The Restrict Act, Supposedly To Ban Tik Tok, Will (probably) NOT Put You In Jail For Using a VPN. It mentions even VERY Futuristic technologies.

[Uttamattamakin]

Summary

There is a lot of information out about a law just proposed which is nominally meant to ban Tik Tok but does not name Tik Tok specifically.  The Restrict Act would ban anyone from accessing a online service ran by a US adverssary. This law is so sweeping it even mentions things like "Post Quantum Cryptography" and "Synthetic Biology" Some readings of it could imply that acceing such a service via a VPN would be against this law.  However, this act is not intended to go after Joe user trying to find dance or cat videos but is intended to stop such services from bypassing the Restrict act.   That said the law does have some concerning provisions, applies far beyond social media and specifies things like games and forums, and does contain both civli and federal criminal penalties.  Though it only applies to such things that have over 1 million users over the course of a year.   The act specifies that the app would have to in the judgement of the President and certain cabinet secretaries be operated by or from and adversary of the United states and have been:

• Used for sabotage, 
• "catastrophic effects on the security or resilience of the critical infrastructure or digital economy of the United States" (hacking),
• " interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal election" , 
• "coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes", 

• "otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons" . 

Note this law has bipartisan support. 

Quotes

 

Part of the text of the Bill

Quote

A Bill

To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act” or the “RESTRICT Act”.

...
 

SEC. 3. ADDRESSING INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES THAT POSE UNDUE OR UNACCEPTABLE RISK.

 

(a) In General.—The Secretary, in consultation with the relevant executive department and agency heads, is authorized to and shall take action to identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing, and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines—

 

(1) poses an undue or unacceptable risk of—

 

(A) 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;

(B) catastrophic effects on the security or resilience of the critical infrastructure or digital economy of the United States;

(C) interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal election, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; or

(D) coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; or

(2) otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons.

Per newsweek. 

Quote

The ban's criminal penalties, which include a fine up to a million dollar and/or imprisonment of up to 20 years, has caused some alarm among the bill's observers, who have questioned whether some TikTok fanatics might face jail time for using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to get around the ban and access the app.

 

But a spokesperson for Senator Mark Warner, the bill's sponsor, told Newsweek that it would not apply to individual users.

My thoughts

The first thing to note is that this is not the same law as was discussed in this thread.  This thread discussed a state law in Utah, and similar more draconian state laws in other states and another fedearl proposal regarding age limits on social media no matter where it was located. Some of these proposals do not specify what counts as "social media" i.e. Obviously Twitter and Facebook...but what about say Discord or the chat functions built into online games?    

 

This law is about outright total banning of large online services from outside the US and from countires that are deemed to be adverssaries by the government, specifically by the executive branch.  Which in the US means it's only elected member, the president by way of the cabinet.    Some are concerned with vesting so much power over our digital lives in one man in a law so broad and so sweeping it even covers QUOTE

 information and communications technology products and services integral to—

(A) artificial intelligence and machine learning;

(B) quantum key distribution;

(C) quantum communications;

(D) quantum computing;

(E) post-quantum cryptography; (lol)

(F) autonomous systems;

(G) advanced robotics;

(H) biotechnology;

(I) synthetic biology; (LMAO) 

(J) computational biology; and

(K) e-commerce technology and services, including any electronic techniques for accomplishing business transactions, online retail, internet-enabled logistics, internet-enabled payment technology, and online marketplaces.

UNQUOTE  (lols and LMAOS added by me)

 

Are they trying  to pass a law that would apply to Data from Star Trek or something?   Is this a law for the United States or a Federation Star Fleet regulation? 
 

This law seeks to be so tech  and future forward that it would apply when we have freaking warp drive.   As ridiculous as it sounds this regulation which is about FAR more than Tik Tok looks like it will be enacted and singed into law as it has a lot of support. 

In short if you care about technology you will want to read this bill.   This taken with laws seeking to restrict all social media by age will make web 3.0 a far different experience than web 2.0 has been. 

This Rossman video is so important it should be part of the original post. 

 

Sources

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/restrict-act-tiktok-jail-time-vpn/

Does TikTok Ban Allow for 20 Year Prison Sentence? (newsweek.com)

Text - S.686 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): RESTRICT Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress 
White House ‘very in favor’ of bill thought to target TikTok | US news | The Guardian

[Arika]

...I feel like they don't really understand just how much tencent owns, and technically should now be banned along with tiktok

[WereCat]

4 minutes ago, Arika S said:

...I feel like they don't really understand just how much tencent owns, and technically should now be banned along with tiktok

So Discord, RIOT games, etc...? 

