#vpn ban proposal

[teabutmakeitazure]

I am knee deep in horrid emotions (hormones), and I want to give up being a human but alas

[zvaigzdelasas]

Just because something needs to be done about tiktok doesn't mean that particular bill should be passed. There are other, less draconian bills that could be proposed and passed. Do you think people should support blowing up a hospital because of a budgeting issue? "Doing something" doesn't always equal "doing something useful"

The US literally cannot meaningfully ban tiktok without banning VPNs in enemy countries (read: counter/anti-hegemonic blocs outside of US global jurisdiction). The "draconian"-ness isn't an accident or an excess, its literally a logical result of the grounding axioms. Either you think tiktok is a distinct national security threat, or you oppose the proposed Patriot act v2. There is literally no middle ground & there is literally no nuance here.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

We should ban TikTok('s surveillance)

With the RESTRICT Act, Congress is proposing to continue Trump’s war on Tiktok, enacting a US ban on the Chinese-owned service. How will they do this? Congress isn’t clear. In practice, banning stuff on the internet is hard, especially if you don’t have a national firewall:

https://doctorow.medium.com/theyre-still-trying-to-ban-cryptography-33aa668dc602

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/30/tik-tok-tow/#good-politics-for-electoral-victories

My guess is that they’re thinking of ordering the mobile duopoly of Google and Apple to nuke the Tiktok app from their app stores. That’s how they do it in China, after all: when China wanted to ban VPNs and other privacy tools, they just ordered Apple to remove them from the App Store, and Apple rolled over:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/11/foreseeable-consequences/#airdropped

That’s the completely foreseeable consequence of arrogating the power to decide which software every mobile user on earth is entitled to use — as Google and Apple have done. Once you put that gun on the mantelpiece in Act I, you damn betcha that some strong-man backed by a powerful state is going to come along and shoot it by Act III.

The same goes for commercial surveillance: once you collect massive, nonconsensual dossiers on every technology user alive, you don’t get to act surprised when cops and spies show up and order your company to serve as deputies for a massive, off-the-books warrantless surveillance project.

Hell, a cynic might even say that commercial surveillance companies are betting on this. The surveillance public-private partnership is a vicious cycle: corporations let cops and spies plunder our data; then the cops and spies lobby against privacy laws that would prevent these corporations from spying on us:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/25/nationalize-moderna/#hun-sen

Which makes the RESTRICT Act an especially foolish project. If the Chinese state wants to procure data on Americans, it need not convince us to install Tiktok. It can simply plunk down a credit card with any of the many unregulated data-brokers who feed the American tech giants the dossiers that the NSA and local cops rely on.

Every American tech giant is at least as bad for privacy as Tiktok is — yes, even Apple. Sure, Apple lets its users block Facebook spying with a single tap — but even if you opt out of “tracking,” Apple still secretly gathers exactly the same kinds of data as Facebook, and uses it to power its own ad product:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

There is no such thing as a privacy-respecting tech giant. Long before Apple plastered our cities with lying billboards proclaiming its reverence for privacy, Microsoft positioned itself as the non-spying alternative to Google, which would be great, except Microsoft spies on hundreds of millions of people and sells the data:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/25/the-peoples-amazon/#clippys-revenge

Tech’s surveillance addiction means that Tiktok’s own alternative to the RESTRICT Act is also unbelievably stupid. The company has proposed to put itself under Oracle’s supervision, letting Oracle host its data and audit its code. You know, Oracle, the company that built the Great Firewall of China 1.0:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/selling-china-surveillance

We should not trust Tiktok any more than we trust Apple, Facebook, Google or Microsoft. Tiktok lied about whether it was sending data to China before:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-tapes-us-user-data-china-bytedance-access

And even if it keeps its promise not to send user data to China, that promise is meaningless — it can still send the vectors and models it creates with that data to China — these being far more useful for things like disinformation campaigns and population-scale inferences than the mere logs from your Tiktok sessions.

There are so many potentially harmful ways to process commercial surveillance data that trying to enumerate all the things that a corporation is allowed to do with the data it extracts from us is a fool’s errand. Instead, we should ban companies from spying on us, whether they are Chinese or American.

Corporations are remorseless, paperclip-maximizing colony organisms that perceive us as inconvenient gut-flora, and they lack any executive function (as do their “executives”), and they cannot self-regulate. To keep corporations from harming us, we must make it illegal for them to enact harm, and punish them when they break the law:

https://doctorow.medium.com/small-government-fd5870a9462e

After all, the problem with Tiktok isn’t the delightful videos or the fact that it’s teaching a generation of children to be expert sound- and video-editors. The problem with Tiktok is that it spies on us. Just like the problem with Facebook isn’t that it lets us communicate with our friends, and the problem with Google isn’t that it operates a search engine.

