6 ms·
VPN Users Risk 20-Year Jail Sentences in the US Under New Restrict Act
- 13years 3y agoWe need to ban TikTok because they might be spying on you. Solution: a bill that allows us to spy on you unconditionally for all activities, anywhere, anytime for any reason. Also, we will be immune to FOIA or any kind of oversight.
- est 3y agoA bill to ban specific apps is stupid. Should have banned advertisers to trade with specific companies instead.
- data-ottawa 3y agoIf we don't spy on you, we won't be sure they aren't spying on you?!
- skoopie 3y agoWho TF cares if they're spying on us. The real issue is that our biggest foreign adversary has push-button access to influence the minds of our kids. If TikTok were Russia-owned, we would have banned it already.
- heftymiata 3y agoThe government kinda already spys on you anywhere,anytime for any reason
- anigbrowl 3y agoThis is wildly hyperbolic as far as I can see. The bill (which I do not endorse) is focused on threats to critical infrastructure and other natsec considerations from designated foreign enemies. Also, it's just been introduced and might not go anywhere.
- matrix12 3y agoBut we've seen hyperbole become the status quo oh too often. Abuse will happen, and to the extent and beyond the limits of any new bills. Give them the power, and they will assuredly misuse it.
- anigbrowl 3y agoI'm saying the description of it is wildly hyperbolic, to the point of being deceptive. Again, this is not an endorsement of the bill.
- ori_b 3y ago> Also, it's just been introduced and might not go anywhere. The way to prevent it from going somewhere is by raising the alarm loudly. Possibly also by lobbying for legislation that enshrines existing rights.
- Bud 3y ago[dead]
- TravelTechGuy 3y agoHow to pass horrible bills: 1. Stuff them with truly horrible ideas. 2. Wait for public to scream. 3. Remove half of the horrible ideas (keeping the core crap, like no FOIAs, privacy violations etc.) hidden and spread amongst hundreds of subparagraphs. 4. Present this is as "fair compromise". Convince idiots from both sides of the aisle that this is good for national security. 5. Pass the law. 6. Profit?
- walterbell 3y agoCompetitive LLM reviewers, trained on opinionated data and case law, will change the denial-of-Congress landscape of legislative complexity.
- deleted 3y ago
- msie 3y agoI wonder if any of TikTok’s competitors helped create the bill and are now regretting it.
- alwayslikethis 3y agoBig tech doesn't care about your rights. They (along with most others in power) care about suppressing competitors and dissent, and an obedient populace which is not going to hinder their continued rent extraction from society. Using censorship-circumvention tools is a form of dissent, and they would be happy to see the people doing it go to jail.
- habith 3y agoMeta hired a firm last year (Targeted Victory) to malign TikTok: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/meta-cant-buy-tiktok-so-it-hired-gop-operatives-to-run-a-smear-campaign/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/meta-cant-buy-ti...
- walterbell 3y agoEarlier threads: "The next Patriot Act, but so much worse: Bill S.686, the RESTRICT Act" (6 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35336366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35336366 "The Patriot Act on steroids: anti-TikTok Trojan horse for censorship and surveillance" (156 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35334851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35334851 Tiktok hired ex-gov people, how did they try to address natsec concerns? https://www.mintpressnews.com/nato-tiktok-pipeline-why-tiktok-employing-national-security-agents/280336/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/nato-tiktok-pipeline-why-tikto... > the threat to completely shut down its platform, subsided only after TikTok began appointing Western officials to important positions within its organization, thereby giving the state considerable influence over the content and direction of the app. On the perennial topic of poorly conceived legislation, let's not forget US (CA, UT) and UK laws which mandate age-verification, https://www.techdirt.com/tag/ab-2273/ https://www.techdirt.com/tag/ab-2273/ and "Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access" (600+ comments), https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35307647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35307647 and UK Online Safety Bill, https://www.techradar.com/features/uk-online-safety-bill https://www.techradar.com/features/uk-online-safety-bill
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gruez 3y agoWhich specific part of the bill allows "VPN users" to be punished with "20 year jail sentences"? Does the bill even ban VPNs? I skimmed the article and the linked tweet and can't find anything to that effect. The closest I can find is this >This could include VPNs if they are used to access banned websites such as TikTok. which seems like a standard anti-evasion provision. They're not going after your VPNs, people. While it (edit: might) technically be the case that you could face 20 years in jail if you were using a VPN and you were using it to evade tiktok bans, it's hugely misleading to characterize it as "VPN Users Risk 20-Year Jail Sentences". It would be like if the government was trying to pass a bill to ban people from smuggling explosives across the border, and that bill being characterized as "Drivers risk 20-year jail sentences under new law", because driving can be used to smuggle explosives and therefore some forms of driving could land you in jail.
- justizin 3y agoyou think it’s reasonable to put someone in jail for 20 years for logging into a social media website? also: how are they going to determine that you did? what if you have malware on one of your devices and it accesses something banned?
- what-no-tests 3y agoHahahahahaha tell it to the judge!
- tmn 3y agoJeez they said nothing of the sort. They were pointing out the bill was not about vpns. If there was a bill about preventing access to child porn. Including using a vpn. Imagine there was a headline ‘vpn users risk 20 years…’. The point is applicable in that fictional case and this case.
- jcadam 3y agoDon’t worry, enforcement will be highly selective.
- gruez 3y ago
- Buttons840 3y agoSo much concern over TikTok and America's personal data, yet no action from congress when half the nation's personal data is leaked every other week by dozens of other companies. Do they not think China is buying access to all these leaks? Last time I checked haveibeenpwned my email address had appeared in about 3,000 separate data breaches.
- Bud 3y ago[dead]
- IronWolve 3y agoBasically turns the department of commerce into the equivalent of the DHS, which already does the key aspects of the act, with some NEW special powers. If they think your company is a threat, they can close you down. But only foreign threats, just like the Patriot Act was sold to ya. It will be interesting to see the new rules the commerce department puts in place to monitor and control the internet. For your safety of course.
- peepeepoopoo3 3y ago"Foreign" here isn't necessarily tied to citizenship. They can reclassify US citizens as "foreign threats" as they see fit.
- thomasjudge 3y agoSummary and text of S686 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686
- kazinator 3y agoBusiness travelers use VPNs out of China, from behind the Great Firewall. This is just too paranoid.