7 ms·

The problem with the RESTRICT act isn't that it punishes China or bans TikTok, the problem is the harsh penalties (up to $1 million USD and 20 years in prison)

The problem with the RESTRICT act isn't that it punishes China or bans TikTok, the problem is the harsh penalties (up to $1 million USD and 20 years in prison) for US citizens who try to bypass government censorship. Even calling it the "TikTok ban" is rather misleading.

paganel 3y ago
> (up to $1 million USD and 20 years in prison) Is that really on the table? If yes, then it's bat-s*it insane, it's maybe rude to call it that but there's no better word to describe it. To put it in perspective, throughout the '80s people were not getting sent to 20 years in prison for listening to Radio Free Europe here in Eastern Europe. There were still some political prisoners left, put in prison under different pretexts, but they had not gotten in there only for listening to Radio Free Europe.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Is that really on the table? If yes, then it's bat-s*it insane, it's maybe rude to call it that but there's no better word to describe it. Not really. That might be the maximum sentence but the chance that a kid who's downloaded tiktok using a vpn of getting anywhere near that is near zero. 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...
  - paganel 3y ago
    I know that because of Aaron's tragic destiny, but I find that even a plea-induced 6-months sentence (let's say) is too much a punishment for having TikTok installed on your phone.
    - dimmke 3y ago
      Uh yeah, I'd say even 1 day in jail or prison is too much of a punishment for having TikTok installed on your phone. This is fucking bonkers.
  - pests 3y ago
    Just like the MPAA and RIAA never would go after little old grandmas for their love savings just for downloading an mp3.....
    - gruez 3y ago
      I'm not sure how the behavior of the MPAA or RIAA has any relevance on how the DoJ functions.
      - pests 3y ago
        Just an example of an entity using laws to punish everyday people we thought might otherwise go unpunished.
        gruez 3y ago
        1. There's a huge difference between a private entity launching civil lawsuits and the DoJ launching criminal lawsuits 2. I don't know what specific case you're referring to by "MPAA and RIAA [...] go after little old grandmas for their love savings", but the relevant laws likely predated mp3s and filesharing programs, so it's not clear how "we thought might otherwise go unpunished" would apply here. If anything it's the reverse. The laws existed, and people thought they wouldn't apply to them for whatever reason and ignored them.
        pests 3y ago
        I think you are looking too deeply into this. 1. When the comparison I'm trying to draw is "huge powerful entity using its power", what exactly is the difference? 2. I don't think there needs to be a specific case - it was in the news often enough for it to be a common thing. Here is an EFF article reviewing what happened years later: https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later "Five years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened legal actions against at least 30,000 individuals. These individuals have included children, grandparents, unemployed single mothers, college professors"
  - 0xParlay 3y ago
    Thank you. 20 years would be for the VPN provider.
    - gotimo 3y ago
      ...that still basically means commercial VPNs are outlawed
- calibas 3y ago
  "A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both." The lawmakers behind the bill assure us it will only be used against "corporations and executives who conspire to evade a mitigation order or ban — not everyday Americans". However, there's nothing in the bill that excludes "everyday Americans" from the penalties.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >The lawmakers behind the bill assure us it will only be used against "corporations and executives who conspire to evade a mitigation order or ban — not everyday Americans". However, there's nothing in the bill that excludes "everyday Americans" from the penalties. It's slightly more complicated than that. As it stands right now it's unclear whether personal use of tiktok would violate the proposed law, because it only bans US companies from dealing with chinese companies. That said the bill also allow the commence department to enact "mitigation measures", which if you tried to bypass them could get you in trouble. >This bill is not a “ban” on personal use, or even on a technology directly. The bill may result in a ban on TikTok because it grants the Commerce Department such broad authority. That ban may take the form of removing it from app stores or a forced sale, or other mitigation measures imposed against the owners of the technologies. >[...] >The bill authorizes the Department of Commerce to impose “mitigation measures” without any restrictions on what those measures might be. Couple that with a vague enforcement provision that grants the power to broadly punish any person who “evades” these undefined “mitigation measures,” and the result is a law that can be read as criminalizing common practices like using a VPN to get a prohibited app, side-loaded installations, or using an app that was lawfully downloaded somewhere else. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/broad-vague-restrict-act-dangerous-substitute-comprehensive-data-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/broad-vague-restrict-a...
    - civilitty 3y ago
      (IANAL but I've been involved in some legislative drafting) The vagueness is definitely a problem but all one needs to do is look at the split between the use of "entity" [1] and "person". The regulations are meant to apply to "entities" which doesn't include natural people - only firms, trusts, governments, etc. The criminal penalties apply to natural persons who act to violate the regulations on behalf of the entities. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text#idd80776fd03034a04951beb7c5f6907c6 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
- jcranmer 3y ago
  Honestly, no. It's a maximum penalty, and maximum penalties don't really matter unless you're doing some deeply serious shit under sentencing guidelines--it takes an offense level of 37 with no prior criminal history to potentially hit a 20 year sentence. I don't know what the base offense level of such a crime would be, but from looking around some of the other things that's similar, I suspect you would be looking at about a 10 or so--or a year or so in prison.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

paganel 3y ago

> (up to $1 million USD and 20 years in prison) Is that really on the table? If yes, then it's bat-s*it insane, it's maybe rude to call it that but there's no better word to describe it. To put it in perspective, throughout the '80s people were not getting sent to 20 years in prison for listening to Radio Free Europe here in Eastern Europe. There were still some political prisoners left, put in prison under different pretexts, but they had not gotten in there only for listening to Radio Free Europe.

