8 ms·

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): Sectio

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?
    - amatecha 4y ago
      No part does, until TikTok becomes one of the services banned as per the "mitigation" acts defined under this Act.
      - gruez 4y ago
        I skimmed the bill and I'm having a hard time determining what type of activity is prohibited once an entity is identified, except for >(B) with respect to a transaction found to pose an undue or unacceptable risk and qualify as a covered transaction, determine whether— >(i) the covered transaction should be prohibited; or >(ii) any other action should be taken to mitigate the effects of the covered transaction. I suppose the least charitable interpretation is that this gives them unlimited power to do whatever they want to "mitigate", but that seems like something that would be struck down by the courts for being too broad. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#id65d97d39898749e8bebeadd166df6a0a https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
        amatecha 4y ago
        Yes, the mitigation action is completely variable and could include basically anything. It's intentionally vague because it might mean banning a service, seizing assets, who knows what. > (12) MITIGATION MEASURE.—The term “mitigation measure” means a measure agreed to in an agreement between any relevant party and the Federal Government, or ordered by the Federal Government and of which any relevant party has been notified, in any matter addressed under this Act to address any risk arising from a covered transaction or associated with a covered holding.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      The act itself does not, it only gives the secretary of commerce the power to create regulations and other mandates related to any company owned by something that is defined as a foreign adversary, which in the bill is listed as Venezuela, China, Iran, Russia, the typical types. Basically what would happen is, Bill gets passed. The secretary of commerce, or some other figure in that range, talks to the president and they decide yeah, we need to ban those guys. They talk to apple, Google, Microsoft, various cloud providers, and say "yeah, you're taking them off your store. You're also not allowed to do any business with them anymore". I don't think it's likely they end up talking to ISPs to try to cut off the internet side of things, because that's going to take a lot more work and the people given power in this case aren't the sort to try to do that sort of thing. So you're probably never going to be unable to access the website, they're just going to make it a heck of a lot harder to use it, and they're going to cut off all profit motive.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  No, the term "transaction" is defined very broadly in the bill, and includes "use of any information and communications technology product or service." https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#ide234e6a44fc84624a331cda816bfbcfc https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
  - gruez 4y ago
    IANAL but based on the full quote: >(17) TRANSACTION.—The term “transaction” means any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as managed services, data transmission, software updates, repairs, or the provision of data hosting services, or a class of such transactions. it's pretty obvious from the examples they're talking about B2B transactions, not consumers visiting their site.
    - amatecha 4y ago
      The quote you cite indicates exactly the opposite. I'll omit some of the optional elements of the sentence to create a concise sentence that makes it clear simply downloading something is considered a transaction: > The term “transaction” means any use of any information and communications technology product or service.
      - gruez 4y ago
        I'll concede that the law can possibly be interpreted to ban Americans from using tiktok.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      No? The quote literally includes "data transmission" as a transaction.
dqv 4y ago
AND >No person may cause or aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, permit, or approve the doing of any act prohibited by, or the omission of any act required by any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued under, this Act. Meaning that the VPN service must track what users are doing to prove that their users aren't using it to do something against this bill. It effectively makes privacy-protecting VPNs illegal.
- gruez 4y ago
  That seems like an overly broad interpretation. How is this different from standard laws like "you can't aid or abet someone committing fraud"? You can plausibly argue that you can use VPNs to commit fraud, therefore any sort of law that says you can't "aid, abet, counsel [...]" is a ban on VPNs. edit: standard laws against aiding/abetting. Should we be concerned about those as well? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2
  - dqv 4y ago
    It's different because it's way more nebulous: >(G) No person may fail or refuse to comply with any reporting or recordkeeping requirement of this Act, or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued thereunder. You can plausibly use a VPN to commit fraud, but there isn't a "Fraud Investigation Secretary" who can arbitrarily decide how/what/when records need to be kept. The investigation for someone committing fraud on the VPN wouldn't give the "Fraud Investigation Secretary" the right to see any and all records that the VPN service has when a smaller subset of records specific to the instance of fraud would suffice. Oh and the "Fraud Investigation Secretary" can determine that this entire process can be handled secretly because it's classified. Oh and you're not allowed to ask the government through a FOIA request how it determined the fraud was committed through the VPN. I reject the notion that the government wouldn't use this law as a dragnet. The Patriot Act remains expired after all. And remember kids, the next time that somebody tells you "the government wouldn't do that"-- oh yes they would
duringmath 4y ago
Is that supposed to reassure people?! Million dollar fine and 20 years in prison for using a VPN is beyond excessive.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  The first thing I think is important to point out here is that the bill isn't really pointed towards VPNs, any interpretation of it that leans that way is probably going to get shut down before it ever gets to the point that it's an issue at all. Even if that were happening, you'd have to find a judge and jury willing to give out a fine like that. There are times that such a fine would actually be perfectly reasonable. Imagine something like apple or Google providing millions of dollars worth of services, a 20-year prison sentence for one of their executives or a million fee is perfectly justified in such a case. For individuals, certainly not, but that's why courts exist then that's why appeals are a thing. You have a right to a trial by a jury, have no jury is going to give you such excessive fees.
  - JacobThreeThree 4y ago
    >the bill isn't really pointed towards VPNs Funny how the laws always give the government absolute power, and then everyone has to just hope that no government from here into the future in perpetuity will ever use the rest of the overbroad authority. They could have easily narrowed the scope of the language if they wanted. It didn't have to be written to be so broad.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      The government could literally take any power at any moment for any reason at any time that they wanted to. The same thing prevents this bill from being used to ban VPNs as the passage of a brand new law that specifically outlaws VPNs. You can't just take a wild elaboration as gospel because it could technically happen.
      - duringmath 4y ago
SomeBoolshit 4y ago
> The criminal penalty for willingly violating that "shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000 Oh, so it's just a fee.
- deweller 4y ago
  And up to 20 years in prison
  - SomeBoolshit 4y ago
    Only if you're a natural person.
    - amatecha 4y ago
      You know "natural person" means "human being", right? Like an individual person, not a business or that sort of thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person
      - SomeBoolshit 4y ago
        That's exactly my point.

