This is a bipartisan bill and supported by the White House.
It's Patriot Act Version 2. Everything they wanted in version 1 and couldn't get, they are putting in here.
It does not contain the word TikTok. It applies to "desktop applications", "mobile applications", "gaming applications", "payment applications", "web-based applications" and everything connected to the Internet that serves >1M users within a year time period.
Fines up to $1M and 20 years in prison. It also uses civil forfeiture and makes it illegal to properly run a VPN.
Of course it doesn't contain the word TikTok. Legislation can't single out an individual company or person, it wouldn't pass legal muster. So you write it in general terms, and ta-da! The ban hammer that you wanted to apply to TikTok is now a general purpose tool for destroying civil liberties!
When are we going to give up on our representative democracy? It is clear that in the US the government no longer executes the will of the people. A bill as unpopular as this has bipartisan support. How do we proceed?
Support in congress is directly correlated with what improves the standings of monied interests, the 1%, corporations, etc. What is popular/unpopular among the actual people of the United States is almost irrelevant to lawmaking.
Yes. It's just digital McCarthyism. The US loves having an enemy, especially a Communist one, and the problem is that the Communists have got too good at capitalism, so they have to be banned from the market.
If this was actually about preventing surveillance it would ban surveillance by apps.
If you don't like this bill and you are a US citizen, now is the time to act. Write and call your senators and representative and let them know that you oppose it.
> It also uses civil forfeiture and makes it illegal to properly run a VPN.
From what I've read a VPN only becomes a problem IF you use it to bypass restrictions on accessing TikTok. Stating VPNs will be illegal is a bit of a reach from what I've seen.
The summary is: this would be a pretty unprecedented move to effectively ban a social media company. In this case, TikTok isn't even doing anything illegal as far as we know, because the United States has basically no data privacy laws that would be relevant here in the first place. The solution to that problem isn't to ban TikTok, it's to create a regulatory framework where companies are obligated to follow certain rules.
Also, with these sorts of issues Congress usually receives a classified briefing where they're told the nature of the allegations against a specific party. Congress, however, has not been briefed on what TikTok is doing, which is odd. And besides, those allegations should probably be shared publicly in this case because the effects of any potential legislation are so significant. As she says, "this doesn't feel right." It seems like Congress isn't following its normal procedures.
She doesn't talk about the language of any particular bill or how it doesn't mention TikTok at all; I'm not sure if the version referred to by the original video was available to AOC when she made her video.
It has little to do with privacy - it's about adversary controlling a Skinner box which millions of your citizens have willingly put themselves in. It's just, how do you encode that into law? So privacy it is.
I don't know anything about this and on principle AOC is right in my optionion but Europe has the GDPR and other national legal privacy protection and Tik Tok is still being used in Europe. Do we know if Tik Tok[0] does anything different in Europe and the US?
[0]Tik Tok and any other social media spyware in general.
> In this case, TikTok isn't even doing anything illegal as far as we know, because the United States has basically no data privacy laws that would be relevant here in the first place. The solution to that problem isn't to ban TikTok, it's to create a regulatory framework where companies are obligated to follow certain rules.
That's the thing: TikTok is basically state-sponsored, Apple/Google approved spyware. I don't have a link handy, but I remember reading that security researchers found the tiktok android binary had the capability to receive code remotely and execute it, meaning that the CCP can make millions of Android phones do whatever they want, especially if the code uploaded includes exploits.
But how do you legislate against that sort of thing? Especially when Congress demonstrates how tech illiterate it is?
It's also clearly being used to attack our society and infrastructure via children with poor judgement and little to fear from our criminal justice system. The platform does not not moderate in the slightest any of the various "tiktok challenges", most of which are dangerous to both the participant and general public, as well as causing lots of expensive damage. They could block or de-emphasize any number of the tags used in these "challenges", but instead they seem to boost them.
So we have kids sticking forks into electrical sockets in their classrooms and destroying the bathrooms, breaking into Kias and joyriding them at insanely dangerous speeds, purposefully causing people to fall in the most dangerous way possible (kicking their feet out from under them so the brain's natural protective instincts can't protect the head from trauma)...the list just goes on and on.
