4 ms·

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,

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?
- quitit 4y ago
  I read that discussion and I don't see how it supports the idea - because the moment I broaden the law to cover VPNs in this way, then merely having access to the internet would fall into the same bucket.

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?

quitit 4y ago
I read that discussion and I don't see how it supports the idea - because the moment I broaden the law to cover VPNs in this way, then merely having access to the internet would fall into the same bucket.