Now, these companies will tell you that the two can’t be separated, that a bearded prophet came down off a mountain with two stone tablets, intoning, “Larry, Sergey, thou shalt stop rotating thine logfiles and, lo, thou wilt data-mine them for actionable market intelligence.” But it’s nonsense. Google ran for years without surveillance. Facebook billed itself as the privacy-forward alternative to Myspace and promised never to spy on us:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3247362

The inevitabilist narrative that says that corporations must violate our rights in order to make the products we love is unadulterated Mr Gotcha nonsense: “Yet you participate in society. Curious. I am very intelligent”:

https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

Of course, corporations push this narrative all the time, which is why American Big Tech has been quietly supporting a ban on Tiktok, which (coincidentally) has managed to gain a foothold in the otherwise impregnable, decaying, enshittified oligarchy that US companies have created.

They have conspicuously failed to call for any kind of working solution, like a federal privacy law that would ban commercial surveillance, and extend a “private right of action,” so people could sue tech giants and data-brokers who violated the law, without having to convince a regulator, DA or Attorney General to bestir themselves:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/you-should-have-right-sue-companies-violate-your-privacy

Instead, the tech giants have the incredible gall to characterize themselves as the defenders of our privacy — at least, so long as the Chinese government is the adversary, and so long as its privacy violations come via an app, and not buy handing a credit card to the data-brokers that are the soil bacteria that keeps Big Tech’s ecosystem circulating. In the upside-down land of Big Tech lobbying, privacy is a benefit of monopoly — not something we have to smash monopolies to attain:

https://www.eff.org/wp/interoperability-and-privacy

Not everyone in Congress is onboard with the RESTRICT Act. AOC has come out for a federal privacy law that applies to all companies, rather than a ban on an app that tens of millions of young Americans love:

https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-first-tiktok-congress-ban-without-being-clued-in-2023-3

You know who agrees with AOC? Rand Paul. Yes, that absolute piece of shit. Paul told his caucusmates in the GOP that banning an app that millions of young American voters love is bad electoral politics. This fact is so obvious that even Rand fucking Paul can understand it:

https://gizmodo.com/rand-paul-opposes-tiktok-ban-warns-republicans-1850278167

Paul is absolutely right to call a Tiktok ban a “national strategy to permanently lose elections for a generation.” The Democrats should listen to him, because the GOP won’t. As between the two parties, the GOP is far more in thrall to the Chamber of Commerce and the rest of the business lobby. They are never going to back a policy that’s as good for the people and as bad for big business as a federal privacy law.

The Democrats have the opportunity to position themselves as “the party that wants to keep Tiktok but force it to stop being creepy, along with all the other tech companies,” while the GOP positions itself as “the party of angry technophobes who want to make sure that any fun you have is closely monitored by Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pinchai and Tim Cook and their pale imitations of the things you love about Tiktok.”

That’s not just good electoral politics — it’s good policy. Young voters aren’t going to turn out to the polls for performative Cold War 2.0 nonsense, but they will be pissed as hell at whoever takes away their Tiktok.

And if you do care about Cold War 2.0, then you should be banning surveillance, not Tiktok; the Chinese government has plenty of US dollars at its disposal to spend in America’s freewheeling, unregulated data markets — as do criminals, petty and organized, and every other nation-state adversary of the USA.

The RESTRICT Act is a garbage law straight out of the Clinton era, a kind of King Canute decree that goes so far as to potentially prohibit the use of VPNs to circumvent its provisions. America doesn’t need a Great Firewall to keep itself safe from tech spying — it needs a privacy law.

Have you ever wanted to say thank you for these posts? Here’s how you can: I’m kickstarting the audiobook for my next novel, a post-cyberpunk anti-finance finance thriller about Silicon Valley scams called Red Team Blues. Amazon’s Audible refuses to carry my audiobooks because they’re DRM free, but crowdfunding makes them possible.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[Image ID: A modified vintage editorial cartoon. Uncle Sam peeks out over a 'frowning battlement' whose cannon-slots are filled with telescopes from which peer the red glaring eyes of HAL 9000 from '2001: A Space Odyssey.' Topping the battlements in a row are Uncle Sam and three business-suited figures with dollar-sign-bags for heads. The three dollar-bag men have corporate logos on their breasts: Facebook, Google, Apple. Standing on the strand below the battlements, peering up, is a forlorn figure with a Tiktok logo for a head. The fortress wall bears the words 'RESTRICT Act.']

