Post AU6vCliR8bW3aHQgO8 by yogthos@mas.to
(DIR) More posts by yogthos@mas.to
(DIR) Post #AU5U3e4pHHmHMkMp6G by yogthos@mas.to
2023-03-28T21:55:46Z
6 likes, 9 repeats
Under the new Restrict Act ("ban TikTok act") VPN users face 20 years in jail and a $1mio fine if they evade US internet censorship.Compared to this, the great firewall of china looks like a picket fence.https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15
(DIR) Post #AU5UDXB3mhzwrazxQG by Hoss@shitpost.cloud
2023-03-28T21:57:57.234444Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
This was never about TikTok.
(DIR) Post #AU5WqrtqsAWGKppi52 by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2023-03-28T22:27:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos*could faceIt's not law yet.@ColinTheMathmo
(DIR) Post #AU5eC6aGAkeHdYk6ee by matunos@mastodon.social
2023-03-28T22:34:21Z
3 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos the subsection a referred to is this? not to say an inventive prosecutor might not try, but it seems quite a stretch to say an individual using a VPN to access a service like Tiktok for themselves would be violating any of those provisions
(DIR) Post #AU5fne6CcttsFe9Fh2 by RoboftheVolcano@noagendasocial.com
2023-03-29T00:07:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos The USA more like the old USSR everyday a sign of a Country run by weak people on the take. Election Fraud has consequences.
(DIR) Post #AU61eTuDLzdn1SZm88 by MangoRanch@poa.st
2023-03-29T04:12:35.819496Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos > VPN users face 20 years in jailLMFAO, no they don't.
(DIR) Post #AU62SgewD66x3YN20m by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2023-03-29T04:21:36.360271Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
why are people (who have read the damn bill) disagreeing on this point? this is so perplexing
(DIR) Post #AU66hPrvJq8Z8qiuES by MangoRanch@poa.st
2023-03-29T05:09:09.130486Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @yogthos Well, there's two possibilities:They either don't understand what they've read or they're wilfully misrepresentig the bill due to ulterior motives.
(DIR) Post #AU6it7xdWRVfKoPHo8 by blobfrog@blob.cat
2023-03-29T12:17:02.581553Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos VPN or Virtual Private Network doesn't seem to be mention in this bill.
(DIR) Post #AU6iunwUvAOTpOfqTI by klardotsh@merveilles.town
2023-03-29T03:09:57Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos classic. get the masses riled up about TikTok as a smoke screen to pass draconian shitexactly what they did to pass the Patriot Act way back when, too
(DIR) Post #AU6jtSmGE7vRqloHAm by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2023-03-29T12:28:18.691629Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
there's another onethere's multiple interpretations of the law that are available and they are choosing the more pessimistic
(DIR) Post #AU6jvpBprv8LwMtlJ2 by MangoRanch@poa.st
2023-03-29T12:28:45.147668Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @yogthos Have you read the bill?
(DIR) Post #AU6jy9JG2EdIv5Tiro by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2023-03-29T12:29:09.789812Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
yes
(DIR) Post #AU6k9QD3Xe0QWGx8kK by Xenophon@nicecrew.digital
2023-03-29T12:31:12.268415Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
If the law CAN be interpreted in a way, it will. I give you 2a and 14a. 14 was meant to give citizenship to slaves whp had none, not give it to anyone born in the US. Mexican babies are under the jurisdiction of Mexico due to their parents
(DIR) Post #AU6kEM1yVOxh0W7bxQ by MangoRanch@poa.st
2023-03-29T12:32:06.009533Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @yogthos How would one interpret it in a way that says "VPN users are facing 20 years of prison"?
(DIR) Post #AU6kHbDyTMzUzwHX4C by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2023-03-29T12:32:40.554753Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The part where it discusses those who circumvent it
(DIR) Post #AU6kT2eOqKP7FD69Bo by MangoRanch@poa.st
2023-03-29T12:34:45.308038Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @yogthos That's about people circumventing the process outlined in the bill, though. Sections 3 and 4.
