Skip to main content

Fact check: No, RESTRICT Act doesn't give unfettered government access to personal devices

Sudiksha Kochi   | Paste BN

The claim: RESTRICT Act allows the government to monitor all devices, access Wi-Fi and criminalize VPN

An April 11 Instagram video (direct link, archive link) shows a man discussing steps taken to "destroy America" and cites the RESTRICT Act as one of those steps.

"It's wrapped up in a TikTok ban which everybody's excited about," the man says. "That's not it. They want to be able to look at all of your devices at your home, access your Wi-Fi network, charge you with a felony, and charge you a million dollars for having a VPN."

The man also claims that the FedNow Service will create a central bank digital currency, leading to "total government control."

The post generated over 1,500 likes in two weeks.

Follow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks

Our rating: False

The RESTRICT Act doesn’t allow the government to monitor a person’s device, access their Wi-Fi network or criminalize VPNs, according to legal experts and the bill's sponsors. In addition, the post misleads on the FedNow Service, which won't create a central bank digital currency.

Bill doesn't allow government to monitor devices or access Wi-Fi 

The RESTRICT Act, or the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act, was introduced to the Senate on March 7 by Democratic Virginia Sen. Mark Warner and a group of lawmakers.

The bill gives the secretary of commerce authority to “identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate or otherwise mitigate” any covered transaction involving information and communication technology products and services linked to a foreign adversary that “pose undue or unacceptable risk.”

But contrary to the post’s claim, no provision in the legislation allows the government to monitor a person's device or access their Wi-Fi network, according to James Ivory, a communication technology expert at Virginia Tech.

Republican South Dakota Sen. John Thune, who introduced the bill, also said in remarks on the Senate floor that the government can't "surveil Americans’ online content" or "access any American’s personal communications device" under the bill.

Fact check: False claim the UN is advocating for decriminalizing sex with minors

Ivory said these concerns mainly stem from section five of the draft legislation, which allows the commerce secretary to evaluate covered transactions involving products and services such as wireless local area networks, mobile networks, mobile applications and edge computer platforms.

But Lee McKnight, a technology policy expert at Syracuse University, said monitoring involved in the bill "is of the designated nations and their products entering US markets. NOT of individual consumers."

The monitoring doesn't apply to "all" devices as the post asserts.

"The bill’s Section 5 does address wireless networks and access points used by companies and service providers, which may be a source of confusion, (but) there is broad agreement even among notable critics that the bill does not allow the government access to individuals’ personal devices or home networks," Ivory said.

Warner wrote in a tweet thread that the bill doesn’t give the government any power to track what a person is searching, and it is squarely aimed at targeting systematic threats to the U.S. from foreign adversaries.

Bill doesn't criminalize having VPN

There is no specific language in the RESTRICT Act that mentions criminal punishment of any kind for using or having a virtual private network, or VPN, according to Ivory.

A VPN changes an individual's device’s IP address to ensure they can browse the internet anonymously, as Paste BN reported.

Although VPNs are not mentioned anywhere in the bill, experts and organizations have raised concerns that the language in the bill is broad enough that it could possibly be applied to individuals, according to Ivory.

For instance, if an individual used a VPN through an internet service provider to other sites, services and individuals from a Chinese producer, that could be restricted, McKnight said.

But Warner and Thune rebutted these concerns in an opinion column they co-wrote for The Wall Street Journal, noting that "these criminal penalties are targeted at corporations and executives who conspire to evade a mitigation order or ban – not everyday Americans." 

Fact check: Claim about new death penalty procedure in Ohio is satire

Section 11 of the bill says any person who violates or attempts to violate the act can be fined up to $1 million dollars or imprisoned for up to 20 years, or both.

"But again, this is not specified as a punishment for using an application or VPN," Ivory said. "Thus, the speculation about felony charges and million-dollar fines for individuals using VPNs is based on third parties’ concerns about how the bill could be read rather than the ostensible intent of the bill’s sponsors."

Post misleads on FedNow Service

The post’s claim that the FedNow Service will create a centralized digital currency is also wrong.

Paste BN reported that FedNow was designed by the Federal Reserve to enable financial institutions to provide secure, instant payment services for individuals and businesses. It has nothing to do with the creation of a digital currency.

Fact check: FedNow makes payments faster, does not replace dollar or create digital currency

The idea of government control under a central bank digital currency is off the mark. Experts told Paste BN that even if a central bank digital currency were implemented, it would be subject to all the guardrails – and likely many more – that currently exist with commercial banking and the government.

Paste BN reached out to the social media users who shared the claim for comment but did not immediately get a response.

PolitiFact and VERIFY also debunked similar versions of the claim.

Our fact-check sources:

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

Facebook Twitter Email