Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bloop_bleep]

Well yes, suppose you declare yourself a nation unto one. I might find that acceptable, if you don't use public roads, services, utilities which exist as a result of organized society, etc. Which is to say if you want to make a mud hut out in the wilderness and flirt water safety laws on your tiny artificial creek that is OK. The problem is when you start affecting others too.

[lemon10]

On an individual level it obviously wouldn't work even if approached with the best of intentions.

But of course many people wouldn't approach it with good intentions. See, it turns out that stuff like slavery, murder, and rape are only crimes because the country you live in says they are.

You bet some people would totally form their own countries then ruthlessly abuse anyone they could get to join them.

But what if we made it so say, only cities/counties can form their own nations (presumably via local popular vote)?
In theory it might be a little better (since it won't result in the majority of people dying/being abused), but it still ends in tin pot dictatorships, company run cities where dumping toxic waste into the groundwater is legal and cults popping up everywhere across the country.

All in all it would work out like you expect most Liberterian wet dreams would, which is really poorly.

[Duuvian]

In an related note, going after VPNs is directly harmful to US foreign policy.

No one is going after ordinary citizens VPNs.

No, it's worded in a way that could be used in a courtroom (due to the breadth of the Act), targetted at ordinary citizen's VPNs who connect to a service the Act outlaws. How the DC appellate court rules on such an issue if/when brought would be determinative. It must be the DC court as judicial process is yanked to that court. Without having done research, I guess this court is likely one that has a strong relationship to DC powers, such as the agencies granted authority in the Act. Sort of like the FISA warrant's specific court.

However, does the US government lobby other governments to modify their laws to suit US legal interests? For example, if a service hosted in another country is used to violate the Act, would the US attempt to influence that government with sweet words, gifts, and potentially penalties? Is such a country in treaty with the US, or otherwise seek to keep on the US's good side? That would be by extension how this Act would impact VPN.

I also should note VPNs are also contrary to the financial interests of things like media companies, as they can be used to access media outside of the market, often for cheaper than in market. There are few industries in the US as able in capturing regulators and conducing government co-operation than media companies.

[Micro102]

Vague laws have always been made and used to punish groups that the ones who made them don't like. By being very vague they end up making a LOT of people end up breaking these laws, even by accident. And they don't intend to use these laws on every ordinary citizen, just the ones they feel like punishing.

A good example is loitering laws right around/after Jim Crow and black people. It was stupidly vague and allowed police to just arrest basically anyone if they felt like it, and they targeted black people. There are modern examples too if you take some time to google.

If everyone is guilty of using a VPN because of this law, then it gives the government another direction to punish people they don't like from. For example, if Edward Snowden used a VPN, you might see an additional charge on him for this "anti-espionage" act solely because he just used a VPN, and not with any evidence of intent of crime.

There must be clear protections in place.

[Maximum Spin]

Well yes, suppose you declare yourself a nation unto one. I might find that acceptable, if you don't use public roads, services, utilities which exist as a result of organized society, etc. Which is to say if you want to make a mud hut out in the wilderness and flirt water safety laws on your tiny artificial creek that is OK. The problem is when you start affecting others too.

The point I was making for several posts has been that, in practice, if someone "declared himself a nation unto one", he'd still have to keep paying taxes and bills for all those things, since being a citizen of another country already doesn't get you out of that, so what would be the problem with continuing to use them?

You seem to have this weird idea, which basically puts you in agreement with SovCits, that doing this would be some kind of get-out-of-laws-free card; where meanwhile I live in a world where people actually have done this and so far it has not collapsed civilization. In actual practice, it's just a theatrical pretense, so why should I care if people do it? —and it's certainly not an argument against letting larger communities that can actually, in practice, go it alone do so.

See, it turns out that stuff like slavery, murder, and rape are only crimes because the country you live in says they are. [...] You bet some people would totally form their own countries then ruthlessly abuse anyone they could get to join them. [...] In theory it might be a little better (since it won't result in the majority of people dying/being abused), but it still ends in tin pot dictatorships, company run cities where dumping toxic waste into the groundwater is legal and cults popping up everywhere across the country.

You don't really grasp the concept of "right of exit", do you.

