Tag Archives: Legislative Branch

TikTok is encouraging its users to call their representatives about attempts to ban the app

Posted on by

TikTok is stepping up its efforts to fight a new bill that could force a ban of the app in the United States. The app has been alerting its millions of US users about the measure, which would force ByteDance to sell TikTok in order for the app to remain available in US app stores.

“TikTok is at risk of being shut down in the US,” the push notification says. “Call your representative now.” An in-app message then instructs users to “speak up now — before your government strips 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression.” It also provides users a shortcut to dial their representative’s office if they enter their zip code.

The push alerts are reportedly already having a dramatic effect. Politico reporter Olivia Beavers said that House staffers report their offices are being inundated with calls. One staffer said on X that “we're getting a lot of calls from high schoolers asking what a Congressman is.”

Unfortunately for TikTok, their plan to stir up resistance to the bill may not be having the intended effect. The flood of calls may in fact be “backfiring,” according to Beavers, who says the response may be increasing support for the bill among members of Congress. In a post on X, Representative Mike Gallagher, who chairs the select committee that introduced the bill, said the push notifications were “interfering with the legislative process.” 

The alerts come amid growing support for the measure, which was introduced earlier this week by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On Thursday, the bill cleared its first legislative hurdle with a unanimous vote, 50 - 0, by members of the Energy and Commerce Committee to advance the measure. President Joe Biden, whose administration has also sought to force a divestiture of TikTok, is reportedly supportive of the bill. As Punchbowl News notes, previous bills to ban TikTok have not had the backing of the White House.

If passed, the bill would give TikTok about six months to separate itself from ByteDance or else an app store ban would take effect. "This legislation has a predetermined outcome: a total ban of TikTok in the United States," TikTok said in a statement published after the vote in the House. "The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression. This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.”

Digital rights groups also oppose the measure. The ACLU has called it “unconstitutional,” while other groups say that comprehensive privacy legislation would be a more effective way to protect Americans’ data.

Update March 7, 2024, 3:52PM ET: This story has been updated to reflect the results of a vote by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a statement from TikTok.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/tiktok-is-encouraging-its-users-to-call-their-representatives-about-attempts-to-ban-the-app-202056111.html?src=rss

Lawmakers have a new plan to force ByteDance to sell TikTok

Posted on by

A group of lawmakers have introduced a new bill that would force ByteDance to sell TikTok in order for the app to remain available in the United States. The “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” would prohibit US app stores and web hosting services from distributing TikTok unless it divested from parent company ByteDance.

The bill is the latest in a long line of attempts by lawmakers and other officials to ban or force a sale of the app. Former President Donald Trump attempted to force a sale of TikTok in 2020, but was ultimately unsuccessful. The Biden Administration has also pressured the company to divest. And a US District Court Judge recently blocked an attempt to ban the app in Montana.

The new bill, which comes from a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House, takes a different approach. It would give ByteDance a six-month window to sell TikTok before app store-level bans would come into effect. It would also require TikTok and other apps to “provide users with a copy of their data in a format that can be imported” into competing apps. And though TikTok is referenced several times in the text of the bill, the legislation would open the door for bans on other “foreign adversary-controlled” apps if the president deemed them to be a national security threat.

“This bill is an outright ban of TikTok, no matter how much the authors try to disguise it,” TikTok said in a statement. “This legislation will trample the First Amendment rights of 170 million Americans and deprive 5 million small businesses of a platform they rely on to grow and create jobs.”

TikTok CEO Shou Chew has maintained that a divestment would not fully address officials’ concerns about US user data. The company has spent years trying to address national security concerns about its service with an initiative called Project Texas. Under the plan, created as a result of years of negotiations with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), US users’ data would be separated into US-based servers and government officials would be able to oversee audits of TikTok’s source code and other aspects of its operations.

The Washington Post reported last year that TikTok’s negotiations with CFIUS had been recently “revived amid doubts the [Biden] administration has the authority to ban TikTok on its own.” If Congress was able to pass the new bill, it would clear up such questions and create a new process for forcing ByteDance's hand. 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other digital rights groups have criticized the government's efforts to ban TikTok. In a statement on the latest bill, the ACLU said the proposed measure was "unconstitutional" and would hurt free speech. "Just because the bill sponsors claim that banning TikTok isn’t about suppressing speech, there’s no denying that it would do just that," senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff said. 