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?
  - amatecha 4y ago
    No part does, until TikTok becomes one of the services banned as per the "mitigation" acts defined under this Act.
    - gruez 4y ago
      I skimmed the bill and I'm having a hard time determining what type of activity is prohibited once an entity is identified, except for >(B) with respect to a transaction found to pose an undue or unacceptable risk and qualify as a covered transaction, determine whether— >(i) the covered transaction should be prohibited; or >(ii) any other action should be taken to mitigate the effects of the covered transaction. I suppose the least charitable interpretation is that this gives them unlimited power to do whatever they want to "mitigate", but that seems like something that would be struck down by the courts for being too broad. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#id65d97d39898749e8bebeadd166df6a0a https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
      - amatecha 4y ago
        Yes, the mitigation action is completely variable and could include basically anything. It's intentionally vague because it might mean banning a service, seizing assets, who knows what. > (12) MITIGATION MEASURE.—The term “mitigation measure” means a measure agreed to in an agreement between any relevant party and the Federal Government, or ordered by the Federal Government and of which any relevant party has been notified, in any matter addressed under this Act to address any risk arising from a covered transaction or associated with a covered holding.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    The act itself does not, it only gives the secretary of commerce the power to create regulations and other mandates related to any company owned by something that is defined as a foreign adversary, which in the bill is listed as Venezuela, China, Iran, Russia, the typical types. Basically what would happen is, Bill gets passed. The secretary of commerce, or some other figure in that range, talks to the president and they decide yeah, we need to ban those guys. They talk to apple, Google, Microsoft, various cloud providers, and say "yeah, you're taking them off your store. You're also not allowed to do any business with them anymore". I don't think it's likely they end up talking to ISPs to try to cut off the internet side of things, because that's going to take a lot more work and the people given power in this case aren't the sort to try to do that sort of thing. So you're probably never going to be unable to access the website, they're just going to make it a heck of a lot harder to use it, and they're going to cut off all profit motive.
ryukafalz 4y ago
No, the term "transaction" is defined very broadly in the bill, and includes "use of any information and communications technology product or service." https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#ide234e6a44fc84624a331cda816bfbcfc https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
- gruez 4y ago
  IANAL but based on the full quote: >(17) TRANSACTION.—The term “transaction” means any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as managed services, data transmission, software updates, repairs, or the provision of data hosting services, or a class of such transactions. it's pretty obvious from the examples they're talking about B2B transactions, not consumers visiting their site.
  - amatecha 4y ago
    The quote you cite indicates exactly the opposite. I'll omit some of the optional elements of the sentence to create a concise sentence that makes it clear simply downloading something is considered a transaction: > The term “transaction” means any use of any information and communications technology product or service.
    - gruez 4y ago
      I'll concede that the law can possibly be interpreted to ban Americans from using tiktok.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    No? The quote literally includes "data transmission" as a transaction.

