Gold Member Kivalo Posted March 30, 2023 Gold Member Share Posted March 30, 2023 Fear mongering or reasonable concern? More at link. Quote https://reason.com/2023/03/29/could-the-restrict-act-criminalize-the-use-of-vpns/ Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) introduced one TikTok ban bill back in January. Hawley's bill would direct the president to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to specifically "block and prohibit all transactions" and to "prevent commercial operation of" TikTok parent company ByteDance in the U.S. The latest legislation is more extensive—and even more invasive. Warner's "Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act," or the RESTRICT Act, doesn't specifically mention TikTok or ByteDance. Rather, it would grant the U.S. secretary of commerce the broad power to "identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate … any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property" that the secretary determines to pose "an undue or unacceptable risk" in several different areas. These include federal elections, "information and communications technology products and services," and "critical infrastructure or digital economy," as well as "coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States." The language describing who the RESTRICT ACT applies to is confusing at best. The commerce secretary would be authorized to take steps to address risks posed by "any covered transaction by any person," right? So what counts as a covered transaction? The bill states that this means "a transaction in which an entity described in subparagraph (B) has any interest." Entities described in subparagraph B are a "foreign adversary; an entity subject to the jurisdiction of, or organized under the laws of, a foreign adversary; and an entity owned, directed, or controlled by" either of these. Foreign adversaries can be "any foreign government or regime" that the secretary deems a national security threat. It's a bit gobbledygooked, but this could be read to imply that "any person" using a VPN to access an app controlled by a "foreign adversary" or its alleged minions is subject to the secretary's ire. Hence anyone using a VPN to access TikTok would be in trouble—specifically, subject to up to $1 million in fines, 20 years in prison, or both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 Its the Patriot act on steroids. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member Kivalo Posted March 30, 2023 Author Gold Member Share Posted March 30, 2023 2 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: Its the Patriot act on steroids. Aint nothing patriotic about the "patriot"act. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 30, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 30, 2023 15 minutes ago, Kivalo said: Fear mongering or reasonable concern? More at link. Very reasonable when you read parts of the bill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 It's garbage legislation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 1 minute ago, Kivalo said: Aint nothing patriotic about the "patriot"act. I know, its far more overreaching. You are essentially succumbing to Marxism by the traitors in your government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Very reasonable when you read parts of the bill. What parts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Very reasonable when you read parts of the bill. Does this make you a bit nervous? (f) No Right Of Access.— (1) IN GENERAL.—No provision of this Act shall be construed to create a right to obtain access to information in the possession of the Federal Government that was considered in making a determination under this Act that a transaction is a covered transaction or interest or to prohibit, mitigate, or take action against a covered transaction or interest, including any classified national security information or sensitive but unclassified information. (2) INAPPLICABILITY OF FOIA.—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 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”). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 30, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 30, 2023 American govt using this as an excuse to control information flow. TikTok has been eating up the advertising dollars of American social media companies and they are pissed. Its also not as politically censored as Twitter or Facebook. The American govt doesn't like the Chinese spying on us all the while they do it 10x's worse. I don't trust the China govt but honestly I trust our govt less. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 The reason the US government wants to stop tictok and such isn't because China is spying on US citizens, its because the US government can't use it to spy on its citizens like they can with other tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 The scope of technology that can be monitored, curtailed, or prohibited is lengthy. You should be concerned about all of it but specifically: wireless local area networks; mobile networks; any software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to data hosting or computing service that uses, processes, or retains, or is expected to use, process, or retain, sensitive personal data with respect to 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— internet hosting services cloud-based or distributed computing and data storage machine learning, predictive analytics, and data science products and services, including those involving the provision of services to assist a party utilize, manage, or maintain open-source software managed services content delivery services internet- or network-enabled sensors, webcams, end-point surveillance or monitoring devices, modems and home networking devices if greater than 1,000,000 units have been sold to 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 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 desktop applications, mobile applications, gaming applications; payment applications; or web-based applications 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 30, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 30, 2023 2 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: What parts? Reasonable to be concerned not the bill being reasonable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 30, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 30, 2023 So much of the bill allows un-elected bureaucrats to set the rules. That never works out well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 30, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 30, 2023 36 minutes ago, Kivalo said: Fear mongering or reasonable concern? More at link. 20 minutes ago, Highmark said: Very reasonable when you read parts of the bill. 17 minutes ago, Snake said: Does this make you a bit nervous? (f) No Right Of Access.— (1) IN GENERAL.—No provision of this Act shall be construed to create a right to obtain access to information in the possession of the Federal Government that was considered in making a determination under this Act that a transaction is a covered transaction or interest or to prohibit, mitigate, or take action against a covered transaction or interest, including any classified national security information or sensitive but unclassified information. (2) INAPPLICABILITY OF FOIA.—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 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”). Not one part of the bill do I agree with. Not one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 If you have nothing to hide... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 Josh Hawley is fucking Nazi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 7 minutes ago, Anler said: If you have nothing to hide... That was the Repugs line when Bush passed the Patriot Act 1.0. How did that work out? Obama didn't remove it, he just used it to further the spying narrative and now Biden is going even further. Do we see the uniparty yet? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 The world sheep are being told how to think when it comes to Ukraine through big tech nudge units. This is what global fascism looks like. But its a conspiracy. Hey even the NYTimes is catching on, better late than never. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 53 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: That was the Repugs line when Bush passed the Patriot Act 1.0. How did that work out? Obama didn't remove it, he just used it to further the spying narrative and now Biden is going even further. Do we see the uniparty yet? Trump extended and enhanced it. The political outsider https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/01/19/trump-surveillance-extension-351136 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 3 hours ago, Highmark said: American govt using this as an excuse to control information flow. TikTok has been eating up the advertising dollars of American social media companies and they are pissed. Its also not as politically censored as Twitter or Facebook. The American govt doesn't like the Chinese spying on us all the while they do it 10x's worse. I don't trust the China govt but honestly I trust our govt less. That could be. Facebook and Twitter are banned in China so American social media companies don’t have access to that market. Some portions are available through a government approved VPN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 30, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 30, 2023 2 hours ago, spin_dry said: That could be. Facebook and Twitter are banned in China so American social media companies don’t have access to that market. Some portions are available through a government approved VPN And Facebook and Twitter had been doing the govt's bidding. At least one had an office set up for agents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 3 hours ago, spin_dry said: Trump extended and enhanced it. The political outsider https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/01/19/trump-surveillance-extension-351136 Funny the guy that knows everything about everything didn't mention this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 1 hour ago, Highmark said: And Facebook and Twitter had been doing the govt's bidding. At least one had an office set up for agents. The US automobile mfgs are also working with the feds on how to better track and monitor vehicle owners. They can even shut your car down remotely. Maybe foreign auto companies from China won’t do that? US banks are working the feds for the same reason. Remove a certain amount of cash and it gets reported to homeland security. Maybe it’s best to keep your cash off shore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 7 hours ago, Highmark said: Very reasonable when you read parts of the bill. Ot at all just bullshit so the govenment has more control over what is said and watched . Only reason they are going after tik tok is they can't control it henc can't control the flow of information . It is sad when Americans have to use a app out of China if they don't want govenment controlling what they post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 30, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 30, 2023 3 hours ago, spin_dry said: The US automobile mfgs are also working with the feds on how to better track and monitor vehicle owners. They can even shut your car down remotely. Maybe foreign auto companies from China won’t do that? US banks are working the feds for the same reason. Remove a certain amount of cash and it gets reported to homeland security. Maybe it’s best to keep your cash off shore? Really unreal whats happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.