Columbia University's nonprofit Knight First Amendment Institute raised similar concerns. "Congress can protect data privacy and security without banning Americans from accessing one of the world’s most popular communications platforms," the organization's executive director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement. "It should start by passing a comprehensive privacy law restricting the kinds of information that TikTok and other platforms can collect." 

Update March 5, 2024 6:50 PM ET: This story has been updated to add comments from the ACLU and Knight First Amendment Institute. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/lawmakers-have-a-new-plan-to-force-bytedance-to-sell-tiktok-220408004.html?src=rss

Lawmakers have a new plan to force ByteDance to sell TikTok

Posted on by

A group of lawmakers have introduced a new bill that would force ByteDance to sell TikTok in order for the app to remain available in the United States. The “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” would prohibit US app stores and web hosting services from distributing TikTok unless it divested from parent company ByteDance.

The bill is the latest in a long line of attempts by lawmakers and other officials to ban or force a sale of the app. Former President Donald Trump attempted to force a sale of TikTok in 2020, but was ultimately unsuccessful. The Biden Administration has also pressured the company to divest. And a US District Court Judge recently blocked an attempt to ban the app in Montana.

The new bill, which comes from a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House, takes a different approach. It would give ByteDance a six-month window to sell TikTok before app store-level bans would come into effect. It would also require TikTok and other apps to “provide users with a copy of their data in a format that can be imported” into competing apps. And though TikTok is referenced several times in the text of the bill, the legislation would open the door for bans on other “foreign adversary-controlled” apps if the president deemed them to be a national security threat.

“This bill is an outright ban of TikTok, no matter how much the authors try to disguise it,” TikTok said in a statement. “This legislation will trample the First Amendment rights of 170 million Americans and deprive 5 million small businesses of a platform they rely on to grow and create jobs.”

TikTok CEO Shou Chew has maintained that a divestment would not fully address officials’ concerns about US user data. The company has spent years trying to address national security concerns about its service with an initiative called Project Texas. Under the plan, created as a result of years of negotiations with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), US users’ data would be separated into US-based servers and government officials would be able to oversee audits of TikTok’s source code and other aspects of its operations.

The Washington Post reported last year that TikTok’s negotiations with CFIUS had been recently “revived amid doubts the [Biden] administration has the authority to ban TikTok on its own.” If Congress was able to pass the new bill, it would clear up such questions and create a new process for forcing ByteDance's hand. 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other digital rights groups have criticized the government's efforts to ban TikTok. In a statement on the latest bill, the ACLU said the proposed measure was "unconstitutional" and would hurt free speech. "Just because the bill sponsors claim that banning TikTok isn’t about suppressing speech, there’s no denying that it would do just that," senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff said. 

Columbia University's nonprofit Knight First Amendment Institute raised similar concerns. "Congress can protect data privacy and security without banning Americans from accessing one of the world’s most popular communications platforms," the organization's executive director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement. "It should start by passing a comprehensive privacy law restricting the kinds of information that TikTok and other platforms can collect." 

Update March 5, 2024 6:50 PM ET: This story has been updated to add comments from the ACLU and Knight First Amendment Institute. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/lawmakers-have-a-new-plan-to-force-bytedance-to-sell-tiktok-220408004.html?src=rss

Oregon’s new Right to Repair bill targets anti-repair practices

Posted on by

Oregon is set to become the latest state to pass a Right to Repair law. The Oregon House of Representatives passed the Right to Repair Act (SB 1596) on March 4, two weeks after it advanced from the Senate. It now heads to Governor Tina Kotek's desk, who has five days to sign it.

California, Minnesota and New York have similar legislation, but Nathan Proctor, the Public Interest Research Group's Right to Repair Campaign senior director, calls Oregon's legislation "the best bill yet." (It's worth noting that Colorado also has its own Right to Repair legislation that has a different remit around agricultural equipment rather than around consumer electronics.)