(and there are already cults everywhere across the country)

[nenjin]

Why don't you describe what you think "Right of Exit" means.

[EuchreJack]

How are micronations related to AmeriPol?

Also, when is First Independent State of Maximum Spin going to issue stamps?

[Frumple]

Theoretically there's a few of them in north america (one in canada, few in the US), though most of the still existent ones seem to be more a joke than anything serious. I kinda' like the Nation of Celestial Space, though, as a concept if nothing else -- it was founded as an attempt to lay claim to everything that isn't earth, in order to prevent any country from trying to hold hegemony over outer space.

... less directly, it's emblematic of the sort of libertarian nonsense that gets people run out of towns by bears, which is unfortunately more influential in US politics than it would be were the world reasonable or just.

[Max™]

It's a Wikipedia link. If you don't like it, change it!

I have other things I would like to do with my time besides edit wikipedia articles and for that reason will never make an account.

[Duuvian]

Posting my notes on the Restrict Act so far. I'll likely revisit these sections, perhaps including those I skipped over in these notes, once I have completed my amateur analysis. I also need to note I am not familiar with congressional procedure, and that this is completely a layman's analysis. My prior experience consists of having read some variety of the applications of (mostly unrelated) law available to the public utilizing catalogueing software for court reasonings on decisions as well as having a substantial amount of experience utilizing the internet for research on topics for about 15 to 20 years, including some (but not all)  previous attempts to regulate the internet that I found troubling and attempted to oppose. This means I am not very qualified, but I am doing my best.

Restrict Act notes part 1:

Things to do still:
Research Secretary of Commerce office holder as well as read a list of predecessors
For 3.(b).(3) need to research what Subchapter II of chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title 5 of the USC is and why this Act needs to bypass it (also known as the Administrative Procedure Act) by saying it shall not apply to any referral by the Secretary to the President.
Cntrl+f "transaction" to see how the definitions of "covered transaction" and "transaction" are applied throughout; see 2.(4).(C) and 2.(17) notes.
Research application and enforcement of US civil judgments on foreign peoples, entities or holdings.

Section 2 (Definitions)
2.(3).(B)
(B) includes any other holding, the struc-
ture of which is designed or intended to evade
or circumvent the application of this Act, sub-
ject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

Note the "any other holding", I'm pretty sure this does not limit to foreign adversaries as the (A) above this (B) specifically details foreign adversaries while this specifically does not. VPNs I think ^. Note this is only a definition, it's necessary to check to see how this definition is used throughout (not completed yet)


2.(4).(C)
covered transactions include ANY OTHER ACTION the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent application of the act, subject to regulations prescribed by Secretary.
Users of VPN ^ potentially, depends on how this definition is used throughout as above.

2.(14)
(14) RELEVANT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND
AGENCY HEADS.—The term ‘‘relevant executive department and agency heads’’ means—
 (A) the Secretary of Treasury;
 (B) the Secretary of State;
 (C) the Secretary of Defense;
 (D) the Attorney General;
 (E) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
 (F) the United States Trade Representative;
 (G) the Director of National Intelligence;
 (H) the Administrator of General Services;
 (I) the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission; and
 (J) the heads of other executive departments and agencies, as appropriate.


2.(15)
Lists relevant committees of both Houses of Congress. There are listed 8 Senate committees and 9 in the House of Representatives if I counted correctly. This is important for Section 7, in which the Act creates what I'd guess is a very unusual procedure that seems to put in avenues to hinder "joint resolutions of disapproval". Please understand that I am not familiar with normal congressional procedure so I may very likely be incorrect, but for example, the relevant committees (17 in total) have 10 days to report on these "joint resolutions of disapproval", after which if the committees do not report them it proceeds to the floor with no debate for a vote. I think that this means if it is to be blocked, only one committee out of 17 needs to disapprove. While passing through this process is seemingly quite automatic should it not attract attention of the committees, it also appears to mean it can be stopped easily. Also this is AFTER the Secretary has designated a new foreign adversary, or removed one,
perhaps meaning it will be easier for the Secretary to designate or remove foreign adversaries than for Congress to express it's displeasure should a single committee wish to block the joint resolution of approval. However, I am not sure if a joint resolution of disapproval must pass all, some, or a specific committee depending on subject. The reading suggests all as it uses the term "relevant commitees" plural and the "relevant committees" are listed here.