(DIR) Post #AU6kVYmGMpO1Slyd6W by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2023-03-29T12:35:11.315575Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
Also : the secret interpretation of the law that gives the US the right to ask travellers for their papers in order for them to legally fly in the US
(DIR) Post #AU6kjnLB1DNogT5xya by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2023-03-29T12:37:46.434080Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Yes and those specify technology use and mandatory reporting requirements
(DIR) Post #AU6kuZhc46FBZUjJgm by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-03-28T22:59:58.067885Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos You should probably consult a lawyer before writing such a far fetching FUD statements. 11(c) Criminal Penalties → 11(a) Unlawful Acts → 4(b)(1) Products and Services that Pose Undue or Unacceptable Risk, which defines how the list of “products and services” is determined:The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish procedures by which the Secretary, in consultation with the relevant executive department and agency heads, shall conduct reviews of holdings to determine if such holdings constitute covered holdings that pose an undue or unacceptable risk under subsection.Then 3(a) describes by what criteria they will be determined:poses an undue or unacceptable risk of— sabotage or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology products and services in the United States; catastrophic effects on the security or resilience of the critical infrastructure or digital economy of the United States; interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal electionAnd that only applies to the Foreign Adversaries listed in 2(8)(b). So the only way “VPN users could face 20 years in jail” would be if they happen to be Russian GRU operatives using said #VPN to subvert US elections or cause “ catastrophic effects on the the critical infrastructure”.#TikTok
(DIR) Post #AU6kuaKbj7R5WQySTA by mav@hackers.town
2023-03-29T06:40:18Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz @yogthos so you're saying that none of the civil or criminal penalties can ever apply to anyone other than the entities listed specifically as foreign adversaries?
(DIR) Post #AU6kub2D70JXhfNHQu by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-03-29T08:50:08.034452Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@mav Using a knife to cut bread is not a crime. Using the same knife to kill a human is a crime. What @yogthos tries to imply is that anyone merely using a VPN in the US is subject to this regulation. This is pure FUD.But he might have his reasons because he’s frequently sharing Soviet or Chinese propaganda, so he may be feeling he’s threatened by it. Still, unless he engages in causing “catastrophic effects on the the critical infrastructure” etc he’s safe, as merely sharing propaganda is protected by First Amendment.
(DIR) Post #AU6kxvNxu87Lgn8YwS by yogthos@mas.to
2023-03-28T23:24:21Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@matunos the bill is intentionally worded in open ended fashion. This bit in particular means that effectively any piece of hardware or software could fall under the law
(DIR) Post #AU6kzG3yVkRc6pQGo4 by matunos@mastodon.social
2023-03-29T00:07:18Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos that's a definition, but the clause that references it in section (a) makes it harder to fit with an individual using a VPN simply to bypass IP range blocks (unless they're doing a lot more, like offering a public proxy)… it's also unclear how the US government would even impose filtering such that a VPN is required for access, unless the service itself (eg TikTok) imposed a country filter
(DIR) Post #AU6kzHDEEpRNfolArw by matunos@mastodon.social
2023-03-29T00:10:39Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
in terms of open-ended wording, I think this part is more problematic, though potentially so broad it would have a hard time holding up in court against an individual VPN user (though a need to defend against it alone would be an unjust burden— I'd expect a lot of pro bono support from EFF and ACLU)
(DIR) Post #AU6kzYEYx7boSsVyoC by yogthos@mas.to
2023-03-29T00:11:21Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@matunos it doesn't appear to be worded in a way that focuses on individual, but it can also be construed that you are providing yourself a service using your own VPN. Also consider any distributed technologies like tor. By using tor you became a node and handle data for others.This is an absolutely draconian law.
