Hacker News Reader

Comment by falcolas | Hacker News Reader

Last I heard, there was a "per use" fine for usage as well. Honestly, I haven't looked at this farce of a bill since it was first introduced.

EDIT:

S1: An entity violates this prohibition when any of the following occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of Montana:

(a) the operation of tiktok by the company or users; or

(b) the option to download the tiktok mobile application by a mobile application store.

View on HN

Does a state even have a right to do something like this?

Somehow, I feel like if California tried to ban Fox News - it would not fly.

This doesn't seem that different, though I personally find it amusing that it's coming from a conservative state.

I do agree TikTok is toxic trash - but I'd say the same about Fox News - and it just doesn't seem like something a state has the ability to ban.

As I understand it, no. Montana would have to be effectively regulating interstate trade since neither Apple nor Google have offices here. Plus, the whole "negotiate commerce and treaties with foreign entities" thing.

The Supreme Court just upheld California rules about the sale of pork. Looking at it strictly from the interstate commerce view, this doesn’t appear much different.

So can apple turn off all iphones in Montana in retaliation. Bet it would be easier/cheaper to cut off those customers than implement any changes. Android phone makes could follow suit

It'd be hard to identify a phone associated with a "Montana citizen". Not impossible, but I think that based on Apple and Google's comments on these laws that they haven't built the functionality in.

GeoIP doesn't work because carriers (especially in Montana) tend to assign IPs from surrounding states as much as they do local cities. When I'm on the cell network, I'm regularly identified as coming out of Denver. Phone number area codes are equally useless, since half the folks I know here in Montana have area codes from outside states. GPS would be the best bet, though I feel like even that would have some major caveats (the use would have to be decoupled from the location services controls/displays, something they don't do for even their own apps right now).

Also, people rely on cellphones for emergency services. A manufacturer shutting down phones would probably expose them to some serious liabilities.

Most smartphones, including iPhones, have the ability to be locked but still allow calls to emergency contacts and services.

> It'd be hard to identify a phone associated with a "Montana citizen"

Credit card billing address.

That is definitely another method, but there's no guarantee that Apple or Google has my credit card.

It's predictable that it's coming from a conservative state. That they are broadly against using state power to ban things is part of their identity and marketing but not reality. Especially when it can be construed as a social-moral problem.

Or, in other words, all "conservatives" don't necessarily agree on or believe the same things, and this varies by person and by region.

Like any political group, there's a wide variety of ideas. Religious right folks get lumped together with constitutional libertarians, but have very, very different ideas on the proper limits of legislation and government power.

And yes, there are both idiots and brilliant thinkers in the Republican party (which !== 'conservative'). There are very good ideas, and abominably stupid ones.

Much like any group of humans.

I think there is still value in pointing out that the Republican party line of individual liberties and small government is nothing but marketing jingle. When it comes down to brass tacks they are as quick to use the government to crack down on an individuals choices as the other guys.

You mean a political party has talking points that they don't always live up to?

Next you'll tell me that there have been presidents that haven't lived up to their campaign promises...

I'm not speaking about the validity of their ideas or the cohesion of their group identity. Just pointing out that their reputation as being universally against top-down bans is not based on their actions when given the capacity to enact top-down bans.

They probably also see States Rights (the philosophy, not necessarily a legal interpretation) as opposite Federal power.

States rights isn't just for social-moral topics such as marijuana and immigration. We should have expected it to be used for other things as has historically been the case.

California et al just had a slight lead.

Yeah nothing like banning people from going to restaurants without a state issued vaccine pass (we didn’t forget)

I didn't claim no other groups use state power to ban things. I'm pointing out that the idea that conservatives are uniquely and generally opposed to it is fantasy.

On that we can wholeheartedly agree.

I got my vaccine certificate from CVS. the state had very little to do with it.

The State of California automatically issued digital vaccine certificates. Basically QR codes that could be read by a business with the appropriate hardware.

https://myvaccinerecord.cdph.ca.gov/

The state offered them, but they weren't the only way to get one. Any SMART compliant digital card (which most major healthcare providers and chain pharmacies provide) will pass verification anywhere a CA state one would.

Which part is not real? The vaccinations? Their effect on spread? Their effect on symptoms?

Unless they changed up the bill since I looked at it, you’ve got a bill of attainder with serious Constitutional issues, including First Amendment, due process, and dormant Commerce Clause problems. It’s very hard for me to see a federal court letting this stand, even at a time where every day brings another “federal court lets bad law stand” story.

Maybe, maybe not. The courts will decide. To those saying it's obviously unconstitutional, remember that the constitution is whatever five people on the Supreme Court says it is.

"An entity" is defined as either TikTok, or an app store. Individuals can not violate this statute.

The entity is Apple/Google. But an end user using ticktok constitutes a violation for which Apple/Google is liable.

> (a) the operation of tiktok by the company or users; or

I don't see how owners of iOS or Android phones can be in any way said to be users of Apple or Google. At best this would apply to TikTok itself, or to companies which supply phones to employees.

If ‘the company’ (unclear who that refers to. Bad statute-writing. Assume it means the same thing as entity but a court could interpret it however it chooses) or a ‘user’ (whoever that is) ‘operates’ the TikTok app in the territorial jurisdiction of Montana (insert your own interpretation of ‘operate’ and ‘in’) then a violation occurs for which ‘an entity’ is liable.

So if someone inside Montana launches the TikTok app on an iPhone either an App Store (presumably Apple’s) or TikTok itself is liable for that violation.

The article claims "...will not impose any penalties on individuals using the app". A commenter elsewhere in this thread links to the law itself, which could presumably disambiguate, though I've not read it.

They plan to go after Apple and Google, fining them for use and downloads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com