3 ms·

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

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.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >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" Yeah, that's what I thought the law does. I think that's bad for other reasons, but the "omg they're going after your VPNs" rhetoric is over the topp.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    > 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. Given sci-hub is banned at the ISP level here in the UK, I disagree.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      Totally different country. Totally different laws. You can't compare them.

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.
- gruez 4y ago
  >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" Yeah, that's what I thought the law does. I think that's bad for other reasons, but the "omg they're going after your VPNs" rhetoric is over the topp.
- concordDance 4y ago
  > 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. Given sci-hub is banned at the ISP level here in the UK, I disagree.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Totally different country. Totally different laws. You can't compare them.