[logan-galbraith]

can I ask what text in the RESTRICT act you are reading as criminalizing the use of VPNs? I am seeing this repeatedly and on reading the bill, I don't understand the logic of how VPNs would be effected, or any software not developed in a country outside of the list mentioned in the bill, or how these penalties would apply to most civilians. for example, proton is Swiss-based. wouldn't the US need to name Switzerland as a hostile foreign power to outlaw their VPN? how would an individual user utilizing a VPN to access software developed in say, Venezuela, be in violation of the act, based on its wording and likely legal interpretation? I only see information relevant to financial transactions, and any fine would be based on the value of said transaction?

obviously broad expansions of national security legislation with the intent to choke out foreign competitors are bad! and also, I just do not understand where this claim is coming from. this interpretation seems to state that "transaction" means viewing a site, and using a VPN is "abetting a transaction" and this seems... unlikely.

You're right about the foreign country part, where it wouldn't be considered if it were from a country not listed as hostile. I'll admit that I missed that one in my readings until someone else pointed it out.

I do want to be clear and say that I'm not a professional at this, this was all from my readings of the bill as well as some more research and seeing viewpoints of others, many of which ARE professionals, so I'm actually glad you're doing your own research on it. And I want to encourage you to continue doing so.

But as for the VPN issue, it comes down to section 11, subsection 2-F.

No person may engage in any transaction or take any other action with intent to evade the provisions of this Act, or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued thereunder.

Keywords "any other action". Basically VPNs would fall under that as it could be used to circumvent any bans of foreign services of companies based in the mentioned hostile countries. From my understanding, it would be less likely - to use your example - if you used it to access an online service based in Venezuela that wasn't available in the US as Venezuela isn't listed as hostile.

But then that's where the whole accessing your personal data comes into play. If the Secretary of Commerce and their team were to conduct an audit, you could be chosen at random. And if you use a VPN, they may decide to look closer at you to ensure you're not using it to access a banned service.

The reason VPNs are being discussed is because most people that bring it up are speaking in terms of using it to access tiktok if it were banned, or to access anything else that could be banned under this bill. THAT is where the problem with VPNs lie and why many people are warning others not to use them for this reason, due to the hefty penalties attached. VPNs themselves aren't targeted to be banned, just their use to access services that are.

A big part of it also comes down to discretion as well. If they so wished, if this bill were to pass, they could even push further to create another bill or expand this one to find a way to ban VPNs themselves, though that is less likely.

As of writing all this, the bill has only been introduced. It hasn't even passed the senate, so it's only in it's first stages. It could easily change as time goes on, or it could even fail to pass with or without American's intervention. It's all still very early, which is why we're all pushing so hard to stop it while we still can so that it doesn't escalate even further beyond what this bill proposes.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Is X available again in Brazil?

Several Brazilians on Wednesday were able to log in and post on X without using a VPN, despite a ban ordered by the Supreme Court and in effect since the end of August.

The Supreme Court had banned X after the social media platform failed to comply with a requirement to appoint a legal representative in Brazil. The court has not issued any new decisions on the matter, meaning the return is due to technical reasons. The Supreme Court told The Brazilian Report it will not comment on the issue for now. 

Some users have reported they were able to use X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, exclusively on a smartphone. Conversely, The Brazilian Report’s Cedê Silva was able to log in via a desktop computer but not on his smartphone. 

Thiago Ayub, technology director at ITS company Sage Networks, hypothesized on a LinkedIn post that a change in X’s IP addresses allowed Brazilians to circumvent the ban. Internet service providers and telecoms use IP addresses (unique sequence of numbers assigned to each website, computer, game console, or smartphone connected to the internet) to block access to websites. 

Other social media users proposed the same idea. It’s not clear if the change is incidental or if it was done purposefully to circumvent the ban.

Continue reading.

[inqilabi]

That tiktok ban thing wasn't abt tiktok. It's a internet privacy surveillance act. You can look into the proposal and they can imprison you for using a VPN. They can monitor you through your internet activity and your home network entirely. It's patriot act 2.0.

[mediaflamingoos]

Understanding the U.S. Ban on TikTok and Its Broader Implications - By Beidi

In the digital age, social media platforms have become more than just spaces for sharing selfies and viral dance videos. For many, apps like TikTok are a hub of creativity, connection, and even income. However, when a social media giant becomes the center of a geopolitical tug-of-war, users and policymakers alike are thrown into a whirlwind of debate and decision-making. Such is the case with the U.S. government's move to ban TikTok, a decision that has sparked conversations about national security, free speech, and the future of international apps on American soil.

TikTok, for those who might not be familiar, is a wildly popular app known for short-form videos. It's a launchpad for trends, a platform for activists, and a new frontier for marketers. But despite its playful exterior, TikTok has found itself embroiled in controversy, with the U.S. raising concerns about data privacy and the potential for foreign influence.