If made into law, Oregon's Right To Repair Act would be the first to ban "parts pairing," a practice that prevents individuals from swapping out a piece for another, theoretically equivalent one. For example, a person might replace their iPhone battery with an identical one from the same model, but they'll likely receive an error message that it either can't be verified or used. The system forces people to buy the part directly from the manufacturer and can only activate it with their consent — otherwise users will have to buy an entirely new device altogether. Instead, under the new bill, manufacturers would be required to:

  • Prevent or inhibit an independent repair provider or an owner from installing or enabling the function of an otherwise functional replacement part or a component of consumer electronic equipment, including a replacement part or a component that the original equipment manufacturer has not approved.

  • Reduce the functionality or performance of consumer electronic equipment.

  • Cause consumer electronic equipment to display misleading alerts or warnings, which the owner cannot immediately dismiss, about unidentified parts.

Along with restricting parts pairing, the act dictates that manufacturers must make compatible parts available to device owners through the company or an authorized service provider for the most favorable price and without any "substantial" conditions.

The parts pairing ban applies to any devices first built or sold in Oregon starting in 2025. However, the law backdates general coverage of electronics to 2015, except for cell phones. Oregon's mobile devices purchased starting July 2021 count — a stipulation in line with California's and Minnesota's Right to Repair bills.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/oregons-new-right-to-repair-bill-targets-anti-repair-practices-143001457.html?src=rss

Oregon’s new Right to Repair bill targets anti-repair practices

Posted on by

Oregon is set to become the latest state to pass a Right to Repair law. The Oregon House of Representatives passed the Right to Repair Act (SB 1596) on March 4, two weeks after it advanced from the Senate. It now heads to Governor Tina Kotek's desk, who has five days to sign it.

California, Minnesota and New York have similar legislation, but Nathan Proctor, the Public Interest Research Group's Right to Repair Campaign senior director, calls Oregon's legislation "the best bill yet." (It's worth noting that Colorado also has its own Right to Repair legislation that has a different remit around agricultural equipment rather than around consumer electronics.)

If made into law, Oregon's Right To Repair Act would be the first to ban "parts pairing," a practice that prevents individuals from swapping out a piece for another, theoretically equivalent one. For example, a person might replace their iPhone battery with an identical one from the same model, but they'll likely receive an error message that it either can't be verified or used. The system forces people to buy the part directly from the manufacturer and can only activate it with their consent — otherwise users will have to buy an entirely new device altogether. Instead, under the new bill, manufacturers would be required to:

  • Prevent or inhibit an independent repair provider or an owner from installing or enabling the function of an otherwise functional replacement part or a component of consumer electronic equipment, including a replacement part or a component that the original equipment manufacturer has not approved.

  • Reduce the functionality or performance of consumer electronic equipment.

  • Cause consumer electronic equipment to display misleading alerts or warnings, which the owner cannot immediately dismiss, about unidentified parts.

Along with restricting parts pairing, the act dictates that manufacturers must make compatible parts available to device owners through the company or an authorized service provider for the most favorable price and without any "substantial" conditions.

The parts pairing ban applies to any devices first built or sold in Oregon starting in 2025. However, the law backdates general coverage of electronics to 2015, except for cell phones. Oregon's mobile devices purchased starting July 2021 count — a stipulation in line with California's and Minnesota's Right to Repair bills.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/oregons-new-right-to-repair-bill-targets-anti-repair-practices-143001457.html?src=rss

Senate tells social media CEOs they have ‘blood on their hands’ for failing to protect children

Posted on by

The CEOs of Meta, Snap, Discord, X and TikTok testified at a high-stakes Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on child exploitation online. During the hearing, Mark Zuckerberg, Evan Spiegel, Jason Citron, Linda Yaccarino and Shou Chew spent nearly four hours being grilled by lawmakers about their records on child safety. 

The hearing was the first time Spiegel, Citron and Yaccarino testified to Congress. Notably, all three were subpoenaed by the committee after refusing to appear voluntarily, according to lawmakers. Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Dick Durbin noted that Citron “only accepted services of his subpoena after US Marshals were sent to Discord’s headquarters at taxpayers’ expense.”

