US You will not be jailed for 20 years if you use TikTok after its banned—despite internet fear-mongering - "It's a nonsensical rumor."

You will not be jailed for 20 years if you use TikTok after its banned—despite internet fear-mongering

Crypto bros are pushing an inaccurate narrative that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is fighting the RESTRICT ACT.

www.dailydot.com

AOC Spoke Out Against a TikTok Ban—But Not the RESTRICT Act

archived 28 Mar 2023 18:40:43 UTC

archive.ph

You will not be jailed for 20 years if you use TikTok after its banned—despite internet fear-mongering

David Covucci
Posted on Mar 28, 2023

It’s been a week big week for TikTok on Capitol Hill as its CEO testified before Congress and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he would push forward on legislation intended to ban the app.

But now, misinformation about the ban coming from Congress is swirling online, with a number of users concerned that legislation will jail people who try to circumvent it.
This month, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) introduced the RESTRICT Act, an effort to give President Joe Biden more leverage to force a sale of the app to a U.S. company. The bill got the swift support of Biden, giving the general public the impression it might rapidly work its way through Congress.
A provision in the bill though is causing alarm online, with users believing the RESTRICT Act would jail Americans for up to 20 years for using a Virtual Private Network (VPN). VPNs can help mask the location of a user, and in theory, could be used to get around a TikTok ban.

Although the bill doesn’t explicitly cite VPNs, it notes anyone violating the statutes of the law would face stiff penalties and that, if made law, the government would be able to use many means of monitoring internet communications to enforce it.

https://twitter.com/LolOverruled/status/1640496874846138372?s=20

Lolo (@LolOverruled)

Senate Bill 686, The Restrict Act, wants to put you in jail for 20 years for using a VPN for using a website or app is operated by a “foreign adversaries.” These are the foreign adversaries btw

nitter.poast.org

https://twitter.com/realjoshuareid/status/1640555559526047744?s=20

Joshua Reid (@realjoshuareid)

🚨The RESTRICT ACT S 686 is a massive violation of our 4th Amendment Rights and an complete Nationalization of the internet. @SenateGOP if you attempt to pass this Bill, you will be sealing the nail in the coffin of Freedom and expect a 80 + Million Americans to be as pissed as the colonist at...

nitter.poast.org

Spoiler: MEDIA: attached video

Privacy Frontend Nitter (Poast.org) if Kiwi Farms video loading is being gay:

Joshua Reid (@realjoshuareid)

🚨The RESTRICT ACT S 686 is a massive violation of our 4th Amendment Rights and an complete Nationalization of the internet. @SenateGOP if you attempt to pass this Bill, you will be sealing the nail in the coffin of Freedom and expect a 80 + Million Americans to be as pissed as the colonist at...

nitter.poast.org

An article this morning on BeinCrypto furthered the VPN claim, saying “If passed, the new legislation will grant the U.S. government sweeping powers to crack down on any technologies and services it sees as a threat. Remarkably, that includes VPN technology … The scary part is the potential punishment for violators. This includes fines of up to a million dollars or 20 years in jail, or both.”

However, the stipulation for punishments in the bill involves violations that threaten national security and try to undermine elections, not likely intended for the average user just trying to post videos. A spokesperson for Warner explicitly said that the punishments in the bill would not be used against ordinary citizens.

“Under the terms of the bill, someone must be engaged in ‘sabotage or subversion’ of American communications technology products and services, creating ‘catastrophic effects’ on U.S. critical infrastructure, or ‘interfering in, or altering the result’ of a federal election, in order to be eligible for any kind of criminal penalty … To be extremely clear, this legislation is aimed squarely at companies like Kaspersky, Huawei, and TikTok that create systemic risks to the United States’ national security—not at individual users,” a spokesperson for Warner told the Daily Dot.

Meanwhile, as the mood in Congress seems to move unanimously toward a ban, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) joined the app and released a video calling a TikTok ban “unprecedented,” saying she does not support it.

Spoiler: MEDIA: Some thoughts on TikTok…

SOURCE: https://www.tiktok.com/@aocinthehouse/video/7214318917135830318?refer=embed

Privacy frontend ProxiTok if Kiwi Farms video loading is being gay:

Video - ProxiTok

cringe.whatever.social

In the video, Ocasio-Cortez pointed the focus back at social media companies in general, and how the U.S. does not have nationwide data and privacy protections. Congress, she said, needs to “protect Americans from this kind of egregious data harvesting”

Somehow, though, Ocasio-Cortez got mixed with misinformation about the RESTRICT Act, fooling some crypto bros into believing she worked to stop the looming bill.

https://twitter.com/cory_eth/status/1640226586313261058?s=20

cory.eth (@cory_eth)

AOC one of 7 no votes on the RESTRICT Act (S. 686) is her most based and important vote yet. $250,000 fine for using a VPN to access content. 400+ of your Reps voted for it.

nitter.poast.org

“AOC one of 7 no votes on the RESTRICT Act (S. 686) is her most based and important vote yet. $250,000 fine for using a VPN to access content. 400+ of your Reps voted for it,” wrote one.

The RESTRICT Act has been proposed but not voted on. And Ocasio-Cortez is in the House of Representatives. The bill was introduced in the Senate.