dqv 4y ago

AND >No person may cause or aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, permit, or approve the doing of any act prohibited by, or the omission of any act required by any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued under, this Act. Meaning that the VPN service must track what users are doing to prove that their users aren't using it to do something against this bill. It effectively makes privacy-protecting VPNs illegal.

gruez 4y ago
That seems like an overly broad interpretation. How is this different from standard laws like "you can't aid or abet someone committing fraud"? You can plausibly argue that you can use VPNs to commit fraud, therefore any sort of law that says you can't "aid, abet, counsel [...]" is a ban on VPNs. edit: standard laws against aiding/abetting. Should we be concerned about those as well? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2
- dqv 4y ago
  It's different because it's way more nebulous: >(G) No person may fail or refuse to comply with any reporting or recordkeeping requirement of this Act, or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued thereunder. You can plausibly use a VPN to commit fraud, but there isn't a "Fraud Investigation Secretary" who can arbitrarily decide how/what/when records need to be kept. The investigation for someone committing fraud on the VPN wouldn't give the "Fraud Investigation Secretary" the right to see any and all records that the VPN service has when a smaller subset of records specific to the instance of fraud would suffice. Oh and the "Fraud Investigation Secretary" can determine that this entire process can be handled secretly because it's classified. Oh and you're not allowed to ask the government through a FOIA request how it determined the fraud was committed through the VPN. I reject the notion that the government wouldn't use this law as a dragnet. The Patriot Act remains expired after all. And remember kids, the next time that somebody tells you "the government wouldn't do that"-- oh yes they would

duringmath 4y ago

Is that supposed to reassure people?! Million dollar fine and 20 years in prison for using a VPN is beyond excessive.

bioemerl 4y ago
The first thing I think is important to point out here is that the bill isn't really pointed towards VPNs, any interpretation of it that leans that way is probably going to get shut down before it ever gets to the point that it's an issue at all. Even if that were happening, you'd have to find a judge and jury willing to give out a fine like that. There are times that such a fine would actually be perfectly reasonable. Imagine something like apple or Google providing millions of dollars worth of services, a 20-year prison sentence for one of their executives or a million fee is perfectly justified in such a case. For individuals, certainly not, but that's why courts exist then that's why appeals are a thing. You have a right to a trial by a jury, have no jury is going to give you such excessive fees.
- JacobThreeThree 4y ago
  >the bill isn't really pointed towards VPNs Funny how the laws always give the government absolute power, and then everyone has to just hope that no government from here into the future in perpetuity will ever use the rest of the overbroad authority. They could have easily narrowed the scope of the language if they wanted. It didn't have to be written to be so broad.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    The government could literally take any power at any moment for any reason at any time that they wanted to. The same thing prevents this bill from being used to ban VPNs as the passage of a brand new law that specifically outlaws VPNs. You can't just take a wild elaboration as gospel because it could technically happen.
    - duringmath 4y ago

SomeBoolshit 4y ago

> The criminal penalty for willingly violating that "shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000 Oh, so it's just a fee.

deweller 4y ago
And up to 20 years in prison
- SomeBoolshit 4y ago
  Only if you're a natural person.
  - amatecha 4y ago
    You know "natural person" means "human being", right? Like an individual person, not a business or that sort of thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person
    - SomeBoolshit 4y ago
      That's exactly my point.