3 ms·

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 req

by 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
  - amatecha 4y ago
    This guy has been commenting all throughout the discussion showing he doesn't understand the text and hasn't actually read it.
amatecha 4y ago
Yeah, that's a really good point. This is even more insidious than I thought. :(
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> counsel Made a blog post about accessing TikTok in the internet censorship era? 20 years of jail and one million dollars of debt. Can't make this up.

by dqv 4y ago

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
- amatecha 4y ago
  This guy has been commenting all throughout the discussion showing he doesn't understand the text and hasn't actually read it.

amatecha 4y ago

Yeah, that's a really good point. This is even more insidious than I thought. :(

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> counsel Made a blog post about accessing TikTok in the internet censorship era? 20 years of jail and one million dollars of debt. Can't make this up.