2.(16) Secretary refers to the Secretary of Commerce (gonna have to check on who this is)


2.(17) defines "transaction" extremely broadly. Note it appears to differ from "covered transaction"; see 2.(4).(C). Notably covers "use of ANY information and communications technology product or service, including...) Unless this definition is used specifically only in regards to foreign adversaries, these two "transaction" definitions are vast and absurd. Still need to check how this is used throughout as it's a mere definition (not completed yet).


Section 3


3.(a)
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation
with the relevant executive department and agency heads,
is authorized to and shall take action to identify, deter,
disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing,
and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk
arising from any covered transaction by any person, or
with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States that the Secretary determines—

3.(a).(1) follows with a reasonable list of specific things a government should worry about foreign adversaries doing. However the following 3.(a).(2) is more problematic.

 
3.(a).(2)
(2) otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable
risk to the national security of the United States or
the safety of United States persons.

This is very open to interpretation. Sometimes (EDIT: unnecessary but IMO somewhat accurate language removed) people (wrongly in my opinion) think video games, legally regulated porn and sometimes even violent movies would qualify for example under the "undue or unacceptable risk to... the safety of United States persons" rather than being an expression of constitutionally protected speech (which has exceptions for obscenity that "serves no public purpose" in case law if I'm remembering correctly and that the definition of obscenity can vary from person to person though courts are able to determine it with weight of law; it's been a while since I read on the issue)


3.(b).1
(B) with respect to a transaction found to
pose an undue or unacceptable risk and qualify
as a covered transaction, determine whether—
(i) the covered transaction should be
prohibited; or...

Transactions huh. In relation to prohibiting. See notes 2.(4).(C) and 2.(17) once again for transactions definitions. Also see 3.(a).(2).


Section 4
(a) Take the Section 3 notes above, allow the Secretary (in consultation with the relevent department and agency heads) to refer them to the President, and then the President has sole authority to take such action as seems appropriate to them. Also the relevant department and agency heads listed in definitions (beacons of civil liberties surely all) are the sole advisors the Secretary is allowed to consult prior to a referral to the President, and they may lobby for a referral to the Secretary.


4.(b).(2) says until regulations are established by the Secretary, the Secretary has the power to make referrals to the President solely on the Secretary's judgment that it is in the interest of national security (plain reading suggests even to any theoretical degree, and this seems like plain reading for a judge to mandatorily side with the Secretary unless it is unconstitutional, as it's authorized simply by belief rather than a standard of evidence prior).


4.(c).(1).(B)
(B) any tangible or intangible assets, wher-
ever located, are used to support or enable use
of the product or software of the entity in the
United States; and...

I think this does implicate VPNs that allow prohibited access and would place them under the civil jurisdiction of US district courts, see 4.(c).(4). This is because (A) just above this (B) is for US located assets and deliberately says as much while (B) specifically says "wherever located". For things that in my ignorance I think are normally outside of jurisdiction (by not having assets in the US for example), civil suit could, unless I am incorrect, be brought to bear as US district courts now have civil jurisdiction granted to them by this Act for "wherever located" and otherwise non-covered entities for ENABLING use of the prohibited product within the US.


4.(c).(4)
(4) ENFORCEMENT OF DIVESTMENT.—The
President may direct the Attorney General to seek
appropriate relief, including divestment relief, in the
district courts of the United States in order to implement and enforce this subsection.

"Appropriate relief" would, I assume and with a good chance of being incorrect, also include civil lawsuits as mentioned in the note on 4.(c).(1).(B) if divestment of US holdings is not possible (due to lacking them?). I have yet to research how US civil court's decisions are enforced outside of the country, though I'm fairly certain it's possible, though if so likely depending on location for enforcement.