The hearing room was filled with parents of children who had been victims of online exploitation on social media. Many members of the audience silently held up photos of their children as the CEOs entered the room, and Durbin kicked off the hearing with a somber video featuring victims of child exploitation and their parents.

“Discord has been used to groom, abduct and abuse children,” Durbin said. “Meta’s Instagram helped connect and promote a network of pedophiles. Snapchat’s disappearing messages have been co-opted by criminals who financially extort young victims. TikTok has become a quote platform of choice for predators to access, engage and groom children for abuse. And the prevalence of CSAM on X has grown as the company has gutted its trust and safety workforce.”

During the hearing, many of the senators shared personal stories of parents whose children had died by suicide after being exploited online. "Mr. Zuckerberg, you and the companies before us — I know you don't mean it to be so — but you have blood on your hands," Senator Lindsey Graham said in his opening remarks. The audience applauded. 

While years of similar hearings have so far failed to produce any new laws, there is growing bipartisan support in Congress for new safety regulations. As Tech Policy Press points out, there are currently more than half a dozen bills dealing with children's online safety that have been proposed by senators. These include the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which would require platforms to create more parental control and safety features and submit to independent audits, and COPPA 2.0, a revised version of the 1998 Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, which would bar companies from collecting or monetizing children’s data without consent.

Senators have also proposed a number of bills to address child exploitation, including the EARN IT Act, currently in its third iteration since 2020, and the STOP CSAM Act. None of these have advanced to the Senate floor for a vote. Many of these bills have faced intense lobbying from the tech industry, though some companies in attendance said they were open to some bills and some aspects of the legislation.

Spiegel said that Snap supports KOSA. Yaccarino said X supports the STOP CSAM Act. Shou and Citron both declined to specifically endorse the bills they were asked about, but said they were open to more discussions.

Zuckerberg suggested a different approach, saying he supported age verification and parental control requirements at the app store level, which would effectively shift the burden to Apple and Google. "Apple already requires parental consent when a child does a payment with an app, so it should be pretty trivial to pass a law that requires them to make it so parents have control anytime a child downloads an app,” Zuckerberg said.

Meta has come increased pressure in recent months following a lawsuit from 41 states for harming teens’ mental health. Court documents from the suit allege that Meta turned a blind eye to children under 13 using its service, did little to stop adults from sexually harassing teens on Facebook and that Zuckerberg personally intervened to stop an effort to ban plastic surgery filters on Instagram.

Unsurprisingly, Zuckerberg came under particular scrutiny during the hearing. In one awkward exchange, Senator Graham asked Zuckerberg if the parents of a child who died by suicide after falling victim to a sextortion scheme should be able to sue Meta. Zuckerberg, looking uncomfortable, paused and said “I think that they can sue us.”

Later, Senator Josh Hawley pressed the Meta founder on whether he would personally apologize to the parents in the hearing room. Zuckerberg stood up and faced the audience. "I’m sorry for everything you have all been through," he said. "No one should go through the things that your families have suffered and this is why we invest so much and we are going to continue doing industry-wide efforts to make sure no one has to go through the things your families have had to suffer."

Spiegel was also asked to directly address parents. “Mr. Spiegel, there are a number of parents who have children who have been able to access illegal drugs on your platform, what do you say to those parents,” Scenario Laphonza Butler asked the Snap founder. “I’m so sorry,” he said.

As with many past hearings featuring tech CEOs, some lawmakers strayed off topic. Multiple senators pressed Chew on TikTok’s relationship with China, as well as its handling of content moderation during the Israel-Hamas war. Senator Tom Cotton repeatedly asked TikTok's CEO about his citizenship (Chew is Singaporean). 

There were also some bizarre moments, like when Senator John Kennedy asked Spiegel if he knew the meaning of “yada yada yada” (Spiegel claimed he was “not familiar” with the phrase). “Can we agree … what you do is what you believe and everything else is just cottage cheese,” Kennedy asked.