[Uttamattamakin]

4 minutes ago, Arika S said:

...I feel like they don't really understand just how much tencent owns, and technically should now be banned along with tiktok

Or they do and they are trying to ban anything owned by Tencent now or 400 years from now.   I mean JFC "Synthetic biology"  and Post quantum cryptography etc  really? 

[Uttamattamakin]

Just now, WereCat said:

So Discord, RIOT games, etc...? 

Yeah Discord my God...   

I won't bring it here but look into the discourse around discord it's brain broken.  They probably aren't even thinking of it but my thread about wanting open source alternatives to it looks prescient now.  

[WereCat]

2 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Yeah Discord my God...   

I won't bring it here but look into the discourse around discord it's brain broken.  They probably aren't even thinking of it but my thread about wanting open source alternatives to it looks prescient now.  

The problem as always will be to get people to switch. I've recently requested my Discord data and there's so much stuff it's insane... From years ago. And you can't delete it (by using bot that does it automatically) or you get banned. 

[Arika]

19 minutes ago, WereCat said:

So Discord, RIOT games, etc...? 

Don't forget reddit!

[suicidalfranco]

21 minutes ago, WereCat said:

So Discord, RIOT games, etc...? 

and nothing of value would be lost

[ouroesa]

38 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

The Restrict Act would ban anyone from accessing a online service ran by a US adverssary

Does anybody have a clear definition of "services ran by" seems a bit vague and I dont have time to read and unpack the whole bill. Owned ≠ ran by, or not neccesarily.

[ouroesa]

9 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

and nothing of value would be lost

Some game studios that Tencent has majority stake in:
Fatshark (Warhammer Vermintide and Darktide)
Klei (Don't Starve, Oxygen not included)
Grinding Gear (Path of Exile)
Funcom (Conan Exiles, Dune Awakening, Dune Spice Wars, Metal: Hellsinger)
Turtle Rock Studios (Back 4 Blood)

Riot Games (LOL)

 

I cant see how much stake Tencent owns in Discord but seems to be minority stake i.e. <50%, likely quite a bit less.

[PDifolco]

Whoah, is that mean to counter the Chinese  ? It rather looks like imitating them...

[Uttamattamakin]

3 hours ago, ouroesa said:

Does anybody have a clear definition of "services ran by" seems a bit vague and I dont have time to read and unpack the whole bill. Owned ≠ ran by, or not neccesarily.

This bill is super detailed and does go into that. I speaks of Controlling Holding and covered holding.   

 

Quote

(2) CONTROLLING HOLDING.—The term “controlling holding” means a holding with the power, whether direct or indirect and whether exercised or not exercised, to determine, direct, or decide important matters affecting an entity.

Then it talks about what holdings are covered. In short anything owned in any way shape or form in whole or in part by a foreighn entity and subject to the jusrisction of or organized under the laws of a foreign adversarial power.   It's not a super SUPER long law read it, takes 5-10 minutes and it answers this in detail.  Like every kind of service Tencent or any company like it would own is covered. 

When it talks about companies owned by people subject to the jurisdiction of forieghn countries. 

Quote

(iii) an entity owned, directed, or controlled by a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

It seems to imply that a national of another country that sets up a company in the US might even be subject to this law. 

3 hours ago, ouroesa said:

 

I cant see how much stake Tencent owns in Discord but seems to be minority stake i.e. <50%, likely quite a bit less.

 

Given how this law states that the own it in whole or in part would seem to imply that even a minority stake would be too much.  VERY informative post by the way.  I mean.  This is basically the US government making Tencent either get out of the US without it's shirt or sell out at rock bottom prices to a US company. 

 

4 hours ago, WereCat said:

The problem as always will be to get people to switch. I've recently requested my Discord data and there's so much stuff it's insane... From years ago. And you can't delete it (by using bot that does it automatically) or you get banned. 

True.  Something technologically superior might even have a problem.  I've got so many people and places on Discord and getting all of that losslessly back on a new platform would not be possible. 

 

3 hours ago, PDifolco said:

Whoah, is that mean to counter the Chinese  ? It rather looks like imitating them...

100% agree.   I am not a lawyer but ... the thing about this law is it' deals with foreighn relations.  It is often said here that 1A does not apply.  (it does not and the forum is not based in the USA so its not baked in on a cultural level either etc).  

That's the thing here... there does not exist a free speech right to communicate with a company held by , or by a national of, a hostile foreign power.  There isn't.  So the federal government would have absolute power to do this.  In the US ratified treaties, which are treated as basically part of the constitution, can change that.  Absent a treaty with China on this we might loose access to everything Tencent owns, controls, in whole or in part IF this law passes. 

