Yeah, the law sounds similar to what we've got in Russia. Don't go this road, guys.
Update: Read the article a bit further and it says they could criminalize the use of VPN. Even here in Russia we don't have this. At least for now)
Update: Read the article a bit further and it says they could criminalize the use of VPN. Even here in Russia we don't have this. At least for now)
I’ve read the bill’s text and I’m struggling to see how they’re figuring this.
SEC 11 b (1) "In general.--A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit ... an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both."
So using a VPN to ATTEMPT to bypass these restrictions can incur up to a $1M fine and 20 years in jail.
You just listed two lines that say "it's illegal to try and break this law", but if the unlawful act is "providing" the service it wouldn't lead to the conclusion in your comment about someone using a vpn to try and access tik tok
Definitions:
> (A) IN GENERAL.—The term “covered transaction” means a transaction in which an entity described in subparagraph (B) has any interest (including through an interest in a contract for the provision of the technology or service), or any class of such transactions.
> (17) TRANSACTION.—The term “transaction” means any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as managed services, data transmission, software updates, repairs, or the provision of data hosting services, or a class of such transactions.
Note this includes "data transmission" and "use of any information and communications technology product or service." And then the law allows the US to:
(a) In general.—The Secretary, in consultation with the relevant executive department and agency heads, is authorized to and shall take action to identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing, and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines— ... interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal election ... or otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons.
That's very broad. Note: any risk by any person. Not just by a foreign adversary - this reads to me that if the Secretary of Commerce were to list TikTok on that list of entities, Americans using TikTok services could well fall under fire too. To make it more explicit, in the list of specific unlawful acts:
> No person may engage in any conduct prohibited by or contrary to, or refrain from engaging in any conduct required by any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued under this Act.
And the part that makes using a VPN to attempt to evade this itself unlawful:
> 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.
(Remember from above, a "transaction" includes the use of any software, but even aside from that this uses the wording "or take any other action" - so it's even broader.)
And what's the penalty for this? There's a civil penalty which is (a bit) lighter, but let's just cite one of the criminal penalties:
> IN GENERAL.—A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
So, using a VPN to access TikTok is also a violation. But "aiding or abetting" someone in doing so is also a violation. Would providing a VPN service to access TikTok be considered aiding in this sense? Maybe!
The US is a bipartisan, democratic system where members of Congress can draft a proposal for a new law and send it to both the Senate and House for voting.
It's a rigorous process with lost of scrutiny and debate.
As a result the majority of bills, 96% of them actually, get killed before they reach the president's desk.
The other 4% become law only after lots of changes and amendments.
So no, nothing remotely similar to what you have in Russia.
This bill criminalizes access to censured foreign media.
> So no, nothing remotely similar to what you have in Russia.
Correct, it's worse. As of 2023, I don't believe people go to prison, (or get disappeared, shoved out of windows, or end up with terminal cases of polonium poisoning) for reading in Russia.
That wasn’t my reading. It criminalises helping people circumvent the investment limits.
It's a proposal for a law that a small group of lawmakers drafted.
That draft is then reviewed, if it has any merit it goes to the House where needs to be debated, changed and voted, then goes to the Senate to repeat the process, before it can be sent to the president to turn into law.
Some bills are ridiculously bold, that's why very few become law and ZERO of them without lots of amendments.
Bold bills like this one get picked up by the media for obvious reasons, and some people read it like it's an imminent law to be enacted and enforced.
It is important to read them of course and to know who's behind them, because in America we have the opportunity to call our representatives to raise our concerns and complain.
It is not the first bold bill to be drafted and won't be the last one, that's why 96% bills don't go anywhere.
This is how our system works since 1789.
My wife is Russian by the way and grew up in the Soviet Union, so don't be ridiculous saying stuff like this.
> so don't be ridiculous saying stuff like this.
I'll stop saying ridiculous stuff when lawmakers stop putting those ridiculous things into their bills.
I was born and raised in USSR until I left so fucking what? What's the point in bringing your wife's background?
> It's a rigorous process with lost of scrutiny and debate.
Do you also still believe in Santa Claus?
We may suck at using the tools we have available, because americans are apathetic and kinda lazy and often purposely disenfranchised, but the tools are like 80% of the way there.
Are Americans allowed to vote on whether or not to give endless amounts of money to Ukraine?
And on and on
The sad fact is that in the present day United States proposing such a law is not a political suicide.