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

VPN Users Risk 20-Year Jail Sentences in the US Under New Restrict Act

beincrypto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: VPN Users Risk 20-Year Jail Sentences in the US Under New Restrict Act

#31

Post by Supermancho »

gruez wrote: post #21
justizin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you think it’s reasonable to put someone in jail for 20 years for logging into a social media website? also: how are they going to determine that you did? what if you have malware on one of your devices and it accesses something banned?

>also: how are they going to determine that you did? Same as any crime. They have to prove that you did it (both that you did the act, and that you intended to do the act) to a judge or a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. > what if you have malware on one of your devices and it accesses something banned? If your concern is about being framed via malware, there are plenty of existing ways of doing so. eg. laws against C…

>>also: how are they going to determine that you did?

>Same as any crime. They have to prove that you did it (both that you did the act, and that you intended to do the act) to a judge or a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

...after taking your hardware and placing you under house arrest for a time, then putting you under a gag order (national security) while simultaneously setting up preventative monitoring of future VPN use, until the case resolves.

Re: VPN Users Risk 20-Year Jail Sentences in the US Under New Restrict Act

#33

Post by silisili »

HillRat wrote: post #20
gruez wrote: post #13

Which specific part of the bill allows "VPN users" to be punished with "20 year jail sentences"? Does the bill even ban VPNs? I skimmed the article and the linked tweet and can't find anything to that effect. The closest I can find is this >This could include VPNs if they are used to access banned websites such as TikTok. which seems like a standard anti-evasion provision. They're not going after your VPNs, people. W…

You can't be prosecuted under S.686 for accessing TikTok, with or without a VPN; the Act deals specifically with financial and contractual relations between foreign entities and US entities. So, sure, you could face up to twenty years if you, say, take knowing and affirmative steps to evade a specific Treasury declaration regarding your business (say, by concealing the fact that the People's Liberation Army has been…

I came to the same conclusion. I feel like people are just scrolling to the punishment section without actually having read anything above it.

Re: VPN Users Risk 20-Year Jail Sentences in the US Under New Restrict Act

#34

Post by nl »

fsociety999 wrote: post #24
gruez wrote: post #13

Which specific part of the bill allows "VPN users" to be punished with "20 year jail sentences"? Does the bill even ban VPNs? I skimmed the article and the linked tweet and can't find anything to that effect. The closest I can find is this >This could include VPNs if they are used to access banned websites such as TikTok. which seems like a standard anti-evasion provision. They're not going after your VPNs, people. W…

While I agree it is a bit of a clickbait headline, it is all about the precedent when it comes to this kind of thing. I think you are severely downplaying the risk here. Using vague language like that opens the door for them to crack down even harder. The government wants to monitor everything people do online and VPNs give people a way to opt out of that surveillance. It is a typical legislative move to add extra pr…

This is about using VPNs to avoid financial controls on transactions with a banned organization.

That's a different concern to monitoring communications. It's more like the Bianance thing where they were "we can't have US customers but we only ban you based on your IP address. Here's a link about how VPNs let you change your IP address".

Re: VPN Users Risk 20-Year Jail Sentences in the US Under New Restrict Act

#36

Post by boomboomsubban »

gruez wrote: post #13

Which specific part of the bill allows "VPN users" to be punished with "20 year jail sentences"? Does the bill even ban VPNs? I skimmed the article and the linked tweet and can't find anything to that effect. The closest I can find is this >This could include VPNs if they are used to access banned websites such as TikTok. which seems like a standard anti-evasion provision. They're not going after your VPNs, people. W…

>Whhich specific part of the bill allows "VPN users" to be punished with "20 year jail sentences"? Does the bill even ban VPNs

The bill allows communication technology to be investigated for vague security concerns, and then allows punishing those that are deemed threats.

This means they could investigate and punish some VPN provider, and someone could wake up one day and suddenly be committing a crime by connecting to the same VPN as the day before (I think? They may need their subscription to renew before a crime, I only skimmed the law). Sure there'd be an announcement, but it could still end in a potential 20 year sentence for connecting to a VPN.

It could even be a vague connection, like Russia is using this third party VPN provider to undermine democracy, so despite really doing nothing wrong we're banning the VPN.

You can certainly argue it's unlikely the law would be applied this way, or that users aren't at great risk of being targeted. But the headline claim is broadly true.

Re: VPN Users Risk 20-Year Jail Sentences in the US Under New Restrict Act

#37

Post by [deleted] »

walterbell wrote: post #19
TravelTechGuy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How to pass horrible bills: 1. Stuff them with truly horrible ideas. 2. Wait for public to scream. 3. Remove half of the horrible ideas (keeping the core crap, like no FOIAs, privacy violations etc.) hidden and spread amongst hundreds of subparagraphs. 4. Present this is as "fair compromise". Convince idiots from both sides of the aisle that this is good for national security. 5. Pass the law. 6. Profit?

Competitive LLM reviewers, trained on opinionated data and case law, will change the denial-of-Congress landscape of legislative complexity.

[deleted]

Re: VPN Users Risk 20-Year Jail Sentences in the US Under New Restrict Act

#38

Post by anigbrowl »

matrix12 wrote: post #5
anigbrowl wrote: post #3

This is wildly hyperbolic as far as I can see. The bill (which I do not endorse) is focused on threats to critical infrastructure and other natsec considerations from designated foreign enemies. Also, it's just been introduced and might not go anywhere.

But we've seen hyperbole become the status quo oh too often. Abuse will happen, and to the extent and beyond the limits of any new bills. Give them the power, and they will assuredly misuse it.

I'm saying the description of it is wildly hyperbolic, to the point of being deceptive. Again, this is not an endorsement of the bill.

Re: VPN Users Risk 20-Year Jail Sentences in the US Under New Restrict Act

#39

Post by anigbrowl »

eaurouge wrote: post #28
anigbrowl wrote: post #3

This is wildly hyperbolic as far as I can see. The bill (which I do not endorse) is focused on threats to critical infrastructure and other natsec considerations from designated foreign enemies. Also, it's just been introduced and might not go anywhere.

I haven't read the bill. But, "critical infrastructure", "natsec considerations", "foreign enemies", are such vague terms, that could be stretched to cover all sorts of unforeseen circumstances.

Go read it then, instead of judging it by a few phrases I wrote. I didn't have time to write an explainer essay today.

Re: VPN Users Risk 20-Year Jail Sentences in the US Under New Restrict Act

#40

Post by qbrass »

walterbell wrote: post #19
TravelTechGuy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How to pass horrible bills: 1. Stuff them with truly horrible ideas. 2. Wait for public to scream. 3. Remove half of the horrible ideas (keeping the core crap, like no FOIAs, privacy violations etc.) hidden and spread amongst hundreds of subparagraphs. 4. Present this is as "fair compromise". Convince idiots from both sides of the aisle that this is good for national security. 5. Pass the law. 6. Profit?

Competitive LLM reviewers, trained on opinionated data and case law, will change the denial-of-Congress landscape of legislative complexity.

"We're disregarding public comment over the matter after discovering the majority of the comments were from Russian bots."
Post reply on HN