The president has stated his support for it.
I’m just going to link you to my original comment since you apparently missed my point.
https://reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/127cj24/_/jegfmcu/?context=1
No where am I advocating for this bill. But it also doesn’t allow for the claims you are making.
Well, yes and no. You have access to the same information that I do, which means you know what the bill does and doesn’t cover.
I do. That’s why I asked. Because no one can actually make that argument, yet you’re trying.
You also know that it specifically covers malfeasances that are only vaguely covered by existing legislation.
Give an example of a genuine threat that the new law prevents that isn’t already covered by existing laws and doesn’t create complications for current law abiding citizens…
This has been stated by one of the sponsors of the bill. I quoted him, three or four comments ago. If you don’t believe him, I’m not sure what I can do for you.
If you take sponsors of the bill at face value and yet the wording of the bill doesn’t align for you, I don’t think you’ve been paying attention to how US politics works for the last 100+ years. They lie.
…and paranoia is not reality. How should the relevant section be worded to be satisfactory to you?
If it’s not open to debate, what are you doing right now?
From the user perspective, it squares since they are banning apps and not methods of communication. Would be a hard sell from a individual perspective.
From an App Store/Play Store perspective, it squares since it’s not a fight worth fighting. The US is a massive market and been a boon for companies like Apple and Google to make trillions. They aren’t looking to bite the hand that feeds.
From the developer/owner standpoint, they are all foreign nationals. So not 1A protection. VPN banning would be more nuanced and target those that facilitate using banned apps. Bullying VPNs into compliance is something the US and most major governments are well practiced at. With the reason for removal being espionage related it will be tough to turn that around.
No doubt someone would attempt to challenge this as a 1A violation, but I don’t think it’s the most stable ground. Just my thoughts.
That’s a good observation. Curiously everything is supposed to be a spectrum today, apart from political orientation. You’re either a far right, weapon wielding lunatic or a left wing activist throwing orange juice at paintings. The boring ones are usually thrown in either of the two camps depending on what is convenient in the moment. 
I think the point about this bill being xenophobic is not great though. Don’t get me wrong, It’s a garbage bill that could turn the US into a surveillance state akin to china itself. But there is a difference between the Chinese population and their maniac dictatorial ruler who’s oppressing the largest population in the world. This guy would be absolutely delighted to see all western countries perish. Every major company in china is deeply intertwined with the CCP and if you believe tech companies are an exception to that you’re mistaken. So it’s good that western countries are no longer ignoring the stupid games china is playing. That being said, taking steps against china expanding its power should not come at the cost of our freedom.
Much like the old PATRIOT Act did. Massive overreaching under the whole ‘terrorists bad, muh freedoms’
How would the fine be enforced?
yea, the last thing we need is this kind of power with no oversight in the hands of a bunch of old men who can’t even discribe the tech they are supposed to be regulating
25 years out and we have a single unified router OS mandated by law locked down and spitting all the data out onto government servers.
Well, colour me supprised. He is almost 80, I doubht he even knows how to use his iPhone
I swear, given how important the Internet is nowadays, there should be a national technical advisor for shit like this, it shouldn’t be left up to crusty old men, that shit is how we get shit like US missile defence systems using an IBM Series/1 or the IRS using code from the 60’s or the default launch code for all US nukes being 00000000
Then you know the stated purpose. You’re just taking the piss.
You also know that the bill has been worded (in part) to punish people who circumvent the ban by using countermeasures to continue to use forbidden systems. It does not punish people for using VPNs.
If you’re going to assume the worst and ignore contrary evidence, there’s no argument that’ll change your mind. Given that I’m not here to do that, I’m comfortable with that. I just thought you should be told.
Have you flown at an airport in the US in the last 20 years? How much terrorism is stopped by taking off your shoes? Because that was a temporary measure, sold to the people as “only effecting those of us who engage in terroristic acts”
Maybe word the damn bill so that it isn’t ambiguous who the bill is targeting.
Correcting someone that seems willfully obtuse. ‘open to debate’ implies one side might have a leg to stand on, not that it’s literally impossible. You can debate chess with a pig, doesn’t mean he’ll have anything compelling to put forth.
I read the damned text, and it’s incredibly broad in scope of coverage. Sections 3 and 5 cover nearly every piece of software on every computer. That’s not targeted. That’s not what that word means. That’s not what this bill does.
Aren’t 3/5 of tik told board members us citizens?
You seem to have a remarkably myopic view of the First Amendment.
Against the payments systems used by the US users.
By my memory congress disbanded their technical advisory committee the last time they became hellbent on passing batshit crazy legislation that was incompatible with reality.
Then you know the stated purpose. You’re just taking the piss.
How gullible lol. A politicians stated purpose is about as much value as a turd, what matters is what the law states.
You also know that the bill has been to punish people who circumvent the ban on using countermeasures to continue to use forbidden systems. It does not punish people for using VPNs.
If you break the law and use VPNs to circumvent restrictions, you’re still breaking the law. You dont need a new law to prevent it.
If you’re going to assume the worst and ignore contrary evidence, there’s no argument that’ll change your mind. Given that I’m not here to do that, I’m comfortable with that. I just thought you should be told.
What evidence lol? Simply a politicians word that a law providing sweeping powers to give them unchecked control is not for an alterior motive?
So that’s a no you don’t have an example then? Thats incredibly dissappointing for someone so arrogant to not even have an example. A well reasoned argument could certainly change my mind, if only there was someone here with the cognitive capacity or evidenced reality capable of making one. Sadly we both know the stated purpose is bollocks and the law is a poorly implemented power grab that has a negative impact on law abiding citizens without any impact on criminals.