because the TikTok national security concerns are plausible and the internment camp security concerns weren’t at all. One is plausible, if debatable. The other is a bald-faced conscious lie.

So your issue is with comparing the two of them? You believe that they are apples and oranges, one clearly bad and the other up for debate?

I will not pretend that we will look back on the TikTok debate and be appalled by it in the same degree but let's not forget that we considered internment camps to be "debatable" and Americans overwhelmingly supported them [0]. What we call "plausible, if debatable" now is not what future-us will necessarily call it. I think the original commenter was simply pointing out the extremes of the "power" behind using "national security" as justification.

[0] https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/ma...

Also, the NSA thing isn’t helped by courts generally not allowing illegally obtained evidence. And considering practically all NSA cases are based on leaks such as Snowden’s, the evidence is “illegally obtained” and can be thrown out.

The US Treasury Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) can review any foreign purchase of a US business under the guise of National Security.

The power was vested first by executive order, then codified by legislation in the 80s, and was updated in 2006 and 2018.

I may be a javascript programmer, but I am also an expert on virus airborne transmission, political polling, and now, US governance of corporations. Let me dig into my Wikipedia files and get back to you.

Maybe you should answer, then? Are you trying to imply that on this entire website--which includes uses who are straight up lawyers, in addition to people who at least moonlight as politicians--that no one could possibly know more than you?

Two separate orders:

1. Issued by Trump on August 6, which uses the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...

This executive order was stopped by a preliminary injunction issued by Judge Nichols, who based his decision on an explicit exception in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act:

    (b)Exceptions to grant of authority

    The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly—

    (1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value;

    …

    (3) the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 4604 of this title, or under section 4605 of this title to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18; ...

An executive order by Trump based on CIFUS, which is forcing a divestment of TikTok's acquisition of Musical.ly (whose founders are Chinese but operated the company in the US). If not, the order would bar TikTok from operating in the US.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/order-regard...

The part of the order that would bar TikTok from operating in the US was halted by an injuction by Judge Wendy Beetlestone. Although she did not opine on the divestiture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com