Yes, The US Government Threatening To Block TikTok Violates The 1st Amendment
from the free-speech-until-china-builds-a-successful-app? dept
You may have heard that the Biden administration has told TikTok that it must be divested from ByteDance or it will be banned in the US. At least that’s what TikTok said the administration has said. The end result of this might well be that ByteDance divests of TikTok, but we should be clear: the threat, and any potential block, would be a clear, blatant, dangerous violation of the 1st Amendment.
We already know this, from back when former President Trump tried the same damn thing and (rather sloppily) tried to ban both TikTok and WeChat in the US. We called it unconstitutional at the time, and the courts agreed. There were a bunch of lawsuits, and none of them went well. WeChat users argued it violated their own 1st Amendment rights, and the judge agreed, noting that banning WeChat would “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to serve the government’s significant interest in national security.”
That line seems… kinda relevant?
TikTok also sued and won, though the court didn’t even get to the 1st Amendment claims, tossing it out for violating the Administrative Procedure Act by being arbitrary and capricious.
Especially given that the threats of TikTok remain entirely hypothetical to date, and many seem to be whipped up around a moral panic regarding China, rather than based on any fact. Banning the site outright will only raise these very same issues yet again.
The WeChat ruling focused on the 1st Amendment issues in cutting off its users entirely from an app they used to communicate. But, there’s a separate issue of shutting down the speech of TikTok itself. Shutting down any website has to raise 1st Amendment issues. We’ve highlighted this before with regard to domain seizures. And blocking an entire website is the same thing.
There many relevant cases on the books, but a big one is Ft. Wayne Books v. Indiana. That ruling found that you can’t shut down an entire book store just because some of the books might violate the law, because in the process you’d be shutting down lots of protected, permissible speech. Similarly, Near v. Minnesota is a case where the Supreme Court noted that you can’t just declare a publication “malicious, scandalous and defamatory” and bar it from publishing (though anyone defamed could still sue directly for defamation).
Blocking TikTok entirely over mostly theoretical issues is the same sort of thing. Shutting down an entire speech operation because of some vague, nebulous claim of bad speech.
But it’s actually even worse than that. It’s no secret that China bans lots of American websites. In the past, we may have been able to point to US openness to free speech, showing the moral high ground. But in now threatening to ban TikTok, all we’re doing is justifying the Chinese approach, and basically saying we’re happy to do the same. And you can bet that China is already gloating about this, and how it shows that even the Americans are coming around to the Chinese approach of banning foreign websites that we’re scared about.
The end result will simply justify more internet splintering, more geographical blocks, and hasten the end of a global, open internet. The US used to stand for that open internet but admitting that we toss those principles out the window just because China finally built a successful global internet service is incredibly pathetic and will lead to all sorts of backlash.
Finally, as we’ve been saying all along, rather than moral panics and fear mongering, let’s focus on the actual problem. Banning TikTok won’t solve the issue of any potential privacy violations. As we’ve noted over and over and over again, the supposed data that TikTok is “collecting” on its users is available from basically anywhere to basically anyone with a few bucks. Want to fix that? Pass a real privacy law.
What about the idea that China might pressure TikTok to tweak its famed (but massively overhyped) algorithm to warp the minds of our children? Beyond being a silly moral panic, have we really done such a shit job of educating the youth that we think that the flow of TikTok videos will turn their brains into mush? I mean, hell, if we noticed that TikTok was doing that, it wouldn’t even be that difficult for people and politicians to call out what they were actually doing and push back on it.
This whole thing is just yet another moral panic, and one that opens up some huge 1st Amendment issues, because if the White House can magically declare TikTok a national security threat, it can do that for other sites and apps as well. It’s not something the government should be able to do.
Of course, TikTok’s current management may have to weigh all of this against the cost of fighting the government, meaning that it wouldn’t surprise me if the company does separate from ByteDance in the end. But the government shouldn’t be doing this, and we should call out such nonsense when we see it.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, china, free speech, global internet, global open internet, joe biden, moral panic, open internet, prior restraint, privacy
Companies: tiktok
Comments on “Yes, The US Government Threatening To Block TikTok Violates The 1st Amendment”
Geez
This timeline sucks! Can I get a new one where politicians in the US take their job more seriously?
In a sense, the fact that we’re even discussing this means we (Americans) have already suffered a significant set back.
Its like finding ourselves objecting to our government wanting to authorize the cannibalization of human babies. How the hell did we get here, and where is the nearest road to sanity[1]?
[1] Well… we sort of know how we got here… but that doesn’t make it even “just across the road” from sanity.
Would corporate sovereignty some into play over this?