Section 5 TO BE CONTINUED

[Dostoevsky]

Congressional and regulatory procedure is my day job so I'm not especially keen to do it on weekends... and I also have a few choresI need to take care of today. But I can provide a few short notes for now:

- First, as noted before this isn't on the Senate floor as best I can tell. It was introduced and formally referred to committee - a process which involves senate floor activity, but isn't actually having the bill up for consideration. In the Senate bills are only referred to a single committee (with some rare exceptions), and in this case it's been referred to the Commerce, Science, and Technology committee, chaired by Sen. Maria Cantwell. Once in committee, in order to get to the floor it'll either have to be formally reported out (preferably, but not necessarily, favorably) or formally discharged via the Senate floor. That latter action could happen either via a vote or via 'UC' - Unanimous Consent. The Senate has a lot of rules, but any & all can be waived with UC. On the flipside it only takes a single senator's voiced opposition to block any & all UC requests.

For now, at least, I haven't heard any chatter about this moving, but my work doesn't typically touch in this realm so I may be missing something. The committee hasn't held any legislative hearings or done a markup yet.


- The APA (Administrative Procedure Act) is the generally controlling set of statutory requirements for how agencies may take substantive actions. This includes formal rules (e.g. food nutrition standards), guidance documents (non-binding suggested practices), etc. Most of the requirements here are about formal public notice, opportunities for public comment, that sort of thing. These requirements can be judicially enforced, potentially suspending or throwing out agency actions if those agencies don't follow proper procedure. There are exceptions of which some of this law would probably already fit under, but providing broad exemptions here means that its various timing, public notice, and public participation provisions would not apply (and could not be enforced against it).

Note that some agencies or statutes have their own APA-equivalents or are exempt, so the APA doesn't universally apply.

I imagine proponents would argue that the adversarial / national security angle require being able to act nimbly and discreetly and thus should not be bound by the APA.


- By my read, the 'any other holding' could potentially include a VPN company to the extent the government considers it intended to circumvent the act (which I could see being the case, depending on how a VPN company plays its cards).


- For 'any other action', note that it applies to "an entity described in subparagraph (B)" - i.e. a holding, not an individual.


- On 'transaction', it's a definition that 'covered transaction' relies on. So covered transactions are a subtype of transaction. And from skimming the rest of the bill, its provisions only apply to covered transactions (or transactions intended to evade being covered in a few cases, which can get nebulous).


- On enforcing US civil court judgments on other countries, this isn't that uncommon a situation. If the person/entity who has a judgment against them has no US assets or isn't present or is just diplomatically tricky to deal with, they can evade enforcement pretty darn easily. It comes down to US international relations. This is an area I'm not terribly familiar with, though.

[hector13]

Texas Republicans want to pardon a convicted murderer based on “stand your ground” laws, despite the murderer’s social media posts implying he would be quite happy to shoot protesters, his driving a car toward a group of them, and evidently lying about being at risk.

According to the BBC he wound down his window before shooting Foster, which is an awfully considered action for being in fear of your life, though in the articles I’ve read elsewhere don’t mention that so I don’t know how accurate that is. Another article linked on the Wikipedia page about the article said that Foster’s legally carried assault rifle had its safety on and no bullet chambered - I imagine a former member of the army would be aware of such a thing, and that readying the weapon should only happen if you have intent to discharge the weapon.

All in all, a shower of shite.

Edit: In other gun related news, the mother of the child that shot the teacher in Virginia has been charged. One count of felony child neglect, and one misdemeanor for recklessly leaving s loaded firearm so as to endanger a child, which seems like a very serious thing to only be a misdemeanor.

Oh hey there’s also been another mass shooting, this time in Kentucky. Happy Monday I guess. Thoughts and prayers from the Republicans I imagine.

[EuchreJack]

Anyone can be pardoned. Usually, pardons are handed out to relatives of Campaign Contributors, and they're usually for Rape and Embezzlement, but hey Texans can ask for whomever they want.

There has been an increase in charges against the parents of child mass shooters, the question is whether any will stick in the long run. It's been attempted before, but I don't think they stuck.

[None]

Anyone can be pardoned. Usually, pardons are handed out to relatives of Campaign Contributors, and they're usually for Rape and Embezzlement, but hey Texans can ask for whomever they want.

Contextually, this is a non-statement. What's your point?

[EuchreJack]

Anyone can be pardoned. Usually, pardons are handed out to relatives of Campaign Contributors, and they're usually for Rape and Embezzlement, but hey Texans can ask for whomever they want.

Contextually, this is a non-statement. What's your point?

How is that a non-statement?
What does "non-statement" even mean?