Did anyone notice that damn near every single one of these tiktok challenges seems almost perfectly tailored to cause a lot of damage or injury, and utilizes a population which essentially has nothing to fear from criminal repercussions thanks to our criminal justice system sealing their records once they come of age?
This bill went from being bipartisan to wildly radioactive overnight.
I am seeing sites from the entire US political spectrum, from far right to far left and moderates in between, techy and non techy, writing the same negative things about it.
Some senators (like Marco Rubio per his latest Tweets) are already distancing themselves from the bill.
I am still worried about another attempt... but I am not losing any sleep over RESTRICT. It is dead as a doornail.
6) software designed or used primarily for connecting with and communicating via the internet that is in use by greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including—
(A) desktop applications;
(B) mobile applications;
(C) gaming applications;
(D) payment applications; or
(E) web-based applications; or
(7) information and communications technology products and services integral to—
(A) artificial intelligence and machine learning;
(B) quantum key distribution;
(C) quantum communications;
(D) quantum computing;
(E) post-quantum cryptography;
(F) autonomous systems;
(G) advanced robotics;
(H) biotechnology;
(I) synthetic biology;
(J) computational biology; and
(K) e-commerce technology and services, including any electronic techniques for accomplishing business transactions, online retail, internet-enabled logistics, internet-enabled payment technology, and online marketplaces.
That is true genious. "Lets build a social network which will eventually force our adversary to restrict freedoms of their citizens, eventually moving closer to us..."
It is counterintuitive that the US government is introducing legislation that will seemingly appease the Chinese government, given that the US is a democratic society that values individual freedoms. This raises important questions about why the government is falling for China's manipulative tactics. By restricting freedom and ignoring democratic principles, it appears the US government is playing into China's hands, providing justification for their own repressive actions. The USA needs to be vigilant in guarding its democratic values and principles, and committed to promoting these ideals around the world, instead of compromising them.
One might argue that international conflict has always served primarily as a pretext to impose domestic social controls, at least since the cold war started. What I'm saying is that the ruling classes in China and the US arguably have more in common with each other than they do with their common citizens and the appearance of conflict is useful for both sets of elites.
> Any information submitted to the Federal Government by a party to a covered transaction in accordance with this Act, as well as any information the Federal Government may create relating to the review of the covered transaction, is exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the "Freedom of Information Act").
How is this even remotely acceptable? I'm generally in favor of a TikTok ban, but this bill is so ridiculously onerous that they handed the PR advantage to TikTok and made a necessary national security measure almost entirely unsalable.
Why not? It's not reasonable to expect everything to be public. There are classified documents, for instance. I skimmed the bill and "covered transaction" refers to financial (?) transactions with banned entities. Is that being exempt from FOIA laws really surprising? I wouldn't CTRs[1] to be requestable under FOIA, for instance.
I'm never an user of ByteDance/TikTok, but somehow this makes me sad for TikTok.
If you don't know, many Chinese companies sees the "overseas market" (mainly US and EU) as a backup plan. If something went wrong in China (say the Jack Ma situation during the past few years, and many other unsound ones), the leadership of those companies can just pop to another country and then party cannot reach for them, which is what ByteDance CEO did.
Now, without this market option, these companies can only dig in in China now, probably their eventually their own graves too, but business is better than no business, and overall China treat them more fairly this time. Even Jack Ma has returned to China just few days ago, he probably smelled something.
You might think, "wow, good plan, hurts China very well". Well... you hasn't seen what it would be like when a Chinese company gone full-loyal towards the party. The party is probably writing love letters to who proposed the act. A win-win for the party and the US, I'd totally say.
What is the US's prevailing philosophy for domestic protection? Is it absolutely 0 risk? Is it 0 risk for certain things and not others?
My mind struggles to understand a cohesive leadership strategy for the next 100 to 500 years. The current state of affairs could easily devolve into anarchy within 100 years - I just don't understand what they are giving us to work towards together?