Re:
The closest thing I could see intervening is the fear of retaliation against U.S. tech firms globally potentially pushing them to pressure Congress and the administration to back down. NetChoice represents about two dozen social media and e-commerce companies, TikTok being one of them (along with companies like Amazon, eBay, Twitter and Etsy), and has been critical of efforts to target TikTok. They could rein in things by pointing out the ramifications for the global internet and their bottom lines, especially if the U.S.’s actions incentivize other less democratic nations to censor Internet content; that is, if they’re willing to pull rank on China hawks to “show them the error of their ways” (threatening to pull campaign funding would be an incentive).
Re:
Corporate sovereignty (aka ISDS) requires a treaty between the two countries that has that included (and then the details of the ISDS). I’m not sure if the US and China have that in any agreements. There were plans to include it in the US China BIT, but that fell through years ago and I don’t think it’s been rekindled…
“The end result will simply justify more internet splintering, more geographical blocks, and hasten the end of a global, open internet. The US used to stand for that open internet but admitting that we toss those principles out the window just because China finally built a successful global internet service is incredibly pathetic and will lead to all sorts of backlash.“
The problem is a bare minimum data privacy law that at least regulates data collection by foreign entities would save the U.S. government the political and legal risk that this whole exercise causes. Do I think that the Treasury Department (whose secretary, Janet Yellen, chairs the CFIUS) actually said that if ByteDance doesn’t divest, they’ll ban it? Maybe not in so many words, but it’s hard not for TikTok Ltd./ByteDance to perceive it that way, given that five pieces of legislation aimed at restricting or banning it exclusively or along with other foreign apps (one that the administration helped draft) are floating around in Congress.
If the Biden administration repeats the mistake of Trump, he can say goodbye to his re-election chances before he’s able to announce it (opening him up to a possiblly formidable primary challenge), because a lot of young people won’t take kindly to the government infringing on their rights or trying to dictate what apps people should have access to. It would completely undermine everything Democrats have said (rightfully) about the threat to democracy posed by the MAGA far-right, because a chunk of the population will be able to throw an anti-democratic action that was backed by the pro-democracy party and the anti-democracy party back in all their faces. Even Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo (who recently endorsed the Warner-Thune RESTRICT Act) acknowledged to Bloomberg recently that banning TikTok would be a bad idea, including on a political level.
Everybody knows young Americans are the hardest to get to vote, so doing something that would risk downing the vote percentage of that demographic in ‘24 (on top of other issues that the administration struggled to follow through on, because of obstruction and corporate cronyism) would be basically handing the keys to the White House (and the lighter fluid and match to American democracy) to Trump or DeSantis, and the keys to the Senate to the GOP in ‘24.
The solution is simple. Pass strong private data protection laws. THEN you can freely ban TikTok if they do not follow this law. If they follow the law, then it doesn’t matter if it has “ties” to a government (foreign or not) hostile or not.
If it’s bad for TikTok to do, it’s bad for Facebook, or Twitter, or T-Mobile, or Disney, or Equifax/Experian/TransUnion, or INSERT_NAME_OF_COMPANY_HACKED_HERE to do.
Re:
Slapping a large fine (up to say $5 million or whatever is the largest fine that the government can levy) on foreign platforms who breach such a law would be a sufficient penalty, and would avoid the legal risk of banning an Internet platform that the government would be exposed to.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
No need to think for myself when I can have ChatGPT respond instead:
The article’s argument that the threat of banning TikTok in the US is a clear violation of the First Amendment is flawed and may be biased. While it is true that the government cannot censor speech based on its content or viewpoint, it has the authority to regulate commercial activity that poses a threat to national security. The potential risks associated with TikTok’s data collection practices and its ties to the Chinese government have been widely discussed and are legitimate concerns.
The article also suggests that the threat of banning TikTok is based on a moral panic regarding China and lacks factual basis. However, it fails to acknowledge the mounting evidence that TikTok’s data collection practices could pose a serious threat to national security. In fact, the Biden administration’s review of TikTok’s operations found that the app posed an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security.
Furthermore, the article’s assertion that banning TikTok would be akin to shutting down a bookstore or publication is flawed. Unlike a bookstore or publication, TikTok is a commercial platform owned by a foreign entity that poses a potential threat to national security. The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens and national interests from such threats, and banning TikTok is a reasonable step to take in pursuit of that goal.
Finally, the article’s suggestion that banning TikTok would lead to the splintering of the internet and the end of a global, open internet is overstated. While it is true that banning TikTok could have implications for the open internet, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the internet as a whole. The internet is a resilient and dynamic network that can adapt to changes in the regulatory environment.
Overall, while the article raises some valid concerns about the potential impact of banning TikTok on free speech and the open internet, it overlooks the legitimate national security concerns that underpin the government’s actions. The author may have a bias or ulterior motive in advocating against the ban without fully considering the national security implications of TikTok’s operations.