(DIR) Post #AU6l0C52nvlK2wMwWe by matunos@mastodon.social
2023-03-29T00:15:44Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos yes I can definitely see them going after someone for using tor or running an open proxy service for a prohibited service, effectively becoming a middlemen for the banned service (though in the case of tor the question of intention might come in
(DIR) Post #AU6l1RgGHwHiifNFj6 by gavinisdie@masto.ai
2023-03-29T04:09:55Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos suprised the act doesn't outright ban VPNs, it feels like American Democracy is dead
(DIR) Post #AU6l1kfBi9iPaq1ABs by adiz@outerkosm.us
2023-03-29T04:10:59.184Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@gavinisdie@masto.ai American "democracy" never was. @yogthos@mas.to
(DIR) Post #AU6l3E83dzsZGjE0K8 by adiz@outerkosm.us
2023-03-29T05:15:52.282Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos@mas.to Seriously. The "great firewall" is a pretty ambivalent/ignored thing. It's a block on certain connectivity but everyone bypasses it if so desired (few do, it'd be analogous to Americans actively wanting access to the Chinese internet---is it relevant? Do you speak Chinese?) and nobody cares and it's wholly unenforced. America, meanwhile, legislating short of execution over their data restrictions.
(DIR) Post #AU6l3mFKnRtz58tIO0 by TheCrossCulturalNerd@universeodon.com
2023-03-29T05:50:30Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos So what happens to Americans who come home from China with VPNs on their computers and phones?
(DIR) Post #AU6l46CAcvFqx7Z3EO by adiz@outerkosm.us
2023-03-29T06:00:43.812Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TheCrossCulturalNerd@universeodon.com "Fuck around and find out!" @yogthos@mas.to
(DIR) Post #AU6l87hIz36wln2vpY by suqdiq@chaos.social
2023-03-28T22:33:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos where does tor fit in all that ?
(DIR) Post #AU6l88Eyxq38SEnpK4 by yogthos@mas.to
2023-03-28T23:28:32Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@suqdiq use of Tor could almost certainly be interpreted as illegal circumvention under this bill
(DIR) Post #AU6lAKwGivU2Ps6Jfs by mxl@mathstodon.xyz
2023-03-29T02:54:09Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos How can you use VPN to surpass US Internet censorship? There isn't any server of VPN services in China.
(DIR) Post #AU6lAM32bEUjrAHErw by yogthos@mas.to
2023-03-29T12:08:59Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@mxl the law isn't specific to China, it's any country that US deems to be an adversary
(DIR) Post #AU6lCReOjy1hoNkOVU by schoolingdiana@mstdn.social
2023-03-29T08:00:04Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos Totally ridiculous and I predict will come to nothing. Why? It’s not because TikTok is a Cayman Islands company and it’s CEO is Singaporean. It’s because half it’s board are US venture capitalists who got their start in BlackRock. #TikTok
(DIR) Post #AU6lDNNk63AMrWOubA by yogthos@mas.to
2023-03-29T12:22:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@schoolingdiana I think TikTok is largely a distraction, the goal of the bill is clearly much broader than TikTok
(DIR) Post #AU6lK666l3pnHaMDVQ by MangoRanch@poa.st
2023-03-29T12:44:20.610762Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Xenophon @jeffcliff @yogthos > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. It literally says all persons born in the United States, though 🤔 if they meant the one's who were born in the US before the amendment, they probably should've said so. But they didn't.2a is a lot more difficult, because neither the definition of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" nor "infringed" are given. I do, however think the intention is pretty clear and straightforward.
(DIR) Post #AU6lUSE7KxhqoL2g7c by Xenophon@nicecrew.digital
2023-03-29T12:46:12.594949Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.You missed the important part. Foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the country their parents belong to.Slaves were not subject to anyone elses jurisdiction, hence subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
(DIR) Post #AU6lydqQhr4HWyMC6C by MangoRanch@poa.st
2023-03-29T12:51:40.290181Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Xenophon @yogthos @jeffcliff > Foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USBut they are.If someone travels to the US as a tourist and kills someone, they are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the US. Unless they're diplomats. Which is pretty much how the Supreme Court interpreted that part as well.