The crux of the argument for banning TikTok revolves around its ownership by ByteDance, a Chinese company. U.S. officials are worried that the Chinese government could pressure ByteDance into handing over data on American users, which could be used for espionage or to manipulate public opinion. While there's no public evidence to confirm these fears, the very possibility has been enough to put TikTok in the hot seat.

Advocates of the ban assert that national security must come first, and if there's even a slight chance of a breach, action should be taken. They point to China's National Intelligence Law, which mandates that Chinese organizations and citizens support state intelligence work, as a cause for concern. In their view, the ban is a necessary step to protect American interests.

Opponents of the ban, however, see a different picture. They argue that TikTok has gone to great lengths to separate its U.S. operations from its Chinese parent company. The app has even proposed aggressive measures to safeguard U.S. user data, including storing it on American soil and walling it off from other parts of the business.

Critics of the ban also worry about the precedent it sets for internet freedom. TikTok has become a digital town square for millions of Americans, particularly among the younger generation. Shutting down a major platform raises questions about free speech and the government's role in regulating the internet.

Furthermore, there's a conversation to be had about the effectiveness of such a ban. In our interconnected world, where apps can be downloaded and VPNs (virtual private networks) can circumvent geographic restrictions, a ban might not stop determined users from accessing TikTok. It may only drive the activity underground, making it harder to regulate and monitor.

For TikTok enthusiasts and creators, the ban threatens the community they've built and the opportunities they've found. For some, TikTok is more than entertainment—it's a livelihood. Content creators who have amassed significant followings are facing the prospect of losing their audience and income overnight.

As the debate rages on, the TikTok ban holds a mirror to broader issues facing our society. It highlights the growing suspicion and tension between major world powers, the challenges of privacy in the digital era, and the struggle to balance security with freedom. It also underscores the need for international dialogue and cooperation on cyber issues, as the actions of one nation can have ripple effects across the globe.

In the end, the future of TikTok in the U.S. will likely be decided through a complex interplay of diplomacy, legal challenges, and public opinion. What is certain is that the outcome will have lasting implications for the tech industry, geopolitics, and the everyday user scrolling through their feed in search of the next great video.

Word Count : 754

[howtotakevpnoffyouriphone]

have major vpn services shut down service in india

🔒🌍✨ Get 3 Months FREE VPN - Secure & Private Internet Access Worldwide! Click Here ✨🌍🔒

have major vpn services shut down service in india

VPN Ban in India

VPN Ban in India

Recently, the Indian government has proposed a ban on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in an effort to tighten control over online activities. VPNs have long been used by individuals and businesses in India to access the internet securely and bypass government restrictions on certain websites and services. However, the government is concerned that VPNs are being misused by individuals engaging in illegal activities or spreading misinformation.

The proposed ban on VPNs in India has sparked a debate on internet freedom and privacy rights. While the government argues that banning VPNs is necessary to maintain law and order, critics argue that such a move would infringe on the fundamental right to privacy and freedom of expression.

Many internet users in India rely on VPNs to protect their online activities from prying eyes, especially in light of increasing cyber threats and data breaches. A ban on VPNs would force internet users to browse the web without encryption, leaving their personal information vulnerable to hackers and surveillance.

As the debate rages on, it remains to be seen how the Indian government plans to enforce the ban on VPNs and what impact it will have on internet freedom in the country. For now, internet users and privacy advocates in India are closely monitoring the situation and preparing to defend their rights to online privacy and freedom of expression.

Shutdown of Top VPN Providers

Recently, there has been a significant development in the cybersecurity world with the unexpected shutdown of some of the top VPN providers. VPNs, or Virtual Private Networks, are crucial tools that help safeguard users' online privacy and security by encrypting their internet connection and masking their IP address. The sudden closure of these top VPN services has raised concerns among users worldwide about the future of online data protection.

The shutdown of these trusted VPN providers has left many users searching for alternative solutions to protect their online activities. Without the shield of a reliable VPN, individuals may be more vulnerable to cyber threats such as hacking, surveillance, and data breaches. It is essential for users to be cautious and proactive in finding alternative VPN services that prioritize privacy and security.

In light of these recent events, experts in the cybersecurity industry are emphasizing the importance of selecting reputable VPN providers with strong encryption protocols, a strict no-logging policy, and transparent data handling practices. Users are advised to thoroughly research and evaluate VPN services before entrusting them with their sensitive information.

As the landscape of online security continues to evolve, it is crucial for users to stay informed and vigilant to protect their digital privacy. While the shutdown of top VPN providers may have caused a temporary disruption, it serves as a reminder of the importance of taking proactive measures to safeguard one's online presence in an increasingly digital world.