“Never thought I’d agree with AOC on anything in my lifetime, but here we are. The RESTRICT act aims to eradicate any semblance of digital privacy, the societal implications of which are enormous,” wrote another.

https://twitter.com/juanaxyz00/status/1640348927013830656?s=20

Juan | The Sovereign Chimpanzee (@juanaxyz00)

Never thought I’d agree with AOC on anything in my lifetime, but here we are. The RESTRICT act aims to eradicate any semblance of digital privacy, the societal implications of which are enormous. Feeling dystopian yet?

nitter.poast.org

Regardless of whether Ocasio-Cortez actually voted against the RESTRICT Act, her opposition to a TikTok ban makes her one of a small few in Congress who have spoken out to support the act.

 

[Computer Guardian]

Can't wait for the jurnoscum to start huffing that copium when they get put against the wall after thier usefulness runs out.

 

[rel=alternate]

Now, try to say TND and see what happens you cis white terrorist man.

You can keep grooming 14yos on the Tik Tok though, are you not happy goy?

ETA:

It seems like the government deciding to suddenly change some type of driving regulation where they can randomly decide to bend you over and gang rape you. Then turn around to say "bro, you can still drive wherever you want, kinda, why not happy?"

 

[TowinKarz]

Maybe not me, but, what about someone 20 years down the line who the PTB want removed from the public eye for their agitation for whom this becomes, through "clever interpretation" by the courts, the casus belli for prosecution?

The last 20 years have proved definitively that the Government needs less power, and if that isn't feasible, it at least needs no NEW power.

 

[DiggieSmalls]

if made law, the government would be able to use many means of monitoring internet communications to enforce it.

oh that makes everything so much better. thanks for clearing that up mr journo

 

[Pixy]

That doesn't mean you shouldn't be jailed for it.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

Debooked! Deboonked! We took your concerns, made a strawman of it and DEBOOOONKED it!

I am protecting democracy! I am helping stop disinformation! Oh lord im gonna DEBOOOOOOOOOONK!

 

[Bland Crumbs]

Just like gas stove bans.
Vaccine mandates.
Masks working.
Troons being peaceful.
BLM being a legitimate organization.
And the most secure election ever.
Just another baseless conspiracy theory that we will see proven true.

 

[Too Many Catgirls]

The RESTRICT Act is a power grab.

Get armed. Get ready. Only discuss it in person with trusted friends.

 

[Burd Turglar]

Oh thank gooddness a "journalist" has told me that my eyes are in fact lying to me!

Now if you will all excuse me, I'm going to drive alone in my car wearing a surgical mask because I love the smell of my own breath 24/7 and NPR be bumpin right now fam!

 

[The Last Stand]

Does that mean the Kia Boyz will finally get prosecution? Or this just applies to those not worthy of the current climate?

 

[WelfareNiggerQueen]

This will lead to the quality of /k/ to improve significantly.

The level of mouth breather IQ to turn "ban TikTok" into "Patriot Act Turbo AIDS Gigger Nigger 6 million Ultra SUPREME neo-holocaust Nagasaki anal pounding" is pretty amazin.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

The RESTRICT Act is a power grab.

Get armed. Get ready. Only discuss it in person with trusted friends.

Good thing I don't trust anyone. Not even myself.

This will lead to the quality of /k/ to improve significantly.

The level of mouth breather IQ to turn "ban TikTok" into "Patriot Act Turbo AIDS Gigger Nigger 6 million Ultra SUPREME neo-holocaust Nagasaki anal pounding" is pretty amazin.

It also makes using a VPN a felony, supposedly. You know. That thing you need to use to access this site 80% of the time?

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

If I was president I’d make it the death penalty.

 

[Spicey McHaggis]

Damn it, the headline got my hopes up. Also 20 years for tik tokers is far too lenient.

 

[Toolbox]

Good thing I don't trust anyone. Not even myself.

It also makes using a VPN a felony, supposedly. You know. That thing you need to use to access this site 80% of the time?

US politicians going full China. Should have expected it.

 

[Secret Messages]

The EFF says…

The real solution: consumer data privacy legislation​

There are legitimate data privacy concerns about all social media platforms, including but not to limited TikTok. They all harvest and monetize our personal data and incentivize other online businesses to do the same. The result is that detailed information about us is widely available to purchasers, thieves, and government subpoenas.
That’s why EFF supports comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation.
Consider location data brokers, for example. Our phone apps collect detailed records of our physical movements, without our knowledge or genuine consent. The app developers sell it to data brokers, who in turn sell it to anyone who will pay for it. An anti-gay group bought it to identify gay priests. An election denier bought it to try to prove voting fraud. One broker sold data on who had visited reproductive health facilities.
If China wanted to buy this data, it could probably find a way to do so. Banning TikTok from operating here probably would not stop China from acquiring the location data of people here. The better approach is to limit how all businesses here collect personal data. This would reduce the supply of data that any adversary might obtain.

Another news outlet says:

[about the RESTRICT act] The new legislature proposes to give the U.S. Secretary authority to execute bans or exclusions on any "information and communications technology products and services holdings that pose undue or unacceptable risk," with the unacceptable risks and exclusions to be determined and recommended by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, or the Director of National Intelligence. The bill allows any attempts to circumvent the exclusions or bans — using a VPN or proxy — to be punished with a fine of up to $1 million or up to 20 years in prison.

Does this read like good news for anyone?

Step 1) Make a bill titled the “Stop things you don’t like bill.”

Step 2) In the bill, give the government permission to control all things.

They do this shit every day, only this time, more people are falling for it than usual.