6 ms·

It's worse than you think. This bill isn't really about Tik Tok. Read the fine print: people caught using a VPN could be thrown in jail for 20 years! It's ab

It's worse than you think. This bill isn't really about Tik Tok. Read the fine print: people caught using a VPN could be thrown in jail for 20 years! It's about giving govt unchecked authority to throw people in jail.

spogbiper 4y ago
can you point out where the bill says this? I'm not practiced in reading this kind of thing and struggling to find it
- tomcar288 4y ago
  FYI: i heard about that in a news article, I didn't actually read the bill.
  - yed 4y ago
    I've read the bill and while I'm not a fan for more general reasons, it doesn't say anything like this at all. The bill is strictly about foreigners from designated US "adversaries" having an ownership stake in large technology companies operating in the US. The text cherry picked in some of these news articles is just a list of the types of technology companies the bill specifies should be the prioritized when evaluating which foreign owned companies should be scrutinized.
    - akerl_ 4y ago
      The bill doesn’t require an ownership stake, it even includes provisions to consider an entity hostile if the holding is indirect.
      - yed 4y ago
        The intent there is to deal with people trying to get around the provision via intermediary holding companies. At its core there still must be some ownership stake or controlling interest by a foreign national, whether direct or indirect. Edit: the key parts of the bill that specify it applies only for controlling interests: > Sec 2-2: CONTROLLING HOLDING.—The term “controlling holding” means a holding with the power, whether direct or indirect and whether exercised or not exercised, to determine, direct, or decide important matters affecting an entity. > Sec 2-3-a (emphasis mine): COVERED HOLDING.—The term “covered holding”— means [...] a controlling holding held, directly or indirectly, in an ICTS covered holding entity by— [...]
        akerl_ 4y ago
        The bill doesn’t seem to require that an interest be controlling, nor define any boundaries on what counts as indirect stakes
    - illumin8 4y ago
      The problem is the bill creates a new secretary's office reporting directly to the president. This secretary is unaccountable to any voters and can designate any party as an adversary. Sure, it starts with only PRC, Iran, DPRK, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, the typical "baddies" but the secretary can change the list to include any entity, foreign or domestic, at any time. Then they can fine $250K and up to 20 years in jail if a US person attempts to access banned content. If a US person uses a VPN to try to circumvent this ban the fine increases to $1M. It also enables them to use all devices on your private network, including routers, wifi APs, webcams, video cameras, smart speakers, etc, to spy on US citizens and persons without any warrant and no recourse for people that are spied on. They can spy on you and surveil your entire digital and physical life and you cannot do anything about it. This is basically the PATRIOT act for the Internet. It makes it so this new, unaccountable government agency, who meets in secret and is not subject to FOIA, can ban any website, content, or entity they want online, then spy on and jail US persons who might try to access it. It's pure evil and puts us in the same place that China is today.
  - dpkirchner 4y ago
    There was reporting on "news" site Reason to this effect. So, it is very likely false.
  - bigtex88 4y ago
    How about not spreading around false information if you don't know wtf you're talking about?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  That claim seems to be making the rounds. https://hn.algolia.com/?q=restrict+act https://hn.algolia.com/?q=restrict+act Some of the the more accusatory headlines: > The Restrict Act would allow the Feds access to all the data on our devices https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35362848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35362848 > The “anti-TikTok” RESTRICT act seems to apply to nearly every U.S. tech company https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35318956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35318956 > The RESTRICT act may let the government control any public tech company https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35324114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35324114 > The TikTok Ban Act, RESTRICT, will give Gov't unprecedented privacy access https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35342797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35342797 > Could the Restrict Act Criminalize the Use of VPNs? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35358761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35358761
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  Because it doesn't say it. It instead lays out a series of new designations and powers handed to the President. Specifically the President can now designate new kinds of national security threats and demand various mitigations to stop them. Anyone who does not obey is facing fines and prison time. So for example, President Biden could designate TikTok a national security threat under the RESTRICT Act, and then order VPN companies to block outbound traffic to TikTok. If the VPN companies refused they would be liable. Don't blame yourself for not finding it, I had the same reaction last night. The libertarians who caught onto this are not very good at explaining themselves to people who don't care.