Regulatory Action Against VPN Services

Regulatory Action Against VPN Services

In recent years, Virtual Private Network (VPN) services have gained immense popularity among internet users worldwide. These services offer a secure and private way to access the internet by encrypting users' internet traffic and masking their IP addresses. While VPNs provide numerous benefits, including enhanced privacy and security, they have also attracted the attention of regulatory bodies in various countries.

One of the primary concerns surrounding VPN services is their potential use for illegal activities, such as online piracy, hacking, and circumventing geo-restrictions to access copyrighted content. As a result, several governments have taken regulatory action to address these concerns and mitigate the misuse of VPNs.

For instance, some countries have imposed restrictions on the use of VPNs or outright banned certain VPN providers altogether. These measures aim to prevent users from engaging in illicit activities while also maintaining control over internet access within their borders.

Additionally, regulatory bodies have begun scrutinizing VPN providers more closely, imposing stricter regulations regarding data privacy and security. This includes requiring VPN companies to adhere to rigorous data protection standards and obtain necessary licenses to operate legally.

Furthermore, international cooperation among regulatory agencies has increased to address the global nature of VPN services. Governments are collaborating to share information and coordinate efforts to combat illegal activities facilitated by VPNs across borders.

Despite these regulatory challenges, many legitimate VPN providers continue to operate transparently and lawfully, prioritizing user privacy and security. These providers work closely with regulatory bodies to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations while offering valuable services to users worldwide.

In conclusion, while regulatory action against VPN services aims to curb illicit activities and protect users, it also underscores the importance of striking a balance between privacy, security, and regulatory compliance in the digital age. As the landscape continues to evolve, stakeholders must work together to address these complex challenges effectively.

Impact on VPN Users in India

The use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has been steadily increasing among internet users in India, primarily due to concerns over online privacy and security. VPNs allow users to encrypt their internet connection and browse the internet anonymously, thus preventing third parties from monitoring their online activities. While VPNs offer numerous benefits to users, such as accessing region-restricted content and enhancing online privacy, there are also certain impacts on VPN users in India that need to be taken into consideration.

One of the main impacts on VPN users in India is the potential legal implications. While using VPNs is not illegal in India, there have been instances where the government has blocked access to certain VPN services in an attempt to prevent users from accessing banned websites. Users need to be aware of the legalities surrounding the use of VPNs in India and ensure that they are in compliance with the law.

Another impact on VPN users in India is the potential decrease in internet speed. Since VPNs route internet traffic through servers located in different countries, this can sometimes lead to slower internet speeds for users. While this may not be a significant issue for most users, it is something to consider when using a VPN in India.

Overall, the impact on VPN users in India is a mix of benefits and potential challenges. By understanding the legalities and potential drawbacks of using VPNs in India, users can make informed decisions about their online privacy and security.

Legal Challenges for VPN Providers in India

In recent years, the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has surged in India due to various reasons, including privacy concerns, accessing geo-restricted content, and safeguarding against cyber threats. However, VPN providers in India face a plethora of legal challenges stemming from regulatory policies and government initiatives.

One of the primary concerns for VPN providers in India revolves around the regulatory framework. While there are no specific laws that outrightly prohibit the use of VPNs, the government has implemented regulations that require VPN services to comply with data localization laws. These laws mandate that VPN providers store user data within the borders of India, posing a logistical and financial burden on many providers.

Furthermore, the Indian government has shown a propensity to block access to VPN services deemed to facilitate illegal activities or threaten national security. This has led to a cat-and-mouse game between VPN providers and authorities, with providers frequently adapting their services to circumvent blocks while authorities strive to maintain control over online activities.

Additionally, concerns over content censorship and surveillance have heightened the scrutiny on VPN providers. While VPNs offer users a means to bypass censorship and surveillance measures, they also present challenges for authorities in monitoring online activities. This tension between user privacy and governmental oversight further complicates the regulatory landscape for VPN providers in India.

Moreover, VPN providers must navigate the legal complexities surrounding encryption technologies, as the government seeks to balance security concerns with individual privacy rights. Any legislation aimed at regulating encryption could have significant implications for VPN services operating in India.

In conclusion, VPN providers in India encounter numerous legal challenges ranging from regulatory compliance to censorship concerns and encryption regulations. Navigating these challenges requires a delicate balance between upholding user privacy rights and complying with evolving legal requirements and government directives.