During the hearing, many of the companies touted their existing safety features and parental controls (Meta launched several updates in the lead-up to the hearing). Yaccarino, who repeatedly claimed that X was a “brand new company” said X was considering adding parental controls. “Being a 14-month-old company we have reprioritized child protection and safety measures,” she said. “And we have just begun to talk about and discuss how we can enhance those with parental controls.”

In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-8255 or you can simply dial 988. Crisis Text Line can be reached by texting HOME to 741741 (US), 686868 (Canada), or 85258 (UK). Wikipedia maintains a list of crisis lines for people outside of those countries.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/senate-tells-social-media-ceos-they-have-blood-on-their-hands-for-failing-to-protect-children-170411884.html?src=rss

Tech CEOs are set to testify in a Senate online child sexual exploitation hearing in December

Posted on by

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on online child sexual exploitation on December 6 and the CEOs of major tech companies are set to testify. The committee expects Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his counterpart at TikTok, Shou Zi Chew, to testify voluntarily. It also wants to hear from the CEOs of X (formerly Twitter), Discord and Snap, and it has issued subpoenas to them.

"Big Tech’s failure to police itself at the expense of our kids cannot go unanswered," committee chair Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and ranking member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in a joint statement, as Reuters reports. "I’m hauling in Big Tech CEOs before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify on their failure to protect kids online," Durbin wrote on X.

According to the committee, X and Discord refused to accept service of the subpoenas on their CEO's behalf, "requiring the committee to enlist the assistance of the US Marshals Service" to serve them personally. "We have been working in good faith to participate in the Judiciary committee’s hearing on child protection online as safety is our top priority at X," Wifredo Fernandez, head of US and Canada government affairs at X, told Engadget in a statement. "Today we are communicating our updated availability to participate in a hearing on this important issue." 

“Keeping our users safe, especially young people, is central to everything we do at Discord," a Discord spokesperson told Engadget. "We have been actively engaging with the Committee on how we can best contribute to this important industry discussion. We welcome the opportunity to work together as an industry and with the Committee."

The issue of tech platforms allegedly facilitating harms against kids has become an increasingly pressing issue. Earlier this month, former Meta executive Arturo Béjar testified that Zuckerberg failed to respond to his email detailing concerns about harms facing children on the company's platforms. Senators then demanded documents from the company's CEO "related to senior executives’ knowledge of the mental and physical health harms associated with its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram."

Update 11/20 3:40PM ET: Added Discord's statement. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/tech-ceos-are-set-to-testify-in-a-senate-online-child-sexual-exploitation-hearing-in-december-180206072.html?src=rss

The Supreme Court will hear social media cases with immense free speech implications

Posted on by

On Friday, the US Supreme Court agreed to take on two landmark social media cases with enormous implications for online speech, as reported by The Washington Post. The conservative-dominated court will determine if laws passed by Texas and Florida are violating First Amendment rights by requiring social platforms to host content they would otherwise block.

Tech industry groups, including Meta, X (formerly Twitter) and Google, say the laws are unconstitutional and violate private companies’ First Amendment rights. “Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the Court,” Matt Schruers of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), one of the trade associations challenging the legislation, told The Washington Post. The CCIA called the order “encouraging.”

The groups representing the tech companies contesting the laws say platforms would be at legal risk for removing violent or hateful content, propaganda from hostile governments and spam. However, leaving the content online could be bad for their bottom lines as they would risk advertiser and user boycotts.

Supporters of the Republican-sponsored state laws claim that social media companies are biased against conservatives and are illegally censoring their views. “These massive corporate entities cannot continue to go unchecked as they silence the voices of millions of Americans,” said TX Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), who recently survived an impeachment trial accusing him of abuses of office, bribery and corruption. Appeals courts (all with Republican-appointed judges) have issued conflicting rulings on the laws.

The US Supreme Court voted five to four in 2022 to put the Texas law on hold while the legal sparring continued. Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted to prevent the law from taking effect. Meanwhile, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the temporary hold. Alito (joined by Thomas and Gorsuch) said he hadn’t decided on the law’s constitutionality but would have let it stand in the interim. The dissenting Kagan didn’t sign off on Alito’s statement or provide separate reasoning.

