4 ms·

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 prob

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
        bioemerl 4y ago
        Would you prefer hacking be legal?
  - llanowarelves 4y ago
    The reason why they have to at least pretend to play by the rules that are supposed to bind them as much as they do is because legitimacy is what keeps people from quitting the game, bringing it to a halt, and starting their own new games.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    > The government could literally take any power at any moment for any reason at any time that they wanted to. It can but there is a process to follow and the process might take time. It is the same with Russia conscripting and officially threatening to use nukes. Of course they could and they did, but in order to do so they first had to officially declare the annexation. Otherwise there was no internal legal basis to conscript since Russia officially was not at war, it was a "special military operation". They could have also gone the alternative route of changing the laws. Or the alternative route of officially declaring war as an aggressor from the beginning. Same for official nuclear saber rattling, their official nuclear doctrine only allows defensive use and, before annexation, Russia could not claim anyone was attacking it. Before annexation, threats of nukes only came from TV people not high ranking officials. No matter how democratic or repressive a regime, no ruler rules alone. Therefore even in the most authoritarian regimes there are processes to go through in order to achieve certain objectives. Different processes have different costs and risks. Those processes have steps with each step facilitating the next ones regardless of whether they are eventually taken or not. This bill is just one of those steps towards dystopia.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      You're kind of repeating the same thing here. Government isn't a big slippery slope, it's a balancing act between the people and the government. Law represents where we stand on that balancing act. It doesn't matter really how the government tries to shift the status quo. If things get out of line with the will of the people, and they notice, change will be brought to a halt. This is a common fallacy, especially with recent talk of the "Overton window" that's convinced people it's a good idea to be as extreme as possible instead of approaching the middle ground. Your party and it's positions do not determine the average person's point of view. They determine what positions you can sustainably maintain, and wherever you move you will see raising or dropping support based on that. The government won't just slide on over to some crazy extreme. This is why Russia, despite all their bluster, is still not managing to pull a draft. The people don't want it. And this is why TikTok is so dangerous. By getting into the minds of the people, they threaten to undermine the foundation of our political process.
- 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?

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
        bioemerl 4y ago
        Would you prefer hacking be legal?
- llanowarelves 4y ago
  The reason why they have to at least pretend to play by the rules that are supposed to bind them as much as they do is because legitimacy is what keeps people from quitting the game, bringing it to a halt, and starting their own new games.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  > The government could literally take any power at any moment for any reason at any time that they wanted to. It can but there is a process to follow and the process might take time. It is the same with Russia conscripting and officially threatening to use nukes. Of course they could and they did, but in order to do so they first had to officially declare the annexation. Otherwise there was no internal legal basis to conscript since Russia officially was not at war, it was a "special military operation". They could have also gone the alternative route of changing the laws. Or the alternative route of officially declaring war as an aggressor from the beginning. Same for official nuclear saber rattling, their official nuclear doctrine only allows defensive use and, before annexation, Russia could not claim anyone was attacking it. Before annexation, threats of nukes only came from TV people not high ranking officials. No matter how democratic or repressive a regime, no ruler rules alone. Therefore even in the most authoritarian regimes there are processes to go through in order to achieve certain objectives. Different processes have different costs and risks. Those processes have steps with each step facilitating the next ones regardless of whether they are eventually taken or not. This bill is just one of those steps towards dystopia.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    You're kind of repeating the same thing here. Government isn't a big slippery slope, it's a balancing act between the people and the government. Law represents where we stand on that balancing act. It doesn't matter really how the government tries to shift the status quo. If things get out of line with the will of the people, and they notice, change will be brought to a halt. This is a common fallacy, especially with recent talk of the "Overton window" that's convinced people it's a good idea to be as extreme as possible instead of approaching the middle ground. Your party and it's positions do not determine the average person's point of view. They determine what positions you can sustainably maintain, and wherever you move you will see raising or dropping support based on that. The government won't just slide on over to some crazy extreme. This is why Russia, despite all their bluster, is still not managing to pull a draft. The people don't want it. And this is why TikTok is so dangerous. By getting into the minds of the people, they threaten to undermine the foundation of our political process.
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?