3 ms·

"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

"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...

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...