Bills like these say very squarely, 'we don't trust you, the citizen, to be able to defend yourselves. Nor do we believe that your efforts at incorporating new products and cooperating together to defend yourselves will be sufficient.'
So... you're saying we are absolutely hopeless in the next 100 years? I seriously don't get that as a leadership strategy. The American spirit is one that overcomes any adversity, not through avoidance, but through head-on action powered by an unshakable resolve.
This bill, as well as the original Patriot Act and almost every one since, discards the everyday citizen as the first and primary hope for the future. It is an erosion of the 'American Spirit' from our direct keepers of the flame; it's unbelievably sad.
I say all of this 'couched' knowing full well evil people exist and keep a whole community behind for almost 50 years through racism - so it's not a 'let everyone be mean to each other' == freedom either.
If the United States lasts in its current form for another 100 years, I will be surprised.
100 years ago, you could argue this country was fundamentally different than it is now — aside from rights (pretty much all of civil rights) and liabilities we now take for granted (the concept of federal income tax was just 10 years old, and not even fully implemented for another couple of decades), we were still two states shy of the 50 we have now.
The country will absolutely change in the next 100. No telling which way, though.
Does anyone have a breakdown from a lawyer about the RESTRICT act? I have no doubt that the bill is awful but all of the interpretation I have seen has been from people without legal backgrounds and with (to me, also someone without a legal background) very shaky readings e.g. just using a VPN AT ALL will get you 20 years in prison.
That's what you get when keep asking for more laws and regulations, this country has too much government and too many bad laws on the books and chances are new legislation will only make things even worse.
So stop voting in attorney generals and other prosecutor types to congress and calling for every transaction and activity to be regulated just because you dislike a certain company or the people running it, special interests will always hijack your cause and warp it into this kind of monstrosity.
Isn’t this bill a bit too broad? They might as well just write “We are the executive branch, we can do anything we want, rule of law does not apply to us”.
It is kinda sad to see such laws from western countries because it discards entire progress humanity have made during the past thousands of years in terms of law and justice. This is some type of regression to cave-men era, one can’t help but wonder how such fall from grace have happened.
Thankfully all of this bad press is starting to turn law makers minds. How it's turning out right now there is no shot TikTok will be banned. What we really need is privacy laws like almost every European country. But will currently lobbying laws I don't see that happening.
> What we really need is privacy laws like almost every European country
Not gonna say we _don't_ need that... but it's not clear that there's any relevance to tiktok. Given the track record of Chinese companies and IP law they don't agree with, do you really expect them to honor privacy laws?
Laws like cash transaction tracking and other egregious violations of financial privacy under the guise of transparency? No thanks, keep that in the EU. Just further proof that it really is the people that voted for the patriot act, because so many supposed privacy supporters are willing to defend state surveillance where it benefits them.
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.
> Fines up to $1M and 20 years in prison. It also uses civil forfeiture and makes it illegal to properly run a VPN.
I genuinely don't understand where this interpretation is coming from; I'm not challenging the interpretation, rather asking for an explanation. They intend on cratering SaaS, IaaS, and PaaS (+ insert any other solution where VPNs are ubiquitous with respect to access) for the purposes of prohibiting access to TikTok and ilk that belong to "foreign adversaries" (China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela)?
- Will B2B VPNs be allowed, and B2C / commercial VPNs be prohibited?
- How would they accomplish this? Ask ISPs to blacklist VPNs?
- How would any of this be enforceable? (perhaps I answered my own question with the preceding question)
edit: I replied to the general post rather than the individual whom I addressing my inquiry.
Seems that western democracies have been trending towards authoritarianism more and more as technology has improved over the last few decades. This is getting really scary.
Last thread we have folks asking for full spectrum bill to target social media just to make it fair. Nah. I just want pinpoint TikTok ban with no vague and broad language for others.
I'm not a US citizen, but we have our share of crazy civil liberties restricting bills as well, and when they can't manage to pass them the 1st time, they will try and try again until they succeed. We need to win every time, they need to win only one time.