The Biden administration is against the laws. “The act of culling and curating the content that users see is inherently expressive, even if the speech that is collected is almost wholly provided by users,” Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar said to the justices. “And especially because the covered platforms’ only products are displays of expressive content, a government requirement that they display different content — for example, by including content they wish to exclude or organizing content in a different way — plainly implicates the First Amendment.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-supreme-court-will-hear-social-media-cases-with-immense-free-speech-implications-164302048.html?src=rss

California governor vetoes bill for obligatory human operators in autonomous trucks

Posted on by

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has blocked a bill that would have required autonomous trucks weighing more than 10,000 pounds (4,536kg) to have human safety drivers on board while operating on public roads. The governor said in a statement that the legislation, which California Senate members passed in a 36-2 vote, was unnecessary. Newsom believes existing laws are sufficient to ensure there's an "appropriate regulatory framework."

The governor noted that, under a 2012 law, the state's Department of Motor Vehicles collaborates with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, California Highway Patrol and other relevant bodies "to determine the regulations necessary for the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads.” Newsom added that the DMV is committed to making sure rules keep up with the pace of evolving autonomous vehicle tech. "DMV continuously monitors the testing and operations of autonomous vehicles on California roads and has the authority to suspend or revoke permits as necessary to protect the public's safety," his veto message reads.

Newsom, who has a reputation for being friendly to the tech industry, reportedly faced pressure within his administration not to sign the bill. The state's Office of Business and Economic Development warned that the proposed law would lead to companies that are working on self-driving tech to move out of California.

On the other hand, as The Associated Press notes, California Labor Federation head Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher estimates that not requiring human drivers in trucks would cost around 250,000 jobs. “We will not sit by as bureaucrats side with tech companies, trading our safety and jobs for increased corporate profits," Fletcher, who called autonomous trucks dangerous, said in a statement. "We will continue to fight to make sure that robots do not replace human drivers and that technology is not used to destroy good jobs.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/california-governor-vetoes-bill-for-obligatory-human-operators-in-autonomous-trucks-170051289.html?src=rss

House and Senate bills aim to protect journalists’ data from government surveillance

Posted on by

News gatherers in the US may soon have safeguards against government attempts to comb through their data. Bipartisan House and Senate groups have reintroduced legislation, the PRESS Act (Protect Reporters from Exploitive State Spying), that limits the government's ability to compel data disclosures that might identify journalists' sources. The Senate bill, would extend disclosure exemptions and standards to cover email, phone records, and other info third parties hold.

The PRESS Act would also require that the federal government gives journalists a chance to respond to data requests. Courts could still demand disclosure if it's necessary to prevent terrorism, identify terrorists or prevent serious "imminent" violence. The Senate bill is the work of Richard Durbin, Mike Lee and Ron Wyden, while the House equivalent comes from representatives Kevin Kiley and Jamie Raskin.

Sponsors characterize the bill as vital to protecting First Amendment press freedoms. Anonymous source leaks help keep the government accountable, Wyden says. He adds that surveillance like this can deter reporters and sources worried about retaliation. Lee, meanwhile, says the Act will also maintain the public's "right to access information" and help it participate in a representative democracy.

The senators point to instances from both Democratic and Republican administrations where law enforcement subpoenaed data in a bid to catch sources. Most notably, the Justice Department under Trump is known to have seized call records and email logs from major media outlets like CNN and The New York Times following an April 2017 report on how former FBI director James Comey handled investigations during the 2016 presidential election.

Journalist shield laws exist in 48 states and the District of Columbia, but there's no federal law. That void lets the Justice Department and other government bodies quietly grab data from telecoms and other providers. The PRESS Act theoretically patches that hole and minimizes the chances of abuse.

There's no guarantee the PRESS Act will reach President Biden's desk and become law. However, both Congress camps are betting that bipartisan support will help. The House version passed "unanimously" in the previous session of Congress, Wyden's office says.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/house-and-senate-bills-aim-to-protect-journalists-data-from-government-surveillance-192907280.html?src=rss