SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3ddb/restrict-act-insanely-broad-ban-tiktok-vpns
[...] The bill could have implications not just for social networks, but potentially security tools such as virtual private networks (VPNs) that consumers use to encrypt and route their traffic, one said. Although the intention of the bill is to target apps or services that pose a threat to national security, these critics worry it may have much wider implications for the First Amendment.
"The RESTRICT Act is a concerning distraction with insanely broad language that raises serious human and civil rights concerns," Willmary Escoto, U.S. policy analyst for digital rights organization Access Now told Motherboard in an emailed statement. [...]
[...] Under the RESTRICT Act, the Department of Commerce would identify information and communications technology products that a foreign adversary has any interest in, or poses an unacceptable risk to national security, the announcement reads. The bill only applies to technology linked to a "foreign adversary." Those countries include China (as well as Hong Kong); Cuba; Iran; North Korea; Russia, and Venezuela.
The bill's language includes vague terms such as "desktop applications," "mobile applications," "gaming applications," "payment applications," and "web-based applications." It also targets applicable software that has more than 1 million users in the U.S.
"The RESTRICT Act could lead to apps and other ICT services with connections to certain foreign countries being banned in the United States. Any bill that would allow the US government to ban an online service that facilitates Americans' speech raises serious First Amendment concerns," Caitlin Vogus, deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology's Free Expression Project, told Motherboard in an emailed statement. "In addition, while bills like the RESTRICT Act may be motivated by legitimate privacy concerns, banning ICT services with connections to foreign countries would not necessarily help protect Americans' privacy. Those countries may still obtain data through other means, like by purchasing it from private data brokers." [...]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday April 04, @03:17AM (5 children)
If I come to your house and shoot you, rather than being free to live there unmolested, uniformed men with guns will come shoot me instead. Infringing my freedom to commit murder and live where I want.
If you want a softer gradation where the nature of the denied freedoms are more... justifiable... there are thousands of areas where constant heated debate occurs within society. That's what the vast majority of politics is about. There's nothing innate or natural about the collection of laws that happen to be in place today. The restriction of not being able to buy crack cocaine was not gifted from god, or derived a priori from philosophical ponderings.
1% of the populace of the US is currently locked in jail. Right now. 10% have been. It's almost absurd to contend that no impunctions on freedom exist. What you might believe is that all the restrictions that exist today are good ones.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 04, @04:02AM (4 children)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04, @10:41AM (3 children)
The OP referred to the transition of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, as evidenced by the reference to Augustus. It's not so much about whether or not they were free compared to our standards of freedom today, and more about what was lost by Roman Citizens (which exclude quite a lot of non-citizens, such as slaves, agreed) in that transition. I think you'd find it hard to argue that Roman Citizens were freer under the Empire than they were under the Republic.
The OP is more of a warning of what is to come and an urging to (re-)read history in order to understand our future, and not so much a statement of equation of freedom(s).
Those who do not remember their history, and all that...
But if you insist, some self-reflection would not be misplaced:
- the US current still has institutionalized slavery (the imprisoned population, read your precious constitution and that amendment that explicitly carves out those folks as being allowed to be enslaved)
- the US has widespread brutal punishment by the police and the prison system, it's bloody barbaric what you folks do to others; your lack of a meaningful social welfare system, whether it is for the needy or the unable is another way in which those people get punished in ways that are unworthy of being called a developed country
- the US right is working very hard to curtail freedom of both religion and speech
- Corruption is rampant and institutionalized
- Regulatory capture ensures the status quo and works for the benefit of The Corporation (not even the State, the State has become subservient to The Corporation) not the citizenry
To stick with the Roman theme, and the fascis that were carried around by lictors as a symbol of power, I recommend you look at a checklist of "what makes a state fascist" and see how many actual, real freedoms you have, or whether they are token freedoms...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 04, @11:33AM
We already accept that people who are convicted of crimes lose some of their freedoms. It was a much looser standard for enslaving people in the Roman empire.
I find it interesting how quickly these sorts of narratives go off the rails. Freedom is now a right to take stuff from other people for the nebulous and moving target of "meaningful social welfare". My take is that the far better approach here is to have a meaningful economic system - the US does better here than most of the developed world and strongly curtail the power of government to take from its citizens for such purposes.
I'll note also that social welfare in the US seems meaningful enough.
What work is involved? Just ban the religions and speech you don't like. That one has to "work very hard" to curtail such indicates something else goes on.
And that differs from any other part of the developed world how? If we allow for degree of corruption then the US isn't doing so bad, and certainly isn't in Roman empire levels of corruption. I'll note also that social welfare in the US has been a bribe to go along with corruption. My take is that it has operated much the same through most of the developed world.
A narrative of ignorance - how else will the state monetize its power than by granting the occasional boon to those corporations? And of course, no point to complaining about status quo when you propose worse (such as that social welfare). Change for the worse is a great reason to stay with the status quo.
Businesses are an informal separation of power. Much of what otherwise would be unaccountable government activity lies in the private world where it can be sued and subject to rule of law.
My take remains that comparisons to the Roman empire are ridiculous especially future ones. We know the US will end one way or another. Tyranny is a common way these things end. And one can always imagine a very bad tyranny. It's not that relevant to the present since there's only so much you can do for future people - we don't have the power to coddle the distant future. If they insist on tyranny, we can't do much about that.
In other words, Romans leaders carry a bundle of sticks around on occasion and your choice to discount real freedoms for no reason. Non sequiturs. I suggest you go through that list yourself. I'd start with the big, obvious one - being able to communicate and believe what you want.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 04, @12:35PM (1 child)
As a demonstration of just how silly this last argument is, consider the recent spate [wikipedia.org] between Florida governor Ron DeSantis and Disney Corporation. Basically, Disney exercised freedom of speech to criticize some dumbass policy moves by DeSantis (such as banning scary discussion of non-heterosexuality in the school system) and DeSantis has struck back in a variety of abusive and often illegal ways. If your narrative were correct, this would never have happened. A mere state couldn't take on a powerful corporation, especially in a way that actually favors the corporation from a legal and moral standpoint!
But alas, the narrative is a bit in error.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 04, @01:41PM