[lutoogyan]

Spain seeks to ban encryption, leaked document reveals – TechToday

The great majority of EU countries support the proposal of scanning encrypted messages, a leaked document has revealed. Spain’s vision appeared to be the most extreme, with the nation’s leaders apparently seeing the access to citizens’ data as “imperative” to allow authorities catching criminals in the virtual world. End-to-end encryption (E2E) – the core upon which security software like VPN…

[mirceakitsune]

Don't mind me: Just being paranoid about internet freedom for no reason again. Something about politicians about to have Americans facing up to 20 years in prison for using a VPN, or law enforcement being allowed to break into your home and demand to look in your computer without any accountability if they don't like what software you have installed. Now don't you worry for you see, it's the name of stopping TikTok: You don't oppose such a thing now do you? Because that would mean you support China... we wouldn't want you being accused of doing that, would we? Thought so... good boy.

Man I can't believe what a troll I was for years, saying how the USA is on its way to becoming the next Iran if we don't pay attention to our rights freedoms and making exceptions to fundamental principles: Clearly I must have been supporting X category of evil people, or deceived into seeing slippery slopes and dangerous mindsets which could lead to consequences that would never ever occur! Hahaha, let us laugh at how silly my paranoia was... some US viewers may be laughing from a prison soon but that's besides the point; At least you showed those like me with our pesky liberty and mistrust in authority who'd dare imagine infinite power can be abused. Now go enjoy yet more of that sweet "safety" one can never get enough of no matter how absurdly much they're stuffed with.

[myangelgarden]

Newsweek

SUBSCRIBE FOR $1

Show more

Woman explains how she carries 52-lb dog in backpack on subway: The "rule"

Woman explains how she carries 52-lb dog in backpack on subway: The "rule"

Florida man finds himself surrounded by alligators: "They're everywhere"

Florida man finds himself surrounded by alligators: "They're everywhere"

POLITICS

Does TikTok Ban Allow for 20 Year Prison Sentence?

BY KATHERINE FUNG ON 3/28/23 AT 3:04 PM EDT

SHARE

POLITICS TIKTOK BAN BILLS BIPARTISANSHIP

Asweeping bill introduced by a group of bipartisan senators earlier this month has caught national attention as Americans await to see whether TikTok has a future in the U.S. and what that might look like for everyday social media users.

Congress appears to be moving unanimously towards the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act, or RESTRICT Act, which would give broad regulative power to the secretary of commerce over tech produced in China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela—countries that all have adversarial relations with the U.S.

Last week, TikTok CEO Shou Chew testified in front of lawmakers that TikTok had never received a request from the Chinese government to hand over data on American users and that the company would never comply with one. But Washington remains on alert about the national security threats that the Chinese-owned app poses.

While the RESTRICT Act doesn't cite TikTok or its owner, ByteDance, by name, the senators who introduced the bill have repeatedly pointed to the surveillance fears that the app raises and the legislation has already been referred to as a so-called TikTok ban.

The ban's criminal penalties, which include a fine up to a million dollar and/or imprisonment of up to 20 years, has caused some alarm among the bill's observers, who have questioned whether some TikTok fanatics might face jail time for using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to get around the ban and access the app.

But a spokesperson for Senator Mark Warner, the bill's sponsor, told Newsweek that it would not apply to individual users.

A prisoner's hands inside a punishment cell wing at Angola prison on October 14, 2013. Inset: In this photo illustration, the download page for the TikTok app is displayed on an Apple iPhone on August 7, 2020 in Washington, DC.

GILES CLARK/DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES

"Under the terms of the bill, someone must be engaged in 'sabotage or subversion' of communications technology in the U.S., causing 'catastrophic effects' on U.S. critical infrastructure, or 'interfering in, or altering the result' of a federal election in order for criminal penalties to apply," Warner's communications director, Rachel Cohen, said.

NEWSWEEK SUBSCRIPTION OFFERS >

"The bill is squarely aimed at companies like Kaspersky, Huawei and TikTok that create systemic risks to the United States' national security, not individual users," she clarified.

While the RESTRICT Act seems widely supported across party lines, there is a small group of progressive critics in Congress, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who made her first TikTok to address her opposition.

"If we want to make a decision as significant as banning TikTok, and we believe, or someone believes, that there is really important information that the public deserves to know about why such a decision would be justified, that information should be shared," the congresswoman said in the video.

READ MORE

TikTok ban seems likely for this surprising reason

TikTok CEO draws rare bipartisan fire

Who is Shou Chew? TikTok CEO who doesn't let his kids use app

The legislation, which has been proposed but not voted on yet, could also potentially thwart another bill introduced by Senator Josh Hawley.

In January, the Republican senator introduced the No TikTok on United States Devices Act, which specifically names TikTok and ByteDance, which would implement a nationwide TikTok ban. It also follows his No TikTok on Government Devices Act, which unanimously passed the Senate and became law on December 29.

