It seems completely unnecessary to specifically mention VPNs though. It shouldn't matter whether you funded terrorist organizations over the public internet vs through a VPN, either should be equally illegal.

>It seems completely unnecessary to specifically mention VPNs though

"VPN" occurs exactly zero times in the bill.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...

Thanks, I need to stop taking comments at face value when people are talking about stuff like this.

While VPNs are not mentioned explicitly, there is very clear language that talks about attempting to evade the rules, which would clearly apply to VPNs.

Furthermore, some have pointed out that the language of the bill could force providers to start tracking what users do.

I’ve encountered quite a few “but the bill says nothing about VPNs” comments and those seem to be problematic takes.

The bill doesn’t mention TikTok either.

>Furthermore, some have pointed out that the language of the bill could force providers to start tracking what users do.

Source?

Here are two discussion subthreads that go down this path, and most of the threads here on HN have some variation of this exploration [0] [1].

The key issue seems to be the very open ended language about attempting to circumvent or aiding in the circumvention of any enacted restrictions.

As written, this seems to potentially impact both users of VPNs and VPN providers.

- [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35367684

- [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35369570

AFAIK it doesn't actually mention VPNs specifically

I think it's fine.

The lawmakers aren't evil mustache twirling villains, they're trying to create a law and they wrote it as sensibly as they reasonably would in their circumstance and people on the internet are blowing it way out of proportion.

Blowing things up like this is a thing the internet, America in general, has problems with. The TTP, If you remember that one, was another one that people absolutely tried to crush and it turned out it was actually a really good idea that we should have been part of.

The reaction to this is scarily similar, and it's going to be resulting in a similar loss if it gets shut down.

In all hopes they buckle down, put down some revisions to neuter some of the more egregious things people are complaining about, and the law passes with those extra protections.

The TPP was not a good idea and it was great that Trump shut it down.

It was a very good idea, and by shutting it down we basically handed a huge amount of power to China in the degree deal between a bunch of southeast Asian nations is one led by them instead of us.

Trump's withdrawal from that agreement was one of the most catastrophic decisions the United States government has made in the last 20 years.

Even his opponent: Hillary Clinton was firmly against the TPP:

"I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election and I’ll oppose it as president.”

The TPP's 5,000+ pages actually had very little to do with trade. Instead, corporations tried to turn it into a wish list for policies that they knew would never pass through Congress.

Both Hillary and Obama were in support of the law before populist outrage showed up and they had to pivot.

They were in favor of it because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. Half of the restrictions and changes were ones that literally didn't affect America and just brought other countries up to the Americans standard.

They pivoted because a extraordinary, vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum were against the TPP - extensive opinion polling already showed this. Calling this as as "populist" instead of "democratic" is a new spin nowadays to naysay the beliefs of American citizens.

> because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world.

No, it wasn't a good law. It would have raised the cost of drugs significantly. The pharma bros are already billionaires. We don't need them to get richer. It had no protection for low-income American workers - esp auto workers. TPP would have led to a mass offshoring of jobs. Frankly, I do not wish this to devolve into a discussion on TPP, because its disadvantages and non-trading related addendums were already covered by media on both the left and the right.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-worke...

https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-...

> They pivoted because a extraordinary, vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum were against the TPP - extensive opinion polling already showed this. Calling this as as "populist"

Do you know what populist means? Short term appeal to voters instead of long term and more difficult decision making.

> No, it wasn't a good law. It would have raised the cost of drugs significantly.

Yeah. For other countries. America already pays these prices. In fact, a lot of that is what lets these drugs exist for other countries in the first place.

This likely would have *lowered* the price for Americans.

> Short term appeal to voters instead of long term and more difficult decision making.

Hah, the American voter is far more brighter than HN folks give them credit for. They have to look out for their interests since the elite most certainly wont.

No, the drug prices wouldn't have reduced. Come now - provide your logical reasoning why the drug prices would have reduced ? Do you really think the Pharma industry would have gained suddenly gained sympathy after achieving a perfect stanglehold?

The US imports >50% of its generic drugs from nations who have none to minimal drug patent protection policies and thats how it keeps it's citizens alive. You would have had the pharma billionaires choke this supply too.

Because you would have gotten even more Tiktoks?

Every modern bill for free trade agreements is perverted into a corporate wishlist to the detriment of most people.

What do you believe would have been the key benefit?

Even more tick tocks? China wasn't part of the deal, it was a bunch of other nations that aren't China, and trade with them is almost entirely great.

There were, at best, some good parts. Then, there's the stuff granting multinational corporations the ability to sue governments for harming their profits.

Villains who twirl their moustache are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged. - Picard