Yes, The RESTRICT Act is that Bad
No, it does not "need context"
The RESTRICT Act was terrible out the gate. More inspection has revealed it’s even worse than we thought.
As the deep-dives progressed, this Patriot-Act-Part-II-level policy has earned more bi-partisan support. Because if there’s one thing we can count on Democrats and Republicans coming together on, it’s a bad idea.
Yes, the RESTRICT Act could penalize you for having a VPN, and no, as this article suggests, it does not “need context”.
The RESTRICT Act cracks down on technologies and applications from “foreign adversaries” in a dystopian manner. While there’s a list of the main countries of interest, China of course among them, “foreign adversaries” and the verbiage around it can basically mean anywhere that isn’t the US and has a problem with anything the US does at any point.
In reference to the types of technology this bill covers, this is the language used: “desktop applications,” “mobile applications,” “gaming applications,” “payment applications,” and “web-based applications.” They might as well have just said “anything that involves power to use,” but they might’ve raised some eye-brows. This collection of broad terminology can, without a doubt, include VPNs.
So, now that we’ve established which types of technologies and software and hardware the RESTRICT Act covers, which again, is basically everything (I think if you have a pen and a piece of paper from Canada you should be good, depends on interpretation), what violations does it cover? In other words, what would deem these technologies as undesirable?
Buckle in. *Takes deep breath* The RESTRICT Act would give the US Secretary of Commerce the power to “‘identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate … ‘any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property’ that the secretary determines to pose ‘an undue or unacceptable risk’ in several different areas. These include federal elections, ‘information and communications technology products and services,’ and ‘critical infrastructure or digital economy,’ as well as ‘coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States.’”
“Any risk arising from any covered transaction” - that could be pretty much any type of transaction.
“Undue or unacceptable risk” - could be anything.
“Information and communications technology products and services” - in our “digital economy” (another phrase the bill uses), could be anything.
“…to the detriment of the national security of the United States.” - Could be interpreted a million ways to Sunday.
This bill could be re-written to say “if you do anything with something that plugs in or is used on something that plugs in and it’s from a place that isn’t the US or even if it is and if you do something we don’t like we can punish you.”
Punishments include an up-to- $1 Million fine and also up to 20 years in prison.
When it comes to punishments, that’s when they get specific, go figure.
There are people out there downplaying this bill, saying it’s not so bad, that people like me are being alarmist. They said the same thing about the Patriot Act, the Telecomm Act of 1996, the invasion of Iraq…*this is the song that doesn’t end*…