Prohibits the use of TikTok and related applications on computers and networks owned or leased by the state (EN SEE FISC NOTE SG RV See Note)
The bill would significantly alter state regulations concerning technology usage by public officials and employees. It specifically addresses the use of applications owned by ByteDance Limited and focuses on enhancing cybersecurity across state-managed digital infrastructure. Noncompliance with these policies by agency heads would result in civil penalties, illustrating a commitment to enforcing these new standards. The bill aims to protect sensitive state data from potential breaches associated with foreign-owned applications.
House Bill 361 aims to restrict the use of the social networking service TikTok and any related applications on computers, devices, or networks that are owned or leased by the state of Louisiana. The legislation establishes a framework requiring the Office of Technology Services to develop a policy prohibiting such usage, which must then be approved by the Joint Legislative Committee on Technology and Cybersecurity. This move reflects a growing concern over cybersecurity risks, particularly regarding applications that collect and share user data.
The sentiment around HB 361 appears to be primarily supportive within the legislative context, as evidenced by its unanimous passage in the House with a vote of 99-0 and similar support in accompanying discussions. Proponents argue that the bill is necessary for safeguarding state information and ensuring that public servants operate within secure digital environments. However, there may also be underlying concerns regarding overreach and the implications for the social media landscape, particularly for public engagement and communication.
While the bill received broad support, some discussions highlighted the potential implications for public servants' access to digital platforms vital for their roles. There are exceptions outlined in the bill allowing legitimate uses for scientific, educational, or law enforcement purposes, but the bill's restrictions could be seen as limiting communication channels. The enforcement of penalties for agency heads could also lead to contention regarding how state departments manage their digital policies and the inherent balances between security and functionality in public service.