ExomatrixTV
4th April 2023, 21:53
"The Restrict Act" Takes Away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS – Not Kidding!
ucUgC8qzWts
The “Restrict Act” being pushed through Congress with bipartisan support, ostensibly just to keep the Chinese government from spying on us, will allow the U.S. government to restrict the websites Americans can visit. In fact, by using a VPN to circumvent restrictions, Americans could possibly put themselves at risk of being sentenced to 20 years in prison. Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss this Draconian effort to monitor Americans’ online lives.
The RESTRICT Act (S. 686 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/)) is proposed legislation that was first introduced in the United States Senate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) on March 7, 2023.
Introduced by Senator Mark Warner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner), the Act proposes that the Secretary of Commerce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Commerce) be given the power to review business transactions involving certain information and communications technologies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_and_communications_technologies) products or services when they are connected to a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and pose an "undue and unacceptable risk" to the national security of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_of_the_United_States) or its citizens.
The RESTRICT Act is described as "a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercrime) to the security (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_security) and safety of Americans."[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:0-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:1-2) It grants the Secretary of Commerce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Commerce) the authority to review transactions by certain foreign entities who offer "information and communications technologies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_and_communications_technologies) products or services" (ICTS), in order to identify, investigate, and mitigate "undue and unacceptable" risks to the national security of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_of_the_United_States) or its citizens. This includes but is not limited to:[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-ReferenceA-3)
Impact to the country's critical infrastructure and digital economy,
"Sabotage or subversion" of ICTS in the United States
Interference and manipulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud) of federal elections
Undermining the democratic process to "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".
The Act applies to ICTS entities that are held in whole or in part by, or otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of a country or government that is designated under the Act as a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and has more than one million active users or units sold in the United States.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:0-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:1-2) The initial text of the Act classifies China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) (including Hong Kong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong) and Macau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macau)), Cuba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba), Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia), and the Nicolás Maduro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicol%C3%A1s_Maduro) regime of Venezuela (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela) as foreign adversaries.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-ReferenceA-3)
It would be unlawful for any person to violate any order or mitigation measure issued under the RESTRICT Act, with civil penalties of up to $250,000 or "twice the value of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed", whichever is greater, and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and up to 20 years imprisonment.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:2-4)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-ReferenceA-3)
Reception
While it was not mentioned by name by its sponsors, the RESTRICT Act has been characterized as a means to potentially restrict or prohibit the Chinese-owned video sharing service TikTok (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok) from conducting business in the United States.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:0-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:1-2)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:3-5)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:2-4)
The bill has faced bipartisan criticism for having a lack of judicial oversight and transparency in its enforcement mechanisms,[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6) and for containing wording broad and vague enough to potentially cover end-users (such as, for example, potentially criminalizing use of a VPN service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VPN_service) or sideloading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideloading) to access services blocked from doing business in the United States under the Act, due to the text stating that no person may "cause or aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, permit, or approve the doing of any act" that violates orders issued under the Act).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:3-5)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:2-4) Many individuals have negatively compared the bill to the Patriot Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act).[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Fox-7)
The American Civil Liberties Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union) (ACLU) expressed their opposition, arguing that the blocking of entire services violates the First Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) rights of citizens.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Fox-7) Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaal_Bowman) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation) (EFF) believed in regard to the bill's implied target that the federal government should instead prioritize internet privacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_privacy) legislation that also impacts U.S.-based companies.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6)
Republican U.S. Senators J.D. Vance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.D._Vance), Josh Hawley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Hawley), and Rand Paul (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul) have all expressed their opposition, with Paul considering it contradictory for Republicans to advocate "censor[ing] social media apps that they worry are influenced by the Chinese" while at the same time being opposed to censorship.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6) Vance and Hawley both noted that while they support a ban on TikTok (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_United_States), they felt the RESTRICT Act possessed too many negative implications.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Fox-7) Several Democratic officeholders, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez), also criticized the legislation, with Ocasio-Cortez believing that it was being rushed, and citing that Congress had never received any classified national security briefings related to TikTok.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6) Libertarian groups including the Mises Caucus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Caucus) and Reason Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Foundation) condemned the bill, with the former arguing that it would "gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad."[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Fox-7)
Warner's office stated that the bill was intended to target corporate entities "engaged in 'sabotage or subversion' of communications technology in the U.S." (such as causing harm to "critical infrastructure" or tampering with federal elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud)), and not target end-users necessarily, despite such wording not having been used in the bill itself, and has not commented on complaints about possible uses beyond the bill's stated intent.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:3-5)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:2-4)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act)
Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act or the RESTRICT Act
This bill requires federal actions to identify and mitigate foreign threats to information and communications technology (ICT) products and services (e.g., social media applications). It also establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations under the bill.
Specifically, the Department of Commerce must identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, and mitigate transactions involving ICT products and services (1) in which any foreign adversary (such as China) has any interest, and (2) that pose an undue or unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the safety of U.S. persons.
Additionally, Commerce must identify and refer to the President any covered holding (e.g., stock or security) that poses an undue or unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons. If the President determines that the holding poses such a risk, the President may compel divestment of or otherwise mitigate the risk associated with the holding.
Commerce may (1) designate any foreign government or regime as a foreign adversary upon a determination that the foreign government or regime is engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to U.S. national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons, and (2) remove such a designation. Commerce must notify Congress before making or removing a designation; these actions are subject to congressional disapproval.
