@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
Top-level
8 comments
@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 @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. @jake4480 @matunos I think the idea isn't that it's going to be enforced universally, instead it'll just be used to target people. That's the really scary part of this kind of a law. Once an individual is targeted then this kind of law can be used to slap a draconian sentence on them for having a vpn, or having visited a website at some point. |
@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