But because the RESTRICT Act is being backed by a number of GOP senators, it could put them at odds against Hawley, who was hoping to see unanimous consent again. Among the Republican names listed as co-sponsors of the RESTRICT Act are Senators John Thune, Deb Fischer, Jerry Moran, Dan Sullivan, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney.

The sponsors of the RESTRICT Act have also argued that a more "comprehensive" approach needs to be taken in respect to foreign technology, whereas Hawley's bill targets TikTok in particular.

"We need a comprehensive, risk-based approach that proactively tackles sources of potentially dangerous technology before they gain a foothold in America, so we aren't playing Whac-A-Mole and scrambling to catch up once they're already ubiquitous," Warner said in a statement.

"Congress needs to stop taking a piecemeal approach when it comes to technology from adversarial nations that pose national security risks," Thune added. "Our country needs a process in place to address these risks, which is why I'm pleased to work with Senator Warner to establish a holistic, methodical approach to address the threats posed by technology platforms—like TikTok—from foreign adversaries."

Nonetheless, Hawley plans to bring his bill to the Senate floor this week in hopes of getting it passed unanimously, Punchbowl News reported on Tuesday.

Do you have a tip on a world news story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about China? Let us know via worldnews@newsweek.com.

REQUEST REPRINT & LICENSING OR VIEW EDITORIAL GUIDELINES

CHOOSE YOUR SUBSCRIPTION

PREMIUM

Newsweek magazine delivered to your door

Unlimited access to Newsweek.com

Ad free Newsweek.com experience

iOS and Android app access

All newsletters + podcasts

FROM $9.99

DIGITAL+ AD FREE

Unlimited access to Newsweek.com

Ad free Newsweek.com experience

iOS and Android app access

All newsletters + podcasts

FROM $1

© 2023 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC

[sillllvvverrrrr435]

I'm not someone who normally posts stuff like this but I figured this was important

This is a US bill proposed that came to my attention this morning otherwise known as the "restrict bill" or the "TikTok ban bill" you will probably see a lot on it before it is passed and for good reason. This bill is terrifying, it does way more than just ban TikTok, in fact it probably does more than any bill ever passed. This bill has the power to ban software and hardware from any "foreign advisories" which includes but is not exclusive to TikTok, and includes things such as routers and security devices like cameras, possession of these things or bypassing their law with a VPN, is punishable with up to 20 years time, and or up to a 250,000 dollar fine.

It also let's the government view the activity of any device they label suspicious without the users knowledge, and all this is run by a committee directly appointed with no voter input, that doesn't have to make any communication or meeting public information.

Please find out how to contact your representative in your state and let them know you will do what you can to make sure they don't get re-elected if they let this pass, because that's all your legally aloud to do, this video should help if you want to pursue this.

(But please riot in the streets if this passes, don't tell them but I will 100% join you)

[isopodhours]

this might as well fucking happen

[loser-brain]

PLEASE SPREAD THIS! THE EARN IT ACT CAN NOT PASS!

⚠️ I will be heavily editing some text to ensure Tumblr doesn't blacklist it. I'm very sorry for making this very hard and accessible for many readers. ⚠️ In 2020, SESTA/FOSTA first tried to pass their bill silently. Luckily for the internet, everyone caught on to this, and at first reading that this act will protect kids sounds good... Till you dig deeper and realize this act does not protect s3x workers. This all started with the revenge p0rn and und3rag3 problem that happened on p0rnhub and also to fight back S3x trafficking. But here's the thing, it doesn't. To you, you may think "Where is the problem?" This act wouldn't protect kids since the bill at the time stated something (I'm gonna paraphrase because I don't remember much) "...Allowing the age of consent..." Therefore, a loophole. If you live in a state where the age of consent is 16... you can make p0rn.

Continuing on, s3x workers would have to give their info to the government then to third parties, putting their lives at greater risk. Since a majority of s3x workers are either foreign or people of color. Many s3x workers express concerns when giving their info out to third parties because well that's their private info. They already have an agency that even they are afraid of. Why do they need to give this third-party person their private info? Why do they need to give their private info to the government? For easy tracking. The bill then "stop" after a number of questions came their way and soon the people behind the bill realize they needed to rephrase some of their wordings. In other words, they would need to propose a new bill.

At the beginning of January 2022, SESTA/FOSTA began to once again attack silently. Amazon book writers had their book taken off of Amazon because it'll interfere with the SESTA/FOSTA law. Tweet wording taken from Novajerneld on Twitter "...any books including s3x, s3x work, or information about s3x or s3xuality can be targeted by SESTA/FOSTA as they are filed as 0rnographic material according to the laws. smut is p0rn. period."

To sum up, if this bill passes fanfics, arts, books, s3x education, LGBT+, POC, freedom of speech will be banned. This bill affects everyone.