Generally speaking, one should be extremely suspicious of any bill that is being introduced during a crisis period (war, economics, etc) if it's not related to the crisis and it's bipartisan. Especially if it's bipartisan.
[+] [-] gorwell|2 years ago|reply
It's Patriot Act Version 2. Everything they wanted in version 1 and couldn't get, they are putting in here.
It does not contain the word TikTok. It applies to "desktop applications", "mobile applications", "gaming applications", "payment applications", "web-based applications" and everything connected to the Internet that serves >1M users within a year time period.
Fines up to $1M and 20 years in prison. It also uses civil forfeiture and makes it illegal to properly run a VPN.
This has bipartisan support.
[+] [-] seewhydee|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bboygravity|2 years ago|reply
My first hint was Snowden.
[+] [-] lumb63|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] est|2 years ago|reply
Not only that, if you selling hardware to >1M customers, then you are subject to this ban.
Hint: Your hardware might be manufactured in China, or a Chinese-affiliated company in your supply chain, then you are at risk.
[+] [-] atleastoptimal|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewclunn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|2 years ago|reply
Yes. It's just digital McCarthyism. The US loves having an enemy, especially a Communist one, and the problem is that the Communists have got too good at capitalism, so they have to be banned from the market.
If this was actually about preventing surveillance it would ban surveillance by apps.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jgwil2|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plugger|2 years ago|reply
From what I've read a VPN only becomes a problem IF you use it to bypass restrictions on accessing TikTok. Stating VPNs will be illegal is a bit of a reach from what I've seen.
[+] [-] aaomidi|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrjin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elihu|2 years ago|reply
https://www.tiktok.com/@aocinthehouse/video/7214318917135830...
The summary is: this would be a pretty unprecedented move to effectively ban a social media company. In this case, TikTok isn't even doing anything illegal as far as we know, because the United States has basically no data privacy laws that would be relevant here in the first place. The solution to that problem isn't to ban TikTok, it's to create a regulatory framework where companies are obligated to follow certain rules.
Also, with these sorts of issues Congress usually receives a classified briefing where they're told the nature of the allegations against a specific party. Congress, however, has not been briefed on what TikTok is doing, which is odd. And besides, those allegations should probably be shared publicly in this case because the effects of any potential legislation are so significant. As she says, "this doesn't feel right." It seems like Congress isn't following its normal procedures.
She doesn't talk about the language of any particular bill or how it doesn't mention TikTok at all; I'm not sure if the version referred to by the original video was available to AOC when she made her video.
[+] [-] cultureswitch|2 years ago|reply
The thing is, it seems some people want to allow US companies to abuse people's data, but not Chinese companies doing the exact same thing.
That is, the aim of this legislation is purely strategic and has nothing to do with privacy.
[+] [-] raxxorraxor|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] somethingreen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skywal_l|2 years ago|reply
[0]Tik Tok and any other social media spyware in general.
[+] [-] KennyBlanken|2 years ago|reply
That's the thing: TikTok is basically state-sponsored, Apple/Google approved spyware. I don't have a link handy, but I remember reading that security researchers found the tiktok android binary had the capability to receive code remotely and execute it, meaning that the CCP can make millions of Android phones do whatever they want, especially if the code uploaded includes exploits.
But how do you legislate against that sort of thing? Especially when Congress demonstrates how tech illiterate it is?
It's also clearly being used to attack our society and infrastructure via children with poor judgement and little to fear from our criminal justice system. The platform does not not moderate in the slightest any of the various "tiktok challenges", most of which are dangerous to both the participant and general public, as well as causing lots of expensive damage. They could block or de-emphasize any number of the tags used in these "challenges", but instead they seem to boost them.
So we have kids sticking forks into electrical sockets in their classrooms and destroying the bathrooms, breaking into Kias and joyriding them at insanely dangerous speeds, purposefully causing people to fall in the most dangerous way possible (kicking their feet out from under them so the brain's natural protective instincts can't protect the head from trauma)...the list just goes on and on.