gruez 3y ago
>Is that really on the table? If yes, then it's bat-s*it insane, it's maybe rude to call it that but there's no better word to describe it. Not really. That might be the maximum sentence but the chance that a kid who's downloaded tiktok using a vpn of getting anywhere near that is near zero. 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...
- paganel 3y ago
  I know that because of Aaron's tragic destiny, but I find that even a plea-induced 6-months sentence (let's say) is too much a punishment for having TikTok installed on your phone.
  - dimmke 3y ago
    Uh yeah, I'd say even 1 day in jail or prison is too much of a punishment for having TikTok installed on your phone. This is fucking bonkers.
- pests 3y ago
  Just like the MPAA and RIAA never would go after little old grandmas for their love savings just for downloading an mp3.....
  - gruez 3y ago
    I'm not sure how the behavior of the MPAA or RIAA has any relevance on how the DoJ functions.
    - pests 3y ago
      Just an example of an entity using laws to punish everyday people we thought might otherwise go unpunished.
      - gruez 3y ago
        1. There's a huge difference between a private entity launching civil lawsuits and the DoJ launching criminal lawsuits 2. I don't know what specific case you're referring to by "MPAA and RIAA [...] go after little old grandmas for their love savings", but the relevant laws likely predated mp3s and filesharing programs, so it's not clear how "we thought might otherwise go unpunished" would apply here. If anything it's the reverse. The laws existed, and people thought they wouldn't apply to them for whatever reason and ignored them.
        pests 3y ago
        I think you are looking too deeply into this. 1. When the comparison I'm trying to draw is "huge powerful entity using its power", what exactly is the difference? 2. I don't think there needs to be a specific case - it was in the news often enough for it to be a common thing. Here is an EFF article reviewing what happened years later: https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later "Five years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened legal actions against at least 30,000 individuals. These individuals have included children, grandparents, unemployed single mothers, college professors"
- 0xParlay 3y ago
  Thank you. 20 years would be for the VPN provider.
  - gotimo 3y ago
    ...that still basically means commercial VPNs are outlawed
calibas 3y ago
"A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both." The lawmakers behind the bill assure us it will only be used against "corporations and executives who conspire to evade a mitigation order or ban — not everyday Americans". However, there's nothing in the bill that excludes "everyday Americans" from the penalties.
- gruez 3y ago
  >The lawmakers behind the bill assure us it will only be used against "corporations and executives who conspire to evade a mitigation order or ban — not everyday Americans". However, there's nothing in the bill that excludes "everyday Americans" from the penalties. It's slightly more complicated than that. As it stands right now it's unclear whether personal use of tiktok would violate the proposed law, because it only bans US companies from dealing with chinese companies. That said the bill also allow the commence department to enact "mitigation measures", which if you tried to bypass them could get you in trouble. >This bill is not a “ban” on personal use, or even on a technology directly. The bill may result in a ban on TikTok because it grants the Commerce Department such broad authority. That ban may take the form of removing it from app stores or a forced sale, or other mitigation measures imposed against the owners of the technologies. >[...] >The bill authorizes the Department of Commerce to impose “mitigation measures” without any restrictions on what those measures might be. Couple that with a vague enforcement provision that grants the power to broadly punish any person who “evades” these undefined “mitigation measures,” and the result is a law that can be read as criminalizing common practices like using a VPN to get a prohibited app, side-loaded installations, or using an app that was lawfully downloaded somewhere else. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/broad-vague-restrict-act-dangerous-substitute-comprehensive-data-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/broad-vague-restrict-a...
  - civilitty 3y ago
    (IANAL but I've been involved in some legislative drafting) The vagueness is definitely a problem but all one needs to do is look at the split between the use of "entity" [1] and "person". The regulations are meant to apply to "entities" which doesn't include natural people - only firms, trusts, governments, etc. The criminal penalties apply to natural persons who act to violate the regulations on behalf of the entities. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text#idd80776fd03034a04951beb7c5f6907c6 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
jcranmer 3y ago
Honestly, no. It's a maximum penalty, and maximum penalties don't really matter unless you're doing some deeply serious shit under sentencing guidelines--it takes an offense level of 37 with no prior criminal history to potentially hit a 20 year sentence. I don't know what the base offense level of such a crime would be, but from looking around some of the other things that's similar, I suspect you would be looking at about a 10 or so--or a year or so in prison.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]