5 ms·

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
      Broadly written laws encourage abuse. Edit: it was written by prosecutors for prosecutors. Please stop voting AGs into congress.
      - bioemerl 4y ago
        As do incredibly specific ones. The key is to be generally applicable such that companies can't find loopholes, but specific enough that courts understand the essence of your intent and don't go overboard in terms of allowing abuse of the law.
        duringmath 4y ago
        Just stop criminalizing shit.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        Times change, situations adjust, and new behaviors appear that need to be regulated and shut down. You can't just stop criminalizing things, society would grind to a halt within a few decades.
        duringmath 4y ago
        What about when previously criminalized acts like consuming cannabis products become socially acceptable? It's still illegal on the federal level so that's a huge mess not to mention the harm that was done by enforcing those laws over the years.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        You decriminalize it, we've already seen movement towards that happening.
        cultureswitch 4y ago
        Citation needed
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- duringmath 4y ago
  I'm sure you're aware that realistically most people would just plead guilty and accept some kind of deal rather than go through the court system.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    There are also lots of people who wouldn't.
    - duringmath 4y ago
      Many more would plead and that's the problem.
      - bioemerl 4y ago
        At this rate you may as well just tear down the whole government. You can't write law that's specific to every single use case, you have to rely on courts for that. If you're going to say that you can't trust courts to do this job, you're saying that the whole government is non-functional, and That point there's nothing you can say or do that's reasonable. Blanket cynicism and obstruction helps no one and gets us nowhere.
        duringmath 4y ago
        > In any given year, 98% of criminal cases in the federal courts end with a plea bargain — a practice that prizes efficiency over fairness and innocence https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim... Can't help but be cynical when presented with these numbers. The laws are written by prosecutors for other prosecutors to generate headlines and votes.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        That's not exactly a great number to show if you don't know the percentage of people going to trial who are guilty in the first place. If you know you did the crime, you know they've got proof, you have an option to take a plea deal that's less than the costs of losing the court case, wouldn't you take it?
gruez 4y ago
You're not being put in jail for 20 years[1] for using a VPN (eg. for torrenting). You're being put in jail for 20 years because you violated other provisions of the law and tried to evade using VPNs. It's not any different than you getting put in jail for 20 years for violating some anti-terror legislation, and using VPNs to pull that off. [1] realistically not, given federal sentencing guidelines, see: https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
- duringmath 4y ago
  Having 20 year sentence on the books for something that isn't rape or murder is barbaric in my opinion.
  - gruez 4y ago
    Did you miss the footnote?
    - duringmath 4y ago
      Nope. Didn't even click it. Prosecutors use the arduous court system to force their victims to accept pleas.
      - gruez 4y ago
        That might be true, but it still doesn't change the fact that you're unlikely to get 20 years for accessing tiktok over VPN. You might get some sort of prison sentence (or none, too lazy to look up the exact guidelines), but saying 20 years is pure hyperbole.
        duringmath 4y ago
        [flagged]
        4y ago
amatecha 4y ago
Where did you get the idea I was trying to reassure anyone? I was clarifying that the Act says nothing about TikTok (or any other service) specifically, since for some reason people keep saying stuff like "it's only for a TikTok ban". Not sure why people keep having such charitable interpretations of this overly-broad and draconian proposal.

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
    Broadly written laws encourage abuse. Edit: it was written by prosecutors for prosecutors. Please stop voting AGs into congress.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      As do incredibly specific ones. The key is to be generally applicable such that companies can't find loopholes, but specific enough that courts understand the essence of your intent and don't go overboard in terms of allowing abuse of the law.
      - duringmath 4y ago
        Just stop criminalizing shit.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        Times change, situations adjust, and new behaviors appear that need to be regulated and shut down. You can't just stop criminalizing things, society would grind to a halt within a few decades.
        duringmath 4y ago
        What about when previously criminalized acts like consuming cannabis products become socially acceptable? It's still illegal on the federal level so that's a huge mess not to mention the harm that was done by enforcing those laws over the years.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        You decriminalize it, we've already seen movement towards that happening.
        cultureswitch 4y ago
        Citation needed
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
duringmath 4y ago
I'm sure you're aware that realistically most people would just plead guilty and accept some kind of deal rather than go through the court system.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  There are also lots of people who wouldn't.
  - duringmath 4y ago
    Many more would plead and that's the problem.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      At this rate you may as well just tear down the whole government. You can't write law that's specific to every single use case, you have to rely on courts for that. If you're going to say that you can't trust courts to do this job, you're saying that the whole government is non-functional, and That point there's nothing you can say or do that's reasonable. Blanket cynicism and obstruction helps no one and gets us nowhere.
      - duringmath 4y ago
        > In any given year, 98% of criminal cases in the federal courts end with a plea bargain — a practice that prizes efficiency over fairness and innocence https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim... Can't help but be cynical when presented with these numbers. The laws are written by prosecutors for other prosecutors to generate headlines and votes.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        That's not exactly a great number to show if you don't know the percentage of people going to trial who are guilty in the first place. If you know you did the crime, you know they've got proof, you have an option to take a plea deal that's less than the costs of losing the court case, wouldn't you take it?

gruez 4y ago

You're not being put in jail for 20 years[1] for using a VPN (eg. for torrenting). You're being put in jail for 20 years because you violated other provisions of the law and tried to evade using VPNs. It's not any different than you getting put in jail for 20 years for violating some anti-terror legislation, and using VPNs to pull that off. [1] realistically not, given federal sentencing guidelines, see: https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

duringmath 4y ago
Having 20 year sentence on the books for something that isn't rape or murder is barbaric in my opinion.
- gruez 4y ago
  Did you miss the footnote?
  - duringmath 4y ago
    Nope. Didn't even click it. Prosecutors use the arduous court system to force their victims to accept pleas.
    - gruez 4y ago
      That might be true, but it still doesn't change the fact that you're unlikely to get 20 years for accessing tiktok over VPN. You might get some sort of prison sentence (or none, too lazy to look up the exact guidelines), but saying 20 years is pure hyperbole.
      - duringmath 4y ago
        [flagged]
        4y ago

amatecha 4y ago

Where did you get the idea I was trying to reassure anyone? I was clarifying that the Act says nothing about TikTok (or any other service) specifically, since for some reason people keep saying stuff like "it's only for a TikTok ban". Not sure why people keep having such charitable interpretations of this overly-broad and draconian proposal.