3 ms·

While chilling that this is so broad and thus likely has many "unintended" loopholes that could be used inappropriately. The wording of the bill is limited to

by quitit 4y ago

While chilling that this is so broad and thus likely has many "unintended" loopholes that could be used inappropriately. The wording of the bill is limited to foreign adversaries (then lists them) - however the press I'm reading mentions talk about how this could be used to criminalise VPN and present other possible harms collectively being titled as "patriot 2.0". Can someone fill in the connection between how it goes from a bill that requires a foreign adversary to suddenly criminalising VPN for everybody? I'm not in favour of bills that include broad language, but I'm also cognisant that foreign adversaries would be extremely interested in spinning this bill to be worse than it is. (i.e. if you could kindly point me to the section/s that look concerning https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686... so I can better educate myself)

Sakos 4y ago
I've been approaching this from the same perspective and I'm wondering the same thing. It feels like there's a lot of spinning going on and I'm not sure people are aware of it. This seems to be a common sticking point: > to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person where a covered transaction is > (A) IN GENERAL.—The term “covered transaction” means a transaction in which an entity described in subparagraph (B) has any interest (including through an interest in a contract for the provision of the technology or service), or any class of such transactions. > (B) COVERED ENTITIES.—The entities described in this subparagraph are: > (i) a foreign adversary; > (ii) an entity subject to the jurisdiction of, or organized under the laws of, a foreign adversary; and > (iii) an entity owned, directed, or controlled by a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B). I don't understand how you go from here to "banning VPNs for everybody". I've looked through the act and I don't see anything particularly egregious that supports the "THIS IS THE PATRIOT ACT 2.0!!!" take. I want to see an analysis by law experts, not some techbros on HN or some random channel on YT. If I look at that channel, the description is "Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar is a fearless anti-establishment Youtube show and podcast." Uh ... okay. And I look at the rest of the videos they've made and it's just, yeah, this is a propaganda channel. Why are people taking this channel and the title of their video at face value? It feels like people are being played hard and we all need to take a step back from the sensationalism.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  You need to read what a transaction is. Here is section 17 of the bill: (17) TRANSACTION.—The term “transaction” means any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as managed services, >>>data transmission<<<, software updates, repairs, or the provision of data hosting services, or a class of such transactions. That means that transmitting data to a banned entity (for example, perhaps TikTok) would be a covered transaction, meaning that running a VPN would be illegal unless you also block websites yourself. It's probably a good idea to read the entire thing before going on a tirade about how people are being played and falling for clickbait.
  - Sakos 4y ago
    > The term “covered transaction” means a transaction in which an entity described in subparagraph (B) has any interest (including through an interest in a contract for the provision of the technology or service) I interpret interest to mean that there is some business relationship between the person and the entity (as implied by the part in parentheses). Again, I'm seeing assumptions that are being made by laypersons that I need to see analyzed/substantiated by law experts. So, yes, people are falling for clickbait.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      You're making nonsensical interpretations that completely contradict the text and then accusing people of clickbait. If you don't think laypersons should be able to discuss this topic, then don't. If you think it's okay to do so as far as we're aware of our limitations, then apply that standard to yourself as much as your interlocutor. Someone having an interest in a transaction includes being a party to it. If you define a data transmission as a transaction, then when I make an HTTP request to TikTok, at least me and TikTok have an interest in the transaction.
  - zappchance 4y ago
    > That means that transmitting data to a banned entity (for example, perhaps TikTok) would be a covered transaction, meaning that running a VPN would be illegal unless you also block websites yourself. Surely it would fall on the government to prove you used the VPN for such a purpose? What are the technical details behind that?

by quitit 4y ago

Sakos 4y ago

I've been approaching this from the same perspective and I'm wondering the same thing. It feels like there's a lot of spinning going on and I'm not sure people are aware of it. This seems to be a common sticking point: > to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person where a covered transaction is > (A) IN GENERAL.—The term “covered transaction” means a transaction in which an entity described in subparagraph (B) has any interest (including through an interest in a contract for the provision of the technology or service), or any class of such transactions. > (B) COVERED ENTITIES.—The entities described in this subparagraph are: > (i) a foreign adversary; > (ii) an entity subject to the jurisdiction of, or organized under the laws of, a foreign adversary; and > (iii) an entity owned, directed, or controlled by a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B). I don't understand how you go from here to "banning VPNs for everybody". I've looked through the act and I don't see anything particularly egregious that supports the "THIS IS THE PATRIOT ACT 2.0!!!" take. I want to see an analysis by law experts, not some techbros on HN or some random channel on YT. If I look at that channel, the description is "Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar is a fearless anti-establishment Youtube show and podcast." Uh ... okay. And I look at the rest of the videos they've made and it's just, yeah, this is a propaganda channel. Why are people taking this channel and the title of their video at face value? It feels like people are being played hard and we all need to take a step back from the sensationalism.

sudosysgen 4y ago
You need to read what a transaction is. Here is section 17 of the bill: (17) TRANSACTION.—The term “transaction” means any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as managed services, >>>data transmission<<<, software updates, repairs, or the provision of data hosting services, or a class of such transactions. That means that transmitting data to a banned entity (for example, perhaps TikTok) would be a covered transaction, meaning that running a VPN would be illegal unless you also block websites yourself. It's probably a good idea to read the entire thing before going on a tirade about how people are being played and falling for clickbait.
- Sakos 4y ago
  > The term “covered transaction” means a transaction in which an entity described in subparagraph (B) has any interest (including through an interest in a contract for the provision of the technology or service) I interpret interest to mean that there is some business relationship between the person and the entity (as implied by the part in parentheses). Again, I'm seeing assumptions that are being made by laypersons that I need to see analyzed/substantiated by law experts. So, yes, people are falling for clickbait.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    You're making nonsensical interpretations that completely contradict the text and then accusing people of clickbait. If you don't think laypersons should be able to discuss this topic, then don't. If you think it's okay to do so as far as we're aware of our limitations, then apply that standard to yourself as much as your interlocutor. Someone having an interest in a transaction includes being a party to it. If you define a data transmission as a transaction, then when I make an HTTP request to TikTok, at least me and TikTok have an interest in the transaction.
- zappchance 4y ago
  > That means that transmitting data to a banned entity (for example, perhaps TikTok) would be a covered transaction, meaning that running a VPN would be illegal unless you also block websites yourself. Surely it would fall on the government to prove you used the VPN for such a purpose? What are the technical details behind that?