Its wrong to assume that this wont make it into UK, EU
You mean beyond it going directly against core principles and current legislation?..
Zero chance the EU adopts something like that in its suggested form with how focused it is against most of it.
If something like this makes it past a workgroup in the EU in the next decade id expect it to be targeting the US not China.
If the work VPNs aren’t being used to circumvent the Act’s purpose*, why would they be?
[*] namely, to punish people who undermine our elections and commit espionage against us
Can’t See that being the goal. Every government agency requires a VPN to gain access to their network
The text of the bill contradicts his words.
The US sneezes and the World gets a cold. Like it or not, whatever goes on domestically in the US is likely going to affect you in the near future.
And it’s not like the EU, another global influencer, is much better either. They’ve got their own anti-encryption/anti-FOSS lobbyists hard at work.
I’m a Canadian.
My concern is that Canada (along with UK, Australia, France, etc) is almost always a follower of American international initiatives.
This legislation is bad enough for Americans. Imagine how much worse it would be for Canadians.
On the one side, our government is crooked, obstructive, bureaucratic, and secretive enough already, it would only get worse if it chooses to follow America’s narrative and install some counterpart to this awful legislation.
On the other side, our government occasionally makes a big show, pomp and ceremony, about maintaining our national identity against American melting pot influences. They might blatantly reject any kind of equivalent to this bill. Which would only attract American criminals, scammers, hackers, problems into the Canadian VPN sphere.
I’m not from the US. I live in Bulgaria. Even if you don’t like it, the US is big enough to set global trends and be an example, both of good and bad things.
The Trump debacle, for example. Over the past few years, I’ve seen certain political leaders here and abroad, employing the exact same playbook. It stared around 2017-2018 when they saw that you can openly BS your way into anything. But now these groups are threatening the elections with their far-right views. You would think far-right is unpopular but no, these schmuks get 12-15% on polls and the support grows weekly.
If one big country manages to stifle privacy, everyone else will try it too.
Because most of them don’t have the attention span or the legal background to make sense of the bill behind the Act. The text is available for download, but it’s easier to go off at half-cock than it is to read it and understand it.
Thank you for sharing this. Clearly, there is always a lot of misinterpretation and misrepresentation for new bills.
If there are any other sources that help clarify what is meant in the bill, please feel free to post it.
Its also not subject the FOIA requests! Fucking great!
How does this square with 1A?
Radical and authoritarian use of power. But they will push it as TikTok ban
This can’t be xenophobic a Democrat is heading up this bill. And from what we’re told only the right is xenophobic.
It’s an intentional misdirect referring to it as the TikTok ban bill. Makes most people not care to read about it further.
Well this is a legal grey area for the police, technically a judge could rule at some point that it violates the 4A and they would have to stop.
But more importantly. This forces rings competitors to give your data too
Did Nazi Germany not also have extensive overreach in its citizens’ lives and extensive communications spying? Don’t think that authoritarianism is exclusive to “communist countries.” Pretty laughable to think that the country that hired Nazis after WW2 and had a “Red Scare” in which communists were jailed would be “leaning in that direction.”
Watch. In a year, end to end encryption won’t be a thing.
I don’t see him listed as a sponsor or as a cosponsor. I have actually heard him speak out against the RESTRICT Act, like he has here:
I also contacted his office and they say he does not support the RESTRICT Act.
I saw the same video, which is why I only said “advocated for” by Josh hawley. I only mention it because he’s one of my senators
They probably have no intention of eliminating VPNs.
But this would give them the power to force VPNs into compliance. Specifically, they’ve always wanted VPNs to cough up logs and records on demand. VPNs have always been a tricky loophole, by their very nature they operate within the country but also operate completely outside it.
What this really means is that criminals won’t be able to hide behind VPNs. But normal VPN users also wouldn’t be able to hide behind VPNs. It’s essentially a form of privacy invasion and surveillance.