Have you guys heard of the RESTRICT Act that's being proposed by the US Congress? It looks really bad for open use of the Internet.
1 month ago 路 馃憤 angryboyd, zero, justyb
I'd welcome the entire clearnet blowing up and disappearing. But the government will ban heroin so they can sell fentynal. Make no mistake about it. National security as a term means nothing. Anything can be used to conjure up a threat to national security, even TikTok. Add Wikileaks and anything else smart that isn't run by the spooks. Remember, they used the PATRIOT act to spy on *old ladies* protesting the US invasion of Iraq.
They'll strip back the Internet, like Gemini is doing, and leave only those parts that are the most addictive, and leave the users the least protected from spying, all in the name of protecting their rights.
The whole thing is a scam now. 路 1 month ago
The point is that Congress is wanting to go after preceived issues with TikTok and this law would allow it. But down the road there could absoultely be abuse of this new authority. That's just the name of the game with Governance.
But when people weigh the cons, it's important to weigh the con of just not doing anything. I think social media is getting to a point that it can present a threat to national security of a multiude of nations.
So if not this act, then we really need to be proactive about addressing this issue. And if this act, we need to be vigilant for abuses. It's not an easy call. 路 1 month ago
But this is like ANYTHING that's regulatory. If the public and/or Congress aren't keeping it in check, yeah, absolutely SecCom could go after VPNs.
Here's a link to how rule making works. (https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf) There's public comment periods, there's rule making hearings, sometimes they open it up for the public to comment.
But I get we still have Ajit Pai's bad FCC taste still lingering. Where he just ignored anything the public had to say about it. At anytime Congress can override rule making, but I get it if people have issues about Congress.
So I understand people's hesitation to 馃憤 the law. 路 1 month ago
In short it grants regulatory authority to the US secretary of commerce over Internet services that provide undue and unacceptable risks to the national security of the US or its citizens.
It would be up to the SecCom to dictate that and all of it would fall under regulatory review. For the most part SecCom intends to solely use the authority to go after corporations. But the law doesn't specifically limit it to such, thus going after end-user USES (not citizens themselves) could happen down the road.
It would be up to the public, the President, and/or Congress to keep SecCom in check. It's regulatory authority not law. BUT the scary people talk about is indeed possible. 路 1 month ago
looks... like... good intentions at least 路 1 month ago
I've been going over a couple videos and articles today to find out as much as I can. I still haven't totally made up my mind about it but I'm not very optimistic. There are elements of it that will almost certainly be abused in the future if passed, just like every other broad measure to increase government power under the guise of security. 路 1 month ago