Here is a tweet thread:

Link to thread: CLICK

A script for calling your senators: CLICK

Auto email that will send your letter to your rep.

Short info about the EARN IT Act

Tweet taken from Novatjerneld again from Twitter "...since much of the internet is hosted on US servers it unfortunately does affect EVERYONE. and VPNs might only make it harder to spy on you but won't protect your content from removal off of these sites..."

Incase any of you were think that using a VPN might help protect you... It won't. Just make it a little hard to watch you but you will still be seen.

More short info that just get to the point of what the EARN IT Act does.

Taken from Novatjerneld Twitter

"...also, many of you are taking what it says in the bill at face value. there has been previous bills banning "s3x trafficking" which hasn't actually stopped trafficking but has made it harder for artist to make a living off of Patreon, use certain payment methods etc..."

Why do you think you have to be careful when using certain terms in the payment section? Again, if this bill pass websites can just easily ban any lemon content even if it wasn't lemon content to begin with.

That's all for now, If you have any info spread it. Don't reply to this reblog it. This needs to be spread since it's just radio silence and that's bad!

[cetaceanhandiwork]

discourse on this OTW terms of service Topic has finally reached my dashboard instead of just being stray comments about an argument happening somewhere else

so I've gone ahead and looked up the original documents that everyone's talking about and... WOW there is a lot of telephone game mutation of the story that's happened here.

first off: if you're basing your argument on "AO3 is considering changing their ToS" or even "a board candidate was running to change the AO3 ToS" then you're already off the trail.

as far as I can tell, the Board of Directors candidate everyone's up in arms about - "Tiffany G", last name undisclosed because she didn't win - never had ToS changes in her platform, or even as a campaign priority. when she floated the idea of ToS changes, it was an off-the-cuff response to a townhall question. at the time, it was a vague response, which she only explained at a later townhall, and her explanation of her reasoning at the time was basically (paraphrased) "AO3 is banned [i.e. you need a VPN to access it] in my country, and it's used mainly as 'the place you go to post NSFW stuff', because NSFW stuff isn't allowed on domestic websites. so a lot of people have misconceptions about what's actually on AO3; they think 'oh it's this illegal porn website, the content there must be truly despicable'. a change to the ToS might be helpful to improve OTW's reputation in that respect."

but, see, by the time she got to all the follow up questions about this position and had a chance to explain the above, she had already sort of backed down from it, because she'd had time to talk with OTW's Policy Committee and Legal folks and discovered that whatever specific changes she originally had in mind (the exact contours of which were never actually discussed in the townhall) wouldn't be feasible to go into the ToS.

(my guess is that she discovered those changes would somehow have a negative impact on the real mission of the OTW, which, let me remind you, is "prepare for the day when Anne Rice 2.0 comes along and tries to shut down fanfic of her copyrights, so that OTW's lawyers can win that case by setting a favorable court precedent about fanfic as Fair Use under US copyright law". that's the core goal of the Organization for Transformative Works - they're a legal theory nonprofit like the Electronic Frontier Foundation or the ACLU - and everything they do as an organization, including how they run AO3, makes more sense if you filter it through that lens. edit: others have guessed that the rules she had in mind may have already been in the ToS, which - as befits OTW's "we're making a legal argument here" DNA - explicitly lists example categories of illegal-in-the-USA content banned from the site... so far down the page that very few people will read it. but ultimately, this whole section is guesswork because, again, we don't know what changes she had been proposing or what turned out infeasible about them.)

so Tiffany G, by the time she's explaining what her off-the-cuff comment about ToS changes was about, isn't even suggesting changes to "what content is allowed on AO3" anymore, and has pivoted to changes to the tagging system - to mandatory content warnings and how they're presented and so forth - so that it's easier for people to not stumble into content they don't expect. but, again, this is a townhall format, so she never gets a chance to articulate her vision here any further before the townhall ends.

as a result of that vagueness... everyone seems to have projected their own preexisting Topic onto Tiffany's argument (which was really about something else). people whose hobbyhorse is "would it be good or bad if everything in the Underage tag was deleted from AO3" decided that this was really about that, even though one of the few things she got the chance to clarify in the follow-up townhall was that this wasn't what she was proposing. and meanwhile people with weird ideas about China projected that all over the situation. and so everyone mentally autocompleted the details of what changes she was actually considering (which, again, she never got a chance to fully explain and weren't apparently a high priority for her anyway) with whatever assumptions best fit their rhetorical point.

so my take is that the whole sordid business has been making mountains out of molehills. and my secondary take is that before you get up in arms about something on the internet, it pays to go read the primary sources to get a better picture of whether there really is a mountain there.