4 ms·

It seems completely unnecessary to specifically mention VPNs though. It shouldn't matter whether you funded terrorist organizations over the public internet vs

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
        Here are two discussion subthreads that go down this path, and most of the threads here on HN have some variation of this exploration [0] [1]. The key issue seems to be the very open ended language about attempting to circumvent or aiding in the circumvention of any enacted restrictions. As written, this seems to potentially impact both users of VPNs and VPN providers. - [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35367684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35367684 - [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35369570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35369570

4 ms·

It seems completely unnecessary to specifically mention VPNs though. It shouldn't matter whether you funded terrorist organizations over the public internet vs

by p1necone 4y ago

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
        Here are two discussion subthreads that go down this path, and most of the threads here on HN have some variation of this exploration [0] [1]. The key issue seems to be the very open ended language about attempting to circumvent or aiding in the circumvention of any enacted restrictions. As written, this seems to potentially impact both users of VPNs and VPN providers. - [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35367684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35367684 - [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35369570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35369570