4 ms·
The language on what constitutes a violation is vague, but it does appear you could face hefty fines and jail time for this behavior under the current draft of
by AustinDev 4y ago
The language on what constitutes a violation is vague, but it does appear you could face hefty fines and jail time for this behavior under the current draft of the act.
"Hence anyone using a VPN to access TikTok would be in trouble—specifically, subject to up to $1 million in fines, 20 years in prison, or both."[1]
[1]https://reason.com/2023/03/29/could-the-restrict-act-criminalize-the-use-of-vpns/ https://reason.com/2023/03/29/could-the-restrict-act-crimina...
- calgarymicro 4y agoIf you believe the Senator who wrote it (up to you I guess), this doesn't meet the bar for prosecution. > Warner's office says this isn't so. Spokesperson Rachel Cohen told Newsweek that the provisions only apply when someone is "engaged in 'sabotage or subversion' of communications technology in the U.S., causing 'catastrophic effects' on U.S. critical infrastructure, or 'interfering in, or altering the result' of a federal election in order for criminal penalties to apply."
- falcolas 4y agoThey can say that until they’re blue in the face, but if those conditions are not in the law, it’s up to prosecutors discretion.
- bioemerl 4y agoThey can amend it before it gets passed into law. And this bill without question needs to be passed into law in some form.
- falcolas 4y ago150 million Americans and 5 million small businesses will probably disagree with your assertion.
- HDThoreaun 4y agoI use tiktok and am on the fence on if it should be banned, leaning yes. Many other users agree.
- sudosysgen 4y agoI can't find that language in the act. It seems to apply to any violation of the act. The linked article goes over the language of the act and it seems to have the same impression thereof.
- AustinDev 4y agoHence why I said it was vague I'm not sure it's as concrete as the article implies but regardless of that the punishment sounds absurd.