Re:
ChatGPT is the ultimate Sea Lion!
Re:
The reason why the Trump administration’s attempt to ban TikTok was blocked in court was because of insufficient evidence that the platform posed a national security threat. What independent evidence has been made since then hasn’t proven such a risk, either.
Any content-neutral restrictions on speech must be narrowly tailored to limit the impact on First Amendment liberties as much as possible. It’s doubtful that certain provisions in the RESTRICT Act fit that description, and the other bills don’t at all. In fact, some of the GOP-backed bills raise Bill of Attainder concerns as well as First Amendment concerns. The government also must prove that there is a national security threat; Trump wasn’t able to, and it’s unclear whether the Biden administration’s findings contradict that (given how unaccountable the CFIUS is to the public and is exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests, we may never know). Even then, national security should not be a blank check for infringing on civil liberties; the broader harms such an action would have on U.S. users (from the risks to U.S. Internet firms on a business standpoint to impacts on content creators and small business advertisers) should be addressed as well.
Re: Re:
You’re arguing with a bot.
Re: Re: Re:
Is this your first day on the Internet?
Re: Re: Re:
No. T.L. is debunking the bot so that gullible people don’t get fooled by the bot’s BS.
Oh, no. I gotta go If you don’t hear from me again DO NOT ANGER the bots a robot just entered my house and claimed to be suing me for defamatiiiiiiooooojmmjnnjejjw
Re:
Since that came from a Robot, I’ll respond with a quote from a Robot:
Re: Re:
Didn’t Bender also try to legally represent someone in an episode too?
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. He represented Prof. Farnsworth in S06E09, “A Clockwork Origin”.
Re: Re: Re:
So Bender is both ChatGPT and DoNotPay? Fuck the Simpsons, Futurama predicted everything (and truly lived up to its name!)!
Re: Re:
Also important to remember:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
OK, I LOVE this.
CCP spreads malware to everyone’s phone, Masnick cries about 1st amendment violations. (the proper argument is “on what authority” but there’s almost certainly some National Security power and passing a law is a heluva lot different than just declaring an Executive Order (Trump was just following Obama’s precedent there))
**Government agencies spend hundreds of millions of dollars pressuring SM to ban people and entire topics of conversation, Masnick says “noting to see here”. **
Perf, just perf. Couldn’t have written a better script myself.
Re:
As I keep telling you, Matthew, if there were actually evidence of what you claim was happening, then, yes, I would be arguing that it’s a 1st Amendment violation. The problem is that the evidence doesn’t show that.
Meanwhile, you once again ignore that this is us, AGAIN, criticizing Democrat policy positions that violate the 1st Amendment, which you insisted (falsely) that we’d never do because you were positive (incorrectly) that we’re partisan.
I will criticize anyone who actually violates the 1st Amendment no matter what party and for what purpose. But there needs to be actual evidence of it happening.
As for the “national security powers,” claim that you seem to be making… um… that’s not how it works. There are cases where heightened scrutiny can be met through an argument of national security, but you have to actually demonstrate the actual threat, which the administration has not done.
I’m sorry, Matthew, that we believe in the 1st Amendment as it actually works, and not in the partisan, nationalistic fake version that lives in your head.
Re: Re:
“There are cases where heightened scrutiny can be met through an argument of national security, but you have to actually demonstrate the actual threat, which the administration has not done.”
Of course, documentation of the CFIUS review and what it allegedly concluded is not subject to a FOIA request, meaning the administration would have to demonstrate it in a court proceeding (a point which we may not get to if ByteDance complies with the divestiture order and finds a buyer or spins the TikTok unit off from the company in a timely fashion). All we have is what independent evidence there is from those who have investigated the claims to go on, along with assumption-based claims that can be colored by one’s worldview of China. It would have been fruitful for more independent research to affirm or rebut the security risk claims against TikTok had been published prior to the January release of Georgia Tech’s research analysis, so explicit biases about China don’t dictate how the company is treated by federal regulators and politicians.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
No, you just keep claiming that. Like you agreed Twitter was meeting with dozens of federal agencies each week, and that if they were discussing removing content that would be a problem. But despite that basically the only thing they could want to discuss with Twitter, you said:
Which fucking reports, Masnick?!? [Citation needed]
Cuz I haven’t seen any such reports. I’ve seen reports suggesting that they were talking about removing content, but none suggesting that they weren’t. Also just the basic logic that that’s the only thing they would want to talk about.
It actually just looks like defending the CCP, really, which is really fucken weird.
Have you been here for the last 22 years? Cuz I don’t think it’s a good thing (indeed it’s wrapped up with the bullshit at Twitter) but they can justify anything on national security grounds.