The bill outlines (1) enforcement mechanisms, including actions by the Department of Justice; and (2) civil and criminal penalties for violations.
source (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/s686/summary)
1639934790026555394
ucUgC8qzWts
The “Restrict Act” being pushed through Congress with bipartisan support, ostensibly just to keep the Chinese government from spying on us, will allow the U.S. government to restrict the websites Americans can visit. In fact, by using a VPN to circumvent restrictions, Americans could possibly put themselves at risk of being sentenced to 20 years in prison. Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss this Draconian effort to monitor Americans’ online lives.
The RESTRICT Act (S. 686 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/)) is proposed legislation that was first introduced in the United States Senate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) on March 7, 2023.
Introduced by Senator Mark Warner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner), the Act proposes that the Secretary of Commerce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Commerce) be given the power to review business transactions involving certain information and communications technologies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_and_communications_technologies) products or services when they are connected to a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and pose an "undue and unacceptable risk" to the national security of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_of_the_United_States) or its citizens.
The RESTRICT Act is described as "a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercrime) to the security (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_security) and safety of Americans."[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:0-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:1-2) It grants the Secretary of Commerce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Commerce) the authority to review transactions by certain foreign entities who offer "information and communications technologies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_and_communications_technologies) products or services" (ICTS), in order to identify, investigate, and mitigate "undue and unacceptable" risks to the national security of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_of_the_United_States) or its citizens. This includes but is not limited to:[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-ReferenceA-3)
Impact to the country's critical infrastructure and digital economy,
"Sabotage or subversion" of ICTS in the United States
Interference and manipulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud) of federal elections
Undermining the democratic process to "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".
The Act applies to ICTS entities that are held in whole or in part by, or otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of a country or government that is designated under the Act as a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and has more than one million active users or units sold in the United States.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:0-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:1-2) The initial text of the Act classifies China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) (including Hong Kong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong) and Macau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macau)), Cuba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba), Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia), and the Nicolás Maduro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicol%C3%A1s_Maduro) regime of Venezuela (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela) as foreign adversaries.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-ReferenceA-3)
It would be unlawful for any person to violate any order or mitigation measure issued under the RESTRICT Act, with civil penalties of up to $250,000 or "twice the value of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed", whichever is greater, and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and up to 20 years imprisonment.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:2-4)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-ReferenceA-3)
Reception
While it was not mentioned by name by its sponsors, the RESTRICT Act has been characterized as a means to potentially restrict or prohibit the Chinese-owned video sharing service TikTok (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok) from conducting business in the United States.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:0-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:1-2)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:3-5)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:2-4)
The bill has faced bipartisan criticism for having a lack of judicial oversight and transparency in its enforcement mechanisms,[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6) and for containing wording broad and vague enough to potentially cover end-users (such as, for example, potentially criminalizing use of a VPN service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VPN_service) or sideloading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideloading) to access services blocked from doing business in the United States under the Act, due to the text stating that no person may "cause or aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, permit, or approve the doing of any act" that violates orders issued under the Act).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:3-5)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:2-4) Many individuals have negatively compared the bill to the Patriot Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act).[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Fox-7)
The American Civil Liberties Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union) (ACLU) expressed their opposition, arguing that the blocking of entire services violates the First Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) rights of citizens.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Fox-7) Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaal_Bowman) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation) (EFF) believed in regard to the bill's implied target that the federal government should instead prioritize internet privacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_privacy) legislation that also impacts U.S.-based companies.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6)
Republican U.S. Senators J.D. Vance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.D._Vance), Josh Hawley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Hawley), and Rand Paul (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul) have all expressed their opposition, with Paul considering it contradictory for Republicans to advocate "censor[ing] social media apps that they worry are influenced by the Chinese" while at the same time being opposed to censorship.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6) Vance and Hawley both noted that while they support a ban on TikTok (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_United_States), they felt the RESTRICT Act possessed too many negative implications.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Fox-7) Several Democratic officeholders, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez), also criticized the legislation, with Ocasio-Cortez believing that it was being rushed, and citing that Congress had never received any classified national security briefings related to TikTok.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6) Libertarian groups including the Mises Caucus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Caucus) and Reason Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Foundation) condemned the bill, with the former arguing that it would "gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad."[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Fox-7)
Warner's office stated that the bill was intended to target corporate entities "engaged in 'sabotage or subversion' of communications technology in the U.S." (such as causing harm to "critical infrastructure" or tampering with federal elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud)), and not target end-users necessarily, despite such wording not having been used in the bill itself, and has not commented on complaints about possible uses beyond the bill's stated intent.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:3-5)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:2-4)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-Salon-6)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act)
Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act or the RESTRICT Act
This bill requires federal actions to identify and mitigate foreign threats to information and communications technology (ICT) products and services (e.g., social media applications). It also establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations under the bill.
Specifically, the Department of Commerce must identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, and mitigate transactions involving ICT products and services (1) in which any foreign adversary (such as China) has any interest, and (2) that pose an undue or unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the safety of U.S. persons.
Additionally, Commerce must identify and refer to the President any covered holding (e.g., stock or security) that poses an undue or unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons. If the President determines that the holding poses such a risk, the President may compel divestment of or otherwise mitigate the risk associated with the holding.
Commerce may (1) designate any foreign government or regime as a foreign adversary upon a determination that the foreign government or regime is engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to U.S. national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons, and (2) remove such a designation. Commerce must notify Congress before making or removing a designation; these actions are subject to congressional disapproval.
The bill outlines (1) enforcement mechanisms, including actions by the Department of Justice; and (2) civil and criminal penalties for violations.
source (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/s686/summary)
1639934790026555394