(DIR) Post #AU6mNex7ix02CsPwMi by Xenophon@nicecrew.digital
2023-03-29T12:56:11.202511Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
So youre telling me youre retarded. Got it. Being subject to face the punishment for committing a crime is not being subject to their jurisdiction in the sense of the amendment written in 1868. Youre just falling for more jewish word magic. If you go to spain, you are not a SUBJECT of the Spanish king. You are a SUBJECT of the US government visiting Spain.No wonder this country sucks. Youre all fucking retarded.
(DIR) Post #AU6niwSVvmsCXLoPb6 by MangoRanch@poa.st
2023-03-29T13:11:14.658447Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Xenophon @yogthos @jeffcliff > you are not a SUBJECT of the Spanish kingNo, but you're subject to the JURISDICTION of spain. Do you not know what words mean? > So youre telling me youre retarded. Got it.🤔
(DIR) Post #AU6nqNz3zZpNvnaPpo by Xenophon@nicecrew.digital
2023-03-29T13:12:35.008510Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Again, you arent his fucking subject. That is what subject to his jurisdiction means. It doesnt mean you are in his country and mist follow his laws. It means who you have allegiance to, i.e. where your citizenship resides.
(DIR) Post #AU6qs4fb4Vl4TIygc4 by MangoRanch@poa.st
2023-03-29T13:46:30.557934Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Xenophon @yogthos @jeffcliff > It doesnt mean you are in his country and mist follow his laws. Except that's exactly what it means. CFR § 515.329The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include:(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;(a) The term person within the United States, includes:(2) Any person actually within the United States;> It means who you have allegiance to, i.e. where your citizenship resides.So the US doesn't have jurisdiction over anyone who's not a US citizen? Sweet, foreigners can just do all the crime and the US can't do shit about it, except deport them.
(DIR) Post #AU6rAiu6DoEYT2eai8 by Xenophon@nicecrew.digital
2023-03-29T13:49:52.490500Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
Stop being a faggot. You are trying to cite 2023 law to explain the wording of an amendment written in 1868. Its fucking tiresome. Having to follow laws because you are in a country doesnt make you part of that country, and it doesnt supercede your allegiance to another country. This is precisely why people are extradited to face charges in their country of citizenship. You cant send an American to Mexico to be charged with murdering someone in Texas.
(DIR) Post #AU6tfh3BMYP9bWnVnE by MangoRanch@poa.st
2023-03-29T14:17:53.200907Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Xenophon @yogthos @jeffcliff > This is precisely why people are extradited to face charges in their country of citizenship. What the fuck are you talking about? Is Assange an american citizen? What about Kim Dotcom? People can be extradited to countries where they are facing criminal charges, that's it.> Having to follow laws because you are in a country doesnt make you part of that countryNo, but it makes you a "subject to the jurisdiction" of that country. Again - do you not know what words mean? > Stop being a faggot. You are trying to cite 2023 law to explain the wording of an amendment written in 1868. "You can't use a modern dictionary to look up the definitions of words people used 150 years ago. We don't know what people meant when they said "cat" back then."lolIsn't it great that the supreme court decided over this shit a mere 30 years after the amendment and came to the exact same conclusion? Almost like that was the meaning all along.
(DIR) Post #AU6uqeWJD6BsteD8ds by Xenophon@nicecrew.digital
2023-03-29T14:31:04.070944Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
They argued (wrongly) for the rights of resident aliens. Not illegal invaders.
(DIR) Post #AU6vCliR8bW3aHQgO8 by yogthos@mas.to
2023-03-29T12:30:33Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@blobfrog it mentions any software or hardware that could be used to circumvent the ban
(DIR) Post #AU6vb57MeXtAhzgMy0 by MangoRanch@poa.st
2023-03-29T14:39:27.813362Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Xenophon @yogthos @jeffcliff I never said I wasn't in favor of repealing or amending the 14th. But as it stands - that's what it'd take.