It seems demonstrated to almost everyone but you guys, Masnick. No, CCP malware is not the same as generic data markets (definitely not saying the data markets are good) and it’s really fucking weird that you guys keep on trying to pretend they are.
Provably false
Re: Re: Re:
I’ve already explained to you which ones. I’m sorry you can’t be bothered to comprehend basic concepts. But that’s on you. Each of the documents Taibbi has revealed regarding actual FBI involvement has not been about censorship. If there was evidence of that, you’d have a point and I’d call it out just as I call out any examples I see that go over the line. But, as I’ve now explained to you for months, the evidence needs to actually be there.
All of the documentation, not just those in the Twitter files, demonstrated that there was a robust information sharing program going on, with most of it focused on the government sharing information with the companies not for the purpose of censorship but so they were aware of accounts the government was aware of were engaging in things like CSAM or foreign influence operations.
Only a total fucking moron, dumber than a fucking rock would read it that way.
No. That’s not how it works. Look Matty, I know that you like to think the 1st Amendment works the way your ignorant mind thinks it should work. But, it just doesn’t. When it comes to the 1st Amendment, you can’t just scream “national security” and get away with it without proof. That’s EXACTLY WHY the judge tossed out the WeChat case, as cited above. Which you’re now pretending didn’t happen.
Because you don’t fucking know how any of this works no matter how many times you pretend to. You’re wrong, Matt. Stop pretending you know shit you don’t.
Then fucking prove it with actual fucking evidence or fuck the fuck off already.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, you haven’t, at all. On the other post you claimed “All reports suggest otherwise”. [meaning no requests to remove content] You didn’t say “No reports suggest they did”, you said “all reports suggest otherwise”.
So I ask you again, you hack, which fucking reports suggest that these meetings were NOT about removing content? Share the links.
If you just said a said a dumb thing and misspoke, just admit that, it’s fine, we all do, but don’t you fucking dare pretend you “already” provided proof-positive of something that doesn’t exist.
That is some real Baghdad Bob shit right there. Not only is it refuted on it’s face by the evidence, but no one could possible believe that you believe that. “robust information sharing program”….about the data and content Twitter most definitely knew better than the alphabet agencies did? About real medical experts saying true things? Cuz yeah, that’s in the “reports”. The “reports” make clear that it isn’t just lists of people violating TOS and foreign agents. Which is still “removing content” btw, but we have proof-positive about removing content based on the content. But all of it, including the “information sharing”, had the intent of removing content. But even that fig-leaf excuse (which is just laughable, you dishonor yourself by clinging to it) clearly doesn’t apply in many cases.
Add in some Orwellian Newspeak, too:
Listen to that fucking pretzel of a sentence. “so they were aware of accounts the government was aware of” Fucken amazing. Does contorting yourself like that help you hide your face when you say this shit? You’re also the fist person I’ve ever heard mention “CSAM” in this context, you just throwing some FUD in too? Cuz if the FBI was meeting with Twitter to ban kiddie porn I don’t think anyone would much care. But no, that wasn’t it.
Share a link to these “reports” you think show that the meetings weren’t about removing content you fucking hack.
Re: Re: Re:3
You are an ignorant lying troll.
Re: Re: Re:3
Matty, you do realize that everyone can read what you and Mike write, and that not a single person here thinks you are telling the truth? Mike has backed up his points over and over again and you just act like a bratty child saying “no, no, no” over and over again.
Re: Re: Re:3
He didn’t need to because you already did. You brought these receipts, not Mike’s fault you can’t read them.
Re: Re: Re:3
They’re literally the same ones you provided.
Re: Re:
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
https://www.theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-consti-1819571149
Re:
CCP spreads malware to everyone’s phone, Masnick cries about 1st amendment violations.
Um, I thought you were the one that wanted all your misinformation, disinformation, and all the accoutrement that comes with it unencumbered by CENSORSHIP.
Why would a ‘Ministry of Truth’ (YOUR words) be such a useful tool when it comes to blocking the CCP? What about the free speech of American Communists?
Re:
Except you have even admitted yourself that there was no pressuring SM by the government. None. Zero. Twitter said “Fuck you” to the government many times over and guess what, NOTHING HAPPENED!
Where is the pressure?
Re:
Don’t sell yourself short. You write great fantasy on this site every day!
Re: Re:
I need to see a live action of the stuff Mr. Bennett writes.
Oh, actually, I can just watch C-SPAN the next time a hearing’s on
Re: Re: Re:
Speak for yourself. Having to trawl through Bennett’s bull is such an ocular disservice it’s far easier to flag and move on. He gets pissed as fuck and you only need to put in a tenth of the effort involved.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
SO you’re a hateful liberal, check
Re: Re: Re:3
You’re the only one who is hateful here… just read your comments and how much you berate everybody who doesn’t agree with you.
Re: Re: Re:3
He could be a