Posted on 03/30/2023 6:04:17 AM PDT by Tench_Coxe
Would the RESTRICT Act—a.k.a. the TikTok ban bill—criminalize the use of VPNs? That's the rumor floating around about the legislation, which was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Mark Warner (D–Va.) earlier this month. Warner's office has said his bill wouldn't do this… but its broad language leaves room for doubt. And the act is still insanely far-reaching and could have a huge range of deleterious effects, even if it doesn't criminalize people using a VPN to access TikTok.
(snip)
The language describing who the RESTRICT ACT applies to is confusing at best. The commerce secretary would be authorized to take steps to address risks posed by "any covered transaction by any person," right? So what counts as a covered transaction? The bill states that this means "a transaction in which an entity described in subparagraph (B) has any interest." Entities described in subparagraph B are a "foreign adversary; an entity subject to the jurisdiction of, or organized under the laws of, a foreign adversary; and an entity owned, directed, or controlled by" either of these. Foreign adversaries can be "any foreign government or regime" that the secretary deems a national security threat.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Its hard to stomach, but the Uniparty is telling you who they deem is the enemy, (and to paraphrase 'Pogo'), and that enemy is us, as in the citizens of these United States that aren't 'part of the club', including the useful idiots that join the rent a mobs or gibsmedat train.
They went to great lengths to enable the fraud of 2020.
They are going to great lengths to hide whatever they were/are doing in Ukraine
They still are detaining without due process after 2 years people seeking redress of grievance--and I fear they can't afford to let any of those people speak (with all that implies).
Think about it: what is the Patriot Act, passed in the wake of 9/11, being used for?
Remember Hillarycare? The big outrage then was a potential prison sentence if you dared use a doctor outside the 'system'.
CBDCs? They WILL be used to force a China type social credit regime.
Have no doubt--this legislation is intended to jail dissenters. And I doubt Warner wrote it. It would be nice to know who did and make them famous.
Need more evidence? Lindsey Graham's deer in the headlights reaction when Watters asked him about it ("gee Jessie, I thought Fox would have my back. I'll have to talk to the Murdochs about your insolence")
Safe, effective. If you’re not doing anything wrong, blah, blah, blah. Sorta like the misnamed patriot act right. Once in place, it will NEVER go away. 🖕
Ref.: https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/BILLS-118s686is.pdf
Pg. 54
f) NO RIGHT OF ACCESS.
(1) IN GENERAL.
No provision of this Act shall be construed to create a right to obtain access to information in the possession of the Federal Government that was considered in making a determination under this Act that a transaction is a covered transaction or interest or to prohibit, mitigate, or take action against a covered transaction or interest, including any classified national security information or sensitive but unclassified information.
2) INAPPLICABILITY OF FOIA.
Any information submitted to the Federal Government by a party to a covered transaction in accordance with this Act, as well as any information the Federal Government may create relating to review of the covered transaction, is exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the “Freedom of Information Act”).
Understanding (or attempting to understand) what is a “Covered Transaction?”
Pg. 3
(4) COVERED TRANSACTION.
(A) IN GENERAL.
The term “covered transaction” means a transaction in which an entity described in subparagraph (B) has any interest (including through an interest in a contract for the provision of the technology or service), or any class of such transactions.
(B) COVERED ENTITIES.
The entities described in this subparagraph are:
(i) a foreign adversary;
(ii) an entity subject to the jurisdiction of, or organized under the laws of, a foreign adversary; and
(iii) an entity owned, directed, or controlled by a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
The more I learn about this, it becomes cliche’.
It should be of no surprise to FReepers that they’d gaslight the public in this manner.
Republicans supporting it should not only be held to account, but effectively punished.
Don’t believe rumors and just trust the government to do the right thing ... oh wait. I’ve warped into the wrong galaxy again.
The West’s kleptocratic ruling class are desperately trying preserve their fiefdoms built on skimming funds from sovereign debt backed governmental social programs before they collapse.
It actually reminds me of a Casino. At what point does the pit boss tell the card counter at the poker table: “ok, you were able to beat the House. But that’s all you get. We’ll let you keep what you’ve won, but we never want to see you in Vegas again.”
This stinker better be DOA if it ever gets to the House.
"skellmeyer 20 hours ago
It doesn’t just outlaw VPNs. It also outlaws electronic bank runs.
S 686 outlaws “(B) catastrophic effects on the security or resilience of the critical infrastructure or digital economy of the United States;…”
Technically, anyone who participates in a bank run could go to jail for having endangered the American digital economy. So, this bill would make electronic bank runs illegal, and every participant in such a bank run could be fined $250,000 and put in jail for 20 years. The banksters could put you in jail for trying to get your own money out of a bank.
You’ve got to admit, that’s a pretty neat trick."
Yet another chapter in a dystopia where the “Department of Justice” can always say, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
This is analogous to the way North Korea only produces radios that can access approved broadcasting outlets and forbids tuning in to foreign broadcasts with severe penalties.
Of course, under SB 686, the US is much more humane than North Korea. In North Korea, you'd get life in a labor camp at best for accessing forbidden media. In the US, you'd only get 20 years in prison and a million dollar fine at worst for using a VPN to access forbidden media.
Once again, we see that we have an evil party and a stupid party. Sometimes, they get together on a bill that is both evil and stupid. That's called bipartisanship.
I'm beginning to suspect, at least in Maine, Utah, and South Carolina, there is some sort of mechanism, not necessarily outright fraud, that keeps sending Graham, Romney types, and Collins back to the Senate under the Republican 'brand'. I can't imagine dimly aware voters would have these types of legislation being even considered in their name.
The Tik-Tok thing is just a small item in this monstrosity.
The Redheaded libertarian:
Let’s talk RESTRICT Act, DATA Act, violations of the US Constitution, and the deep state infiltration of our Constitutional republic.
https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1645876766354071552
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.