Our best bet is that it gets amended in the process into something far less onerous but that rarely happens.  RARELY. Usually a bill that is sure to pass gets not only made more stringent, but also gets funds for this or that tacked on to it. 

I found an article that gives what seems to be a definitive list of all companies owned by tencent in whole or in part. What Companies Does Tencent Own 【In 2023】 - DATAROMA (dataromas.com)  

Much of the online gaming infrastructure used in mobile, console, and PC will be effected by this law. 

[ouroesa]

29 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Then it talks about what holdings are covered. In short anything owned in any way shape or form in whole or in part by a foreighn entity and subject to the jusrisction of or organized under the laws of a foreign adversarial power.

I'm sure there is more to it but seems like there is a lot of open endedness to it and can include nearly any large company which does not sit well with me. This will be abused by politicians, other companies and law enforcement. 

[Jerakl]

8 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Yeah Discord my God...   

I won't bring it here but look into the discourse around discord it's brain broken.  They probably aren't even thinking of it but my thread about wanting open source alternatives to it looks prescient now.  

I don't know about open source but I'm all about those discord alternatives.
I used guilded for a while but gave up because no one else would use it.

 

As far as the actual post goes from what I've read/heard you might not get put in jail for using a VPN - but they could if they wanted to.

I read a different post somewhere that I can't find now, but it seemed more or less along the lines of "we can declare you an enemy of the state and screw you so hard there won't be anything left just because we feel like it if we really wanted to". Which I guess isn't TOO different from how things are now, but it makes it a LOT less work.

why yes I do hate the federal government how could you tell

[PDifolco]

7 hours ago, ouroesa said:

I'm sure there is more to it but seems like there is a lot of open endedness to it and can include nearly any large company which does not sit well with me. This will be abused by politicians, other companies and law enforcement. 

This is already abuse at its heart, so can be used for anything...

The USA were the light of freedom some time ago, it has really been shut off  

[Sauron]

12 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

(lols and LMAOS added by me)

Thanks for clarifying, could have fooled me

 

I think it's kind of absurd to go after tiktok for this when american companies do the same or worse. It's one thing to ban its use on government devices, which is reasonable, it's another to ban it outright without being able to point out precisely what risks it poses to the public that, say, facebook doesn't.

[Kisai]

46 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Thanks for clarifying, could have fooled me

 

I think it's kind of absurd to go after tiktok for this when american companies do the same or worse. It's one thing to ban its use on government devices, which is reasonable, it's another to ban it outright without being able to point out precisely what risks it poses to the public that, say, facebook doesn't.

 

The problem with Tiktok, is pretty much the same problem with oh, ICQ or Livejournal. You can't trust the country's government it operates in to not use it to monitor you.

 

Like it's one thing to say "X topic is banned because it's damaging children" it's another to say "X topic is banned because the president is personally intimidated by pictures of cartoon bears."

 

Like by all accounts if a government can force a service operating in a foreign country to kowtow to the government's demands, that service isn't worth using.

 

People want the uncensored, unrestricted access, but they don't want the responsibility that comes with it. So P2P networks? Uncensored, unrestricted access, but that comes at the cost of that legitimate data being right next to all the xxx hardcore porn, piracy and things that are best left unmentioned. Bring that stuff too close together, and people will be accused of engaging in major crimes, because their curiosity got the better of them. 

 

Like tiktok's big danger is misinformation that leads people to doing potentially dangerous things.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-safety-outcomes/46-university-students-hospitalized-after-tiktok-challenge.html ( 3 weeks ago)

https://www.foxla.com/news/tustin-mom-hospitalized-tiktok-bucket-prank-challenge-target (this was 13 hours ago)

https://www.parents.com/news/a-teen-needed-surgery-after-copying-a-dangerous-tiktok-trend-and-her-mom-is-issuing-a-warning/  (Sept 2021)

https://www.vancouverislandfreedaily.com/news/video-courtenay-homeowners-hospitalized-after-tiktok-challenge-turns-ugly/ (5 days ago)

 

But the government is more concerned that the Chinese government is using Tiktok to spy on foreign governments via the social media app. I think the concern is misplaced.

 

[Sauron]

25 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The problem with Tiktok, is pretty much the same problem with oh, ICQ or Livejournal. You can't trust the country's government it operates in to not use it to monitor you.

Ok, and why does this not apply to, say, instagram?

26 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Like tiktok's big danger is misinformation that leads people to doing potentially dangerous things.

Like all major social media. And even if you ignore those, consider reddit. I know people have a short memory but... the tide pod challenge predates tiktok.

29 minutes ago, Kisai said:

But the government is more concerned that the Chinese government is using Tiktok to spy on foreign governments via the social media app. I think the concern is misplaced.

As I said, that's perfectly reasonable for government devices. Not for the general population though.

[Kisai]

19 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Ok, and why does this not apply to, say, instagram?

The US government doesn't own facebook/instagram, and has no say in how it operates.

 

ICQ and Livejournal are owned by Russian companies despite being developed outside it. ICQ was acquired by what is now VK, and Livejournal was acquired by a russian company and all US-based servers were shut down. So in effect both of these services are not longer viable to western users. Even if they had spent a decade on it, they had to discard it. Pretty much livejournal was dead to western users since 2007 when the Russian operator and Russian government started to interfere with it.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Like all major social media. And even if you ignore those, consider reddit. I know people have a short memory but... the tide pod challenge predates tiktok.

The tide pod challenge was what I was thinking of, but it was far easier to just google search "tiktok hospitalized"

 

Reddit and 4chan share one thing in common, and that's the "boards" do not overlap. They are not like twitter, tiktok and youtube which push content from anyone to anyone else as though it was just one channel. So you were unlikely to have known about the 'tide pod challenge' unless you were an active poster on the specific reddit board.

 

But on tiktok or twitter? stuff just trends, and now suddenly people who are either not aware of the danger, or worse, "know" of the danger and fake content about it, which makes some people believe it's legitimate.

 

That's again why I keep saying that AI-generated materials must be labeled. If it's not real, it needs to be identified as not being real.

 

19 minutes ago, Sauron said:

As I said, that's perfectly reasonable for government devices. Not for the general population though.

Government and Corporate devices should never have software on them that isn't approved by the tech people, regardless of how desperate some dingbat in accounting wants their candy crush game.

[Sauron]

25 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The US government doesn't own facebook/instagram, and has no say in how it operates.

The Chinese government doesn't own TikTok, and yes, the US absolutely does have a say in how Instagram operates. It can demand disclosure of user data and force them to remove illegal content. Further, facebook has been known to just sell user data to the highest bidder, meaning the Chinese government also has access to their data if they want it. Remember Cambridge Analitica?

29 minutes ago, Kisai said:

ICQ and Livejournal are owned by Russian companies despite being developed outside it. ICQ was acquired by what is now VK, and Livejournal was acquired by a russian company and all US-based servers were shut down. So in effect both of these services are not longer viable to western users. Even if they had spent a decade on it, they had to discard it. Pretty much livejournal was dead to western users since 2007 when the Russian operator and Russian government started to interfere with it.

That's a valid concern for a user to have but not grounds for a national ban. As a sanctions package it would make sense but that's not what this is.

30 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The tide pod challenge was what I was thinking of, but it was far easier to just google search "tiktok hospitalized"

Yeah, but the services where the tide pod challenge was popularized are not being targeted by this law.

31 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Reddit and 4chan share one thing in common, and that's the "boards" do not overlap. They are not like twitter, tiktok and youtube which push content from anyone to anyone else as though it was just one channel. So you were unlikely to have known about the 'tide pod challenge' unless you were an active poster on the specific reddit board.

Forget the tide pod challenge, you can go on 4chan and find instructions on how to build a pipe bomb. The idea that tiktok is dangerous in a way that 4chan isn't is absurd.

32 minutes ago, Kisai said:

But on tiktok or twitter? stuff just trends, and now suddenly people who are either not aware of the danger, or worse, "know" of the danger and fake content about it, which makes some people believe it's legitimate.

I agree that that's a problem, my question is: why does tiktok get banned for it but not twitter? You seem to agree they're comparably bad in this regard...

34 minutes ago, Kisai said:

That's again why I keep saying that AI-generated materials must be labeled. If it's not real, it needs to be identified as not being real.

I'm not sure how this is related but... would you extend it to manual photo edits? What about automatic app filters...?

35 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Government and Corporate devices should never have software on them that isn't approved by the tech people, regardless of how desperate some dingbat in accounting wants their candy crush game.

So again, why a federal ban on some specific apps?

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

I think it's kind of absurd to go after tiktok for this when american companies do the same or worse. 

Yeah but wouldn't our companies do it we're spreading freedom and democracy.  And also it's usually done through our sheer overt cultural influence not by installing spyware on everyone's device.   

 

51 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Government and Corporate devices should never have software on them that isn't approved by the tech people, regardless of how desperate some dingbat in accounting wants their candy crush game.

Which is exactly why TikTok was especially concerning. Your whole post gets to the heart of it.  In addition to how it would push content from anybody to anobody, In the west, it would do that just based on what young people naturally want to see most, influencers. It would also serve propaganda from the government of China.

 

Meanwhile inside the PRC It would serve young people especially, educational,  culturally relevant content.  Plus propaganda from the government of China.

 

Then there are all the permissions where it knows where you are. What devices are on your network? Who you're next to based on connecting to their devices and sends all of that location and other data back to china.  As we've seen through current events in eastern your up having an app that gives away your device location on your phone is not smart.

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The Chinese government doesn't own TikTok, and yes, the US absolutely does have a say in how Instagram operates.

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2023/01/15/ccp-shares-alibaba-tencent-bytedance/

 

The Chinese Communist Party literally owns stock in these companies.  So they straightforwardly own them.

 

In the Peoples Republic of China if you run a sufficiently large company you have to have a official of the CCP working in your company.  Key jobs even low level ones require CCP membership.  

 

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It can demand disclosure of user data and force them to remove illegal content.

To do that they need a warrant.  While it's true the n s a can and does intercept all traffic they don't look at all traffic.  To get the information and use it against a citizen they need a warrant in court.  They need to show a judge why they need the information.

 

Versus in the PRC the government actually does intercept gather and use all the information. 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

So again, why a federal ban on some specific apps?

 

Because those apps are owned, held   controlled and/or influenced by adversaries of the United States of America while the other apps are not. 

 

[Sauron]

Just now, Uttamattamakin said:

Yeah but wouldn't our companies do it we're spreading freedom and democracy.  And also it's usually done through our sheer overt cultural influence not by installing spyware on everyone's device.   

Everything facebook does would beg to differ.

2 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2023/01/15/ccp-shares-alibaba-tencent-bytedance/

 

The Chinese Communist Party literally owns stock in these companies.  So they straightforwardly own them.

 

In the Peoples Republic of China if you run a sufficiently large company you have to have a official of the CCP working in your company.  Key jobs even low level ones require CCP membership.  

Yes, we know China is a dictatorship. I would still argue that for the sake of this discussion there is no tangible difference. In terms of privacy violations the US government has about the same access and the same level of control on US companies.

5 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

While it's true the n s a can and does intercept all traffic they don't look at all traffic.

So? They don't need to look at all traffic all the time. And again that information is available for you to just buy.

5 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

To get the information and use it against a citizen they need a warrant in court.  They need to show a judge why they need the information.

What do courts have to do with this? Is the Chinese government going to sue you in a US court using info they got from TikTok?

6 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Because those apps are owned, held   controlled and/or influenced by adversaries of the United States of America while the other apps are not. 

Yeah, so it has nothing to do with safety or privacy. It's literally just "we don't own it so we don't want it in our country". I don't think that's a good way to make policy.

 

But also as I said it's not even true that US based companies don't provide user data to external governments or even just the highest bidder.

[Uttamattamakin]

41 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yes, we know China is a dictatorship. I would still argue that for the sake of this discussion there is no tangible difference. In terms of privacy violations the US government has about the same access and the same level of control on US companies.

That's just factually not true. 

 

For example, did you know that in the PRC if you put something on Baidu that The Government don't like they will remove it.  Not a request to remove it not a court order to remove it Government employees literally work for Baidu and censor things in real time. 

 

The same is true for Tencent.  It would be like if the NSA didn't just spy on or intercept some traffic It would be like if Facebook literally was the NSA. 

 

The reasoning is that these companies are owned controlled held or influenced by an adversary of the United States of America.   The TikTok app reveals security related data to the adversary.  

 

Here's a real-world example of TikTok specifically compromising security and having disastrous results for the person using it. 

 

Russia news: Chechen officer killed on air, on TikTok as he boasts about defeating Ukrainians - Video | World | News | Express.co.uk. 

 

Granted that specific instance did not involve China, but it demonstrates the potential of the app to compromise security.  most of what it does will be much more subtle given giving the PRC ideas of patterns of behavior of Americans, Intelligence on the mood and morale of Americans and so forth. then a method by which they can influence that mood or morale and movements. 

 

All of those legitimate fears are leading to this law which is going to drastically change infrastructure of online gaming.

 

For what it's worth I agree with you ... let's take this aspect of discussing this issue to DMS and not openly on the forum.

[Uttamattamakin]

Louis Rossman has what I am certain is a banger of a video on this. 

 

[jagdtigger]

This going to be abused to high heavens.......