spogbiper 4y ago

can you point out where the bill says this? I'm not practiced in reading this kind of thing and struggling to find it

tomcar288 4y ago
FYI: i heard about that in a news article, I didn't actually read the bill.
- yed 4y ago
  I've read the bill and while I'm not a fan for more general reasons, it doesn't say anything like this at all. The bill is strictly about foreigners from designated US "adversaries" having an ownership stake in large technology companies operating in the US. The text cherry picked in some of these news articles is just a list of the types of technology companies the bill specifies should be the prioritized when evaluating which foreign owned companies should be scrutinized.
  - akerl_ 4y ago
    The bill doesn’t require an ownership stake, it even includes provisions to consider an entity hostile if the holding is indirect.
    - yed 4y ago
      The intent there is to deal with people trying to get around the provision via intermediary holding companies. At its core there still must be some ownership stake or controlling interest by a foreign national, whether direct or indirect. Edit: the key parts of the bill that specify it applies only for controlling interests: > Sec 2-2: CONTROLLING HOLDING.—The term “controlling holding” means a holding with the power, whether direct or indirect and whether exercised or not exercised, to determine, direct, or decide important matters affecting an entity. > Sec 2-3-a (emphasis mine): COVERED HOLDING.—The term “covered holding”— means [...] a controlling holding held, directly or indirectly, in an ICTS covered holding entity by— [...]
      - akerl_ 4y ago
        The bill doesn’t seem to require that an interest be controlling, nor define any boundaries on what counts as indirect stakes
  - illumin8 4y ago
    The problem is the bill creates a new secretary's office reporting directly to the president. This secretary is unaccountable to any voters and can designate any party as an adversary. Sure, it starts with only PRC, Iran, DPRK, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, the typical "baddies" but the secretary can change the list to include any entity, foreign or domestic, at any time. Then they can fine $250K and up to 20 years in jail if a US person attempts to access banned content. If a US person uses a VPN to try to circumvent this ban the fine increases to $1M. It also enables them to use all devices on your private network, including routers, wifi APs, webcams, video cameras, smart speakers, etc, to spy on US citizens and persons without any warrant and no recourse for people that are spied on. They can spy on you and surveil your entire digital and physical life and you cannot do anything about it. This is basically the PATRIOT act for the Internet. It makes it so this new, unaccountable government agency, who meets in secret and is not subject to FOIA, can ban any website, content, or entity they want online, then spy on and jail US persons who might try to access it. It's pure evil and puts us in the same place that China is today.
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  There was reporting on "news" site Reason to this effect. So, it is very likely false.
- bigtex88 4y ago
  How about not spreading around false information if you don't know wtf you're talking about?
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
That claim seems to be making the rounds. https://hn.algolia.com/?q=restrict+act https://hn.algolia.com/?q=restrict+act Some of the the more accusatory headlines: > The Restrict Act would allow the Feds access to all the data on our devices https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35362848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35362848 > The “anti-TikTok” RESTRICT act seems to apply to nearly every U.S. tech company https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35318956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35318956 > The RESTRICT act may let the government control any public tech company https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35324114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35324114 > The TikTok Ban Act, RESTRICT, will give Gov't unprecedented privacy access https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35342797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35342797 > Could the Restrict Act Criminalize the Use of VPNs? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35358761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35358761
kmeisthax 4y ago
Because it doesn't say it. It instead lays out a series of new designations and powers handed to the President. Specifically the President can now designate new kinds of national security threats and demand various mitigations to stop them. Anyone who does not obey is facing fines and prison time. So for example, President Biden could designate TikTok a national security threat under the RESTRICT Act, and then order VPN companies to block outbound traffic to TikTok. If the VPN companies refused they would be liable. Don't blame yourself for not finding it, I had the same reaction last night. The libertarians who caught onto this are not very good at explaining themselves to people who don't care.