Did anyone notice that damn near every single one of these tiktok challenges seems almost perfectly tailored to cause a lot of damage or injury, and utilizes a population which essentially has nothing to fear from criminal repercussions thanks to our criminal justice system sealing their records once they come of age?
[+] [-] staticman2|2 years ago|reply
If North Korea had social network companies, or someone in North Korea wanted to start one, they are already banned.
[+] [-] brucethemoose2|2 years ago|reply
I am seeing sites from the entire US political spectrum, from far right to far left and moderates in between, techy and non techy, writing the same negative things about it.
Some senators (like Marco Rubio per his latest Tweets) are already distancing themselves from the bill.
I am still worried about another attempt... but I am not losing any sleep over RESTRICT. It is dead as a doornail.
[+] [-] dang|2 years ago|reply
Republican Rand Paul blocks the fast-tracking of TikTok ban - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35366209 - March 2023 (48 comments)
Bill 686: Use TikTok over VPN and go to prison for 20 years and/or 1M fine [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35360033 - March 2023 (3 comments)
TikTok bills could dangerously expand national security state - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35359577 - March 2023 (3 comments)
Senate Bill to Ban TikTok - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35347925 - March 2023 (613 comments)
The TikTok ban is a betrayal of the open internet - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35336748 - March 2023 (415 comments)
The next Patriot Act, but so much worse: Bill S686 the RESTRICT Act (TikTok ban) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35336366 - March 2023 (10 comments)
Patriot Act on steroids: anti-TikTok Trojan horse for censorship, surveillance - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35334851 - March 2023 (164 comments)
[+] [-] htrp|2 years ago|reply
I'm not sure what apps are left outside of the scope of this.
------------------------------------------------------
From the bill(full context)
6) software designed or used primarily for connecting with and communicating via the internet that is in use by greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including—
(A) desktop applications;
(B) mobile applications;
(C) gaming applications;
(D) payment applications; or
(E) web-based applications; or
(7) information and communications technology products and services integral to—
(A) artificial intelligence and machine learning;
(B) quantum key distribution;
(C) quantum communications;
(D) quantum computing;
(E) post-quantum cryptography;
(F) autonomous systems;
(G) advanced robotics;
(H) biotechnology;
(I) synthetic biology;
(J) computational biology; and
(K) e-commerce technology and services, including any electronic techniques for accomplishing business transactions, online retail, internet-enabled logistics, internet-enabled payment technology, and online marketplaces.
[+] [-] lynx23|2 years ago|reply
It is counterintuitive that the US government is introducing legislation that will seemingly appease the Chinese government, given that the US is a democratic society that values individual freedoms. This raises important questions about why the government is falling for China's manipulative tactics. By restricting freedom and ignoring democratic principles, it appears the US government is playing into China's hands, providing justification for their own repressive actions. The USA needs to be vigilant in guarding its democratic values and principles, and committed to promoting these ideals around the world, instead of compromising them.
[+] [-] nathan_compton|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tremarley|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyinstallwoes|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hammersdoom|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eganist|2 years ago|reply
> Any information submitted to the Federal Government by a party to a covered transaction in accordance with this Act, as well as any information the Federal Government may create relating to the review of the covered transaction, is exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the "Freedom of Information Act").
How is this even remotely acceptable? I'm generally in favor of a TikTok ban, but this bill is so ridiculously onerous that they handed the PR advantage to TikTok and made a necessary national security measure almost entirely unsalable.
[+] [-] gruez|2 years ago|reply
Why not? It's not reasonable to expect everything to be public. There are classified documents, for instance. I skimmed the bill and "covered transaction" refers to financial (?) transactions with banned entities. Is that being exempt from FOIA laws really surprising? I wouldn't CTRs[1] to be requestable under FOIA, for instance.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report
[+] [-] kenjackson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nirui|2 years ago|reply
If you don't know, many Chinese companies sees the "overseas market" (mainly US and EU) as a backup plan. If something went wrong in China (say the Jack Ma situation during the past few years, and many other unsound ones), the leadership of those companies can just pop to another country and then party cannot reach for them, which is what ByteDance CEO did.
Now, without this market option, these companies can only dig in in China now, probably their eventually their own graves too, but business is better than no business, and overall China treat them more fairly this time. Even Jack Ma has returned to China just few days ago, he probably smelled something.
You might think, "wow, good plan, hurts China very well". Well... you hasn't seen what it would be like when a Chinese company gone full-loyal towards the party. The party is probably writing love letters to who proposed the act. A win-win for the party and the US, I'd totally say.
[+] [-] anonymouse008|2 years ago|reply
My mind struggles to understand a cohesive leadership strategy for the next 100 to 500 years. The current state of affairs could easily devolve into anarchy within 100 years - I just don't understand what they are giving us to work towards together?
Bills like these say very squarely, 'we don't trust you, the citizen, to be able to defend yourselves. Nor do we believe that your efforts at incorporating new products and cooperating together to defend yourselves will be sufficient.'
So... you're saying we are absolutely hopeless in the next 100 years? I seriously don't get that as a leadership strategy. The American spirit is one that overcomes any adversity, not through avoidance, but through head-on action powered by an unshakable resolve.
This bill, as well as the original Patriot Act and almost every one since, discards the everyday citizen as the first and primary hope for the future. It is an erosion of the 'American Spirit' from our direct keepers of the flame; it's unbelievably sad.
I say all of this 'couched' knowing full well evil people exist and keep a whole community behind for almost 50 years through racism - so it's not a 'let everyone be mean to each other' == freedom either.
[+] [-] thebradbain|2 years ago|reply
100 years ago, you could argue this country was fundamentally different than it is now — aside from rights (pretty much all of civil rights) and liabilities we now take for granted (the concept of federal income tax was just 10 years old, and not even fully implemented for another couple of decades), we were still two states shy of the 50 we have now.
The country will absolutely change in the next 100. No telling which way, though.
[+] [-] eldenwrong|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enragedcacti|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duringmath|2 years ago|reply
So stop voting in attorney generals and other prosecutor types to congress and calling for every transaction and activity to be regulated just because you dislike a certain company or the people running it, special interests will always hijack your cause and warp it into this kind of monstrosity.
[+] [-] DethNinja|2 years ago|reply
It is kinda sad to see such laws from western countries because it discards entire progress humanity have made during the past thousands of years in terms of law and justice. This is some type of regression to cave-men era, one can’t help but wonder how such fall from grace have happened.
[+] [-] Whatarethese|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abeyer|2 years ago|reply
Not gonna say we _don't_ need that... but it's not clear that there's any relevance to tiktok. Given the track record of Chinese companies and IP law they don't agree with, do you really expect them to honor privacy laws?
[+] [-] bioemerl|2 years ago|reply
TikTok very badly needs to be banned.
[+] [-] alphanullmeric|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quitit|2 years ago|reply
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... so I can better educate myself)
[+] [-] perihelions|2 years ago|reply
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dep... ("Justice Department investigates Sci-Hub founder on suspicion of working for Russian intelligence", 2019)
[+] [-] dymax78|2 years ago|reply
I genuinely don't understand where this interpretation is coming from; I'm not challenging the interpretation, rather asking for an explanation. They intend on cratering SaaS, IaaS, and PaaS (+ insert any other solution where VPNs are ubiquitous with respect to access) for the purposes of prohibiting access to TikTok and ilk that belong to "foreign adversaries" (China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela)?
- Will B2B VPNs be allowed, and B2C / commercial VPNs be prohibited?
- How would they accomplish this? Ask ISPs to blacklist VPNs?
- How would any of this be enforceable? (perhaps I answered my own question with the preceding question)
edit: I replied to the general post rather than the individual whom I addressing my inquiry.
[+] [-] Dig1t|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monksy|2 years ago|reply
Summarization of the bill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xudlYSLFls8
Full reading: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlQAxhM3vo8
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] puppymaster|2 years ago|reply
This bill is anything but that.
[+] [-] squarefoot|2 years ago|reply