Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 335 posts

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#101

Post by cma »

matthest wrote: post #88
JasserInicide wrote: post #75

A lot of people in this new federal government are terrified of China

I think it's the opposite, despite the people who are extra loud about it. Trump admires Xi and Elon loves China. The people at the very top are more China-friendly than the last administration.

The tariffs are about undermining the progressive tax system in the US and around the world (after retaliation the retaliating country's tax code gets less progressive) not China. That's mainly why they are being applied to everyone. Other reason is Trump can get favors and distractions on tap for negotiating each case.

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#102

Post by tptacek »

aussieguy1234 wrote: post #84
tptacek wrote: post #73

This is performative and obviously stupid, but to add some technical color to it: in the alternate universe where this passed, rather than floating around as a signalling tool for Josh Hawley, ordinary violators would see nothing resembling a 20 year sentence. This statute falls under the 2M5 section of the sentencing guideline (for export violations); it has a base offense level of 14 (15-21 months) and is probation…

Too many people have it now. What would be likely to happen if the bill passed is selective enforcement. Many dictatorships have very broad laws that almost everyone inevitably breaks, but as long as you don't challenge the dictator or speak out against them in any way, you are safe. But the moment you speak out against the government, suddenly the law gets enforced, since in the governments eyes, you have now commit…

Among the many reasons this could never pass: it would require extensive cooperation with the Senate minority (the majority holds control by just a thread, and not by enough move anything but reconciliation bills through) which isn't going to cooperate on anything resembling this.

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#103

Post by stouset »

Defletter wrote: post #70
mattmaroon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk from TikTok is possibly not speculative at all. I think it’s quite likely the national security apparatus knows something and informed congressmen because they went from being opposed to it to being in favor of it in a short time.

While there may very well be security concerns, other countries have handled this by simply banning the app on government devices (eg: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tiktok-banned-on-uk-gover... ). You needn't ban the app nationwide to address those concerns. What I believe is more likely is that, this isn't about national security or data privacy, which could be addressed far more effectively with subject-approp…

The concerns are about adversarial foreign governments being able to silently target messages to highly-influenced demographics en masse.

I swear I have heard zero people opposed to the ban who seem to even be vaguely aware of that aspect which is the entire actual issue, and instead are completely confused and think it’s about spyware or hacking. Whether or not you agree with the ban, we need to actually be discussing the same underlying issue.

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#104

Post by RIMR »

cebert wrote: post #21

While he’s at it, he should also make cryptography and math illegal too.

No joke, the bill is so broad that is essentially would ban mathematics research if the math could contribute to AI development in any way whatsoever. So, essentially all math...

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#105

Post by dylan604 »

gruez wrote: post #41
pixl97 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, you tell me what happend to that Aaron guy that ran Reddit?

Thanks for proving my point. Schwartz was offered 6 months in a minimum security prison, but he declined it because he specifically wanted a trial. Moreover that was for effectively DoSing JSTOR, a much more serious crime than some guy using a vpn to download an AI model. I don't think 6 months was justified, nor the string of crimes he was charged with, but OP's assertion that "You get less jail time for committing…

Last I checked, 6 months is still more time than 0 time. Not sure your point with this comparison

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#107

Post by gruez »

SuperNinKenDo wrote: post #86
gruez wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for proving my point. Schwartz was offered 6 months in a minimum security prison, but he declined it because he specifically wanted a trial. Moreover that was for effectively DoSing JSTOR, a much more serious crime than some guy using a vpn to download an AI model. I don't think 6 months was justified, nor the string of crimes he was charged with, but OP's assertion that "You get less jail time for committing…

I think the issue under discussion is whether or not this kind of law is applied gently and with consideration to seriousness, or whether it tends to be used as a club to make an example of people. I think Swartz is seen as an example of it being used as a club to make an example of people.

>I think the issue under discussion is whether or not this kind of law is applied gently and with consideration to seriousness, or whether it tends to be used as a club to make an example of people.

I'm not sure how you got that impression from the original exchange of:

>>[...] You get less jail time for committing 34 felonies.

>up to 20 years. Realistically some kid downloading a model would get probation [...]

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#108

Post by aragonite »

mattmaroon wrote: post #32
dmix wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure it’s even worth speculating on a bill that’s merely been proposed. This one sounds DOA. But yeah TikTok ban was a very bad precedent, mostly because it was based on speculative risks, not hard proof of existing behaviour (TikTok not engaging didn't help at all either). Regardless of the merits I too hope it doesn’t have a ripple effect. National security is such a huge brush you could paint anything you want…

The risk from TikTok is possibly not speculative at all. I think it’s quite likely the national security apparatus knows something and informed congressmen because they went from being opposed to it to being in favor of it in a short time.

The ranking member (senior Democrat) on the intelligence committee voted against the ban (https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/tiktok-ban-jim-h...):

> One key for him is that it’s only a possible threat. Our best intelligence, including in a briefing for Congress from the Biden administration Tuesday, is that the Chinese government has not actually done the things the ban fears.

Also, from a recent All-In interview (https://www.happyscribe.com/public/all-in-with-chamath-jason...):

> I look to Jim Himes, who is the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, the ranking member. He's in what's called the Gang of Eight. He has the most exquisite access to intelligence. Jim voted against the ban. And I thought, you know what? If this guy is not seeing anything on the national security level.

> [00:44:36] There was an off the record or confidential briefing to the House Intelligence Committee. You think in that meeting, there was nothing that was very meaningful that was disclosed about TikTok?

> [00:44:45] Nothing that I had seen. Is it owned by the Chinese government? Absolutely. But is there a national security risk? I have not seen that.

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#109

Post by Defletter »

stouset wrote: post #103
Defletter wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there may very well be security concerns, other countries have handled this by simply banning the app on government devices (eg: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tiktok-banned-on-uk-gover... ). You needn't ban the app nationwide to address those concerns. What I believe is more likely is that, this isn't about national security or data privacy, which could be addressed far more effectively with subject-approp…

The concerns are about adversarial foreign governments being able to silently target messages to highly-influenced demographics en masse. I swear I have heard zero people opposed to the ban who seem to even be vaguely aware of that aspect which is the entire actual issue , and instead are completely confused and think it’s about spyware or hacking. Whether or not you agree with the ban, we need to actually be discuss…

That is speech.

I'm sorry but I have yet to see a single person who makes this point admit that it's a form of speech suppression. This is classic First Amendment precedent. Just because the speaker is someone you don't like, or its content is anti-American (or what have you), doesn't mean it's not protected speech.

Post reply on HN