US Lawmaker: RESTRICT Act does not target any individual user of VPN
1–10 of 12 posts
Re: US Lawmaker: RESTRICT Act does not target any individual user of VPN
#2Based on past performance, I do not believe them. They may as well have been winking and nudging their friends while saying this...
Re: US Lawmaker: RESTRICT Act does not target any individual user of VPN
#3Just like the PATRIOT Act “only” targeted terrorists. It was an “accident” and they didn’t “wittingly” mean to bulk collect US Citizens.
Everything the government touches goes to shit. They WILL ALWAYS abuse the power they obtain.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/americas-top-spy-james-clapper-mad...
https://apnews.com/article/business-33a88feb083ea35515de3c73...
Fuck these liars.
Re: US Lawmaker: RESTRICT Act does not target any individual user of VPN
#4The opinions of lawmakers is not relevant; the text of the law is.
Re: US Lawmaker: RESTRICT Act does not target any individual user of VPN
#5The opinions of lawmakers is not relevant; the text of the law is.
Well, that’s not true.
While it’s correct that the statutory language predominates in a question of construction, the first place that anyone would look to make an argument about how a statute should be interpreted is, in the absence of case law, to the legislative history of the bill including what the sponsors said their intent was at the time of the bill.
Now, you are right insofar as a law that says “thou shalt not kill” is probably not going to get to the point where we are arguing about ambiguity. But to say the opinions of the lawmakers are not relevant is false.
Re: US Lawmaker: RESTRICT Act does not target any individual user of VPN
#6But it also COULD because it is overly broad. Vote it down and try again.
Perhaps take a look at the Unix philosophy of command line tool design. Do one thing, do it well.
Re: US Lawmaker: RESTRICT Act does not target any individual user of VPN
#7BS. Don't tell us your opinion or presumed intentions. Put it in the bill itself, which is broad enough to touch every technology that uses the internet.
Re: US Lawmaker: RESTRICT Act does not target any individual user of VPN
#8The opinions of lawmakers is not relevant; the text of the law is.
Well, that’s not true. While it’s correct that the statutory language predominates in a question of construction, the first place that anyone would look to make an argument about how a statute should be interpreted is, in the absence of case law, to the legislative history of the bill including what the sponsors said their intent was at the time of the bill. Now, you are right insofar as a law that says “thou shalt n…
This position is totally at odds with that of many members of the US Supreme Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism
Re: US Lawmaker: RESTRICT Act does not target any individual user of VPN
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that’s not true. While it’s correct that the statutory language predominates in a question of construction, the first place that anyone would look to make an argument about how a statute should be interpreted is, in the absence of case law, to the legislative history of the bill including what the sponsors said their intent was at the time of the bill. Now, you are right insofar as a law that says “thou shalt n…
This position is totally at odds with that of many members of the US Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism
No, because no one has yet taken the position that Supreme Court justices make arguments about how to interpret statutes. The opinions of lawmakers would of course have no relevance when a textual originalist was making a decision.
However, my indisputable point remains and always will: the opinion of the lawmaker is not irrelevant. You may be able to point to a person to whom it is not relevant, and you may be able to argue about what relevant means (hint FRCP 401; and “relevance is a low bar”), and you may even dispute whether this interview counts as legislative history, but you will not be able to successfully dispute the relevance of legislative history.
Re: US Lawmaker: RESTRICT Act does not target any individual user of VPN
#10Then put that explicitly in the bill, but they won't!