11 ms·

> It also uses civil forfeiture and makes it illegal to properly run a VPN. From what I've read a VPN only becomes a problem IF you use it to bypass restrictio

> It also uses civil forfeiture and makes it illegal to properly run a VPN. From what I've read a VPN only becomes a problem IF you use it to bypass restrictions on accessing TikTok. Stating VPNs will be illegal is a bit of a reach from what I've seen.

behringer 4y ago
Since tiktok is not mentioned in the bill I find this hard to believe.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  It would involve any attempt to bypass regulations placed down in the sake of national security, which would be something like using a VPN in order to give money to TikTok.
  - gruez 4y ago
    That sounds... fine? It's like having a bill that says you can't join designated terrorist organizations or fund money to them, and if you try to use VPNs to cover your tracks or to send payments to them it's also punishable.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      I think it's fine. The lawmakers aren't evil mustache twirling villains, they're trying to create a law and they wrote it as sensibly as they reasonably would in their circumstance and people on the internet are blowing it way out of proportion. Blowing things up like this is a thing the internet, America in general, has problems with. The TTP, If you remember that one, was another one that people absolutely tried to crush and it turned out it was actually a really good idea that we should have been part of. The reaction to this is scarily similar, and it's going to be resulting in a similar loss if it gets shut down. In all hopes they buckle down, put down some revisions to neuter some of the more egregious things people are complaining about, and the law passes with those extra protections.
      - henriquez 4y ago
        The TPP was not a good idea and it was great that Trump shut it down.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        It was a very good idea, and by shutting it down we basically handed a huge amount of power to China in the degree deal between a bunch of southeast Asian nations is one led by them instead of us. Trump's withdrawal from that agreement was one of the most catastrophic decisions the United States government has made in the last 20 years.
        lenkite 4y ago
        Even his opponent: Hillary Clinton was firmly against the TPP: "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election and I’ll oppose it as president.” The TPP's 5,000+ pages actually had very little to do with trade. Instead, corporations tried to turn it into a wish list for policies that they knew would never pass through Congress.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        Both Hillary and Obama were in support of the law before populist outrage showed up and they had to pivot. They were in favor of it because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. Half of the restrictions and changes were ones that literally didn't affect America and just brought other countries up to the Americans standard.
        lenkite 4y ago
        They pivoted because a extraordinary, vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum were against the TPP - extensive opinion polling already showed this. Calling this as as "populist" instead of "democratic" is a new spin nowadays to naysay the beliefs of American citizens. > because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. No, it wasn't a good law. It would have raised the cost of drugs significantly. The pharma bros are already billionaires. We don't need them to get richer. It had no protection for low-income American workers - esp auto workers. TPP would have led to a mass offshoring of jobs. Frankly, I do not wish this to devolve into a discussion on TPP, because its disadvantages and non-trading related addendums were already covered by media on both the left and the right. https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-workers-reject-the-tpp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-worke... https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-workers/ https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-...
    - p1necone 4y ago
      It seems completely unnecessary to specifically mention VPNs though. It shouldn't matter whether you funded terrorist organizations over the public internet vs through a VPN, either should be equally illegal.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - gruez 4y ago
        >It seems completely unnecessary to specifically mention VPNs though "VPN" occurs exactly zero times in the bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?format=txt&r=15&s=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
        p1necone 4y ago
        Thanks, I need to stop taking comments at face value when people are talking about stuff like this.
        haswell 4y ago
        While VPNs are not mentioned explicitly, there is very clear language that talks about attempting to evade the rules, which would clearly apply to VPNs. Furthermore, some have pointed out that the language of the bill could force providers to start tracking what users do. I’ve encountered quite a few “but the bill says nothing about VPNs” comments and those seem to be problematic takes. The bill doesn’t mention TikTok either.
        gruez 4y ago
        >Furthermore, some have pointed out that the language of the bill could force providers to start tracking what users do. Source?
        haswell 4y ago
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    The text defines transaction to include the act of transmitting data. You wouldn't need to give them money, by a plain reading a simple HTTP request would be illegal.
  - egeozcan 4y ago
    Is viewing ads in TikTok giving them money? What if I click through and buy the item and they get a cut? What about sending gifts to creators from which they get a cut? What if all done via cryptocurrency? Gift cards? Someone bought a TikTok voucher in another country, gifted to me that I redeemed via VPN? It also says transactions or any other actions... So, I let myself be tracked by TikTok by using a VPN, am I a criminal?
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      These are all good questions, and questions like this generally gets settled through court cases. 9 times out of 10 you can basically assume, " reasonability". Does viewing ads in TikTok give them money? I would expect not, because you're not getting the money. Posting ads on there certainly would count. Giving gifts to creators probably would also count, although I'm sure a court would consider that incredibly minor, it would probably never get enforced, and even if it did it would probably be some tiny paltry amount. The bank who lets that transaction happen however, might get in trouble. If you let yourself be tracked using a VPN...? I suspect the answer to that question is going to lie in why you're doing that. Inadvertently? Almost certainly not going to be an issue. Do you have some sort of ulterior motive? It's probably going to be a problem. After all, you're literally committing espionage for a foreign adversary of the United States in this case. Remember that law is backed by court cases, and courts tend to be pretty reasonable. These things aren't programmed, they're human
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  Since it's unconstitutional for bills to target individual people or companies, they are never mentioned by name in the text. This is not some sort of conspiracy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
duringmath 4y ago
What's the exact language pertaining to VPNs?
amatecha 4y ago
Using a VPN (or any other mechanism) to bypass ANY service banned under the provisions of this act[0] would be illegal (TikTok is not mentioned at all): Section 11 (a) (2) (F) > No person may engage in any transaction or take any other action with intent to evade the provisions of this Act, or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued thereunder. The criminal penalty for willingly violating that "shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both". Cool and reasonable, to be sure. [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
- gruez 4y ago
  > >No person may engage in any transaction or take any other action with intent to evade [...] IANAL but "transaction" in this case surely refers to financial transactions, not just visiting tiktok with VPN on? If the government is sanctioning Iran and say you can't transact with them, it seems fairly reasonable for them to also say that if you try to evade that through various ways you should be punished as well. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply if tiktok is sanctioned.
  - amatecha 4y ago
    Unfortunately the word "or" means the word "transaction" can be completely ignored and thus literally everything else is covered by the overly-broad words "take any other action", such as using a VPN or similar service. To make it more clear, you can read that specific entry as: "No person may engage in any action with intent to evade the provisions of this Act, or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued thereunder."
    - gruez 4y ago
      >"No person may engage in any action with intent to evade the provisions of this Act, or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued thereunder." And which part of the act prevents you from visiting tiktok?
matheusmoreira 4y ago
20 years of jail for accessing TikTok. In what universe could this possibly be reasonable.
jliptzin 4y ago
Is this the movie and tv industry at work again trying to get people to stop using vpns to get free content?
raxxorraxor 4y ago
That is not in any way better. It does indeed criminalise VPN usage. Be that as it may, the bill is still illiberal bullshit and a transfer of power interest wrong hands.

behringer 4y ago

Since tiktok is not mentioned in the bill I find this hard to believe.

bioemerl 4y ago
It would involve any attempt to bypass regulations placed down in the sake of national security, which would be something like using a VPN in order to give money to TikTok.
- gruez 4y ago
  That sounds... fine? It's like having a bill that says you can't join designated terrorist organizations or fund money to them, and if you try to use VPNs to cover your tracks or to send payments to them it's also punishable.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    I think it's fine. The lawmakers aren't evil mustache twirling villains, they're trying to create a law and they wrote it as sensibly as they reasonably would in their circumstance and people on the internet are blowing it way out of proportion. Blowing things up like this is a thing the internet, America in general, has problems with. The TTP, If you remember that one, was another one that people absolutely tried to crush and it turned out it was actually a really good idea that we should have been part of. The reaction to this is scarily similar, and it's going to be resulting in a similar loss if it gets shut down. In all hopes they buckle down, put down some revisions to neuter some of the more egregious things people are complaining about, and the law passes with those extra protections.
    - henriquez 4y ago
      The TPP was not a good idea and it was great that Trump shut it down.
      - bioemerl 4y ago
        It was a very good idea, and by shutting it down we basically handed a huge amount of power to China in the degree deal between a bunch of southeast Asian nations is one led by them instead of us. Trump's withdrawal from that agreement was one of the most catastrophic decisions the United States government has made in the last 20 years.
        lenkite 4y ago
        Even his opponent: Hillary Clinton was firmly against the TPP: "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election and I’ll oppose it as president.” The TPP's 5,000+ pages actually had very little to do with trade. Instead, corporations tried to turn it into a wish list for policies that they knew would never pass through Congress.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        Both Hillary and Obama were in support of the law before populist outrage showed up and they had to pivot. They were in favor of it because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. Half of the restrictions and changes were ones that literally didn't affect America and just brought other countries up to the Americans standard.
        lenkite 4y ago
        They pivoted because a extraordinary, vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum were against the TPP - extensive opinion polling already showed this. Calling this as as "populist" instead of "democratic" is a new spin nowadays to naysay the beliefs of American citizens. > because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. No, it wasn't a good law. It would have raised the cost of drugs significantly. The pharma bros are already billionaires. We don't need them to get richer. It had no protection for low-income American workers - esp auto workers. TPP would have led to a mass offshoring of jobs. Frankly, I do not wish this to devolve into a discussion on TPP, because its disadvantages and non-trading related addendums were already covered by media on both the left and the right. https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-workers-reject-the-tpp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-worke... https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-workers/ https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-...
  - p1necone 4y ago
    It seems completely unnecessary to specifically mention VPNs though. It shouldn't matter whether you funded terrorist organizations over the public internet vs through a VPN, either should be equally illegal.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - gruez 4y ago
      >It seems completely unnecessary to specifically mention VPNs though "VPN" occurs exactly zero times in the bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?format=txt&r=15&s=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
      - p1necone 4y ago
        Thanks, I need to stop taking comments at face value when people are talking about stuff like this.
        haswell 4y ago
        While VPNs are not mentioned explicitly, there is very clear language that talks about attempting to evade the rules, which would clearly apply to VPNs. Furthermore, some have pointed out that the language of the bill could force providers to start tracking what users do. I’ve encountered quite a few “but the bill says nothing about VPNs” comments and those seem to be problematic takes. The bill doesn’t mention TikTok either.
        gruez 4y ago
        >Furthermore, some have pointed out that the language of the bill could force providers to start tracking what users do. Source?
        haswell 4y ago
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  The text defines transaction to include the act of transmitting data. You wouldn't need to give them money, by a plain reading a simple HTTP request would be illegal.
- egeozcan 4y ago
  Is viewing ads in TikTok giving them money? What if I click through and buy the item and they get a cut? What about sending gifts to creators from which they get a cut? What if all done via cryptocurrency? Gift cards? Someone bought a TikTok voucher in another country, gifted to me that I redeemed via VPN? It also says transactions or any other actions... So, I let myself be tracked by TikTok by using a VPN, am I a criminal?
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    These are all good questions, and questions like this generally gets settled through court cases. 9 times out of 10 you can basically assume, " reasonability". Does viewing ads in TikTok give them money? I would expect not, because you're not getting the money. Posting ads on there certainly would count. Giving gifts to creators probably would also count, although I'm sure a court would consider that incredibly minor, it would probably never get enforced, and even if it did it would probably be some tiny paltry amount. The bank who lets that transaction happen however, might get in trouble. If you let yourself be tracked using a VPN...? I suspect the answer to that question is going to lie in why you're doing that. Inadvertently? Almost certainly not going to be an issue. Do you have some sort of ulterior motive? It's probably going to be a problem. After all, you're literally committing espionage for a foreign adversary of the United States in this case. Remember that law is backed by court cases, and courts tend to be pretty reasonable. These things aren't programmed, they're human
enraged_camel 4y ago
Since it's unconstitutional for bills to target individual people or companies, they are never mentioned by name in the text. This is not some sort of conspiracy.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

duringmath 4y ago

What's the exact language pertaining to VPNs?

amatecha 4y ago

Using a VPN (or any other mechanism) to bypass ANY service banned under the provisions of this act[0] would be illegal (TikTok is not mentioned at all): Section 11 (a) (2) (F) > No person may engage in any transaction or take any other action with intent to evade the provisions of this Act, or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued thereunder. The criminal penalty for willingly violating that "shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both". Cool and reasonable, to be sure. [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...

gruez 4y ago
> >No person may engage in any transaction or take any other action with intent to evade [...] IANAL but "transaction" in this case surely refers to financial transactions, not just visiting tiktok with VPN on? If the government is sanctioning Iran and say you can't transact with them, it seems fairly reasonable for them to also say that if you try to evade that through various ways you should be punished as well. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply if tiktok is sanctioned.
- amatecha 4y ago
  Unfortunately the word "or" means the word "transaction" can be completely ignored and thus literally everything else is covered by the overly-broad words "take any other action", such as using a VPN or similar service. To make it more clear, you can read that specific entry as: "No person may engage in any action with intent to evade the provisions of this Act, or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued thereunder."
  - gruez 4y ago
    >"No person may engage in any action with intent to evade the provisions of this Act, or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued thereunder." And which part of the act prevents you from visiting tiktok?

matheusmoreira 4y ago

20 years of jail for accessing TikTok. In what universe could this possibly be reasonable.

jliptzin 4y ago

Is this the movie and tv industry at work again trying to get people to stop using vpns to get free content?

raxxorraxor 4y ago

That is not in any way better. It does indeed criminalise VPN usage. Be that as it may, the bill is still illiberal bullshit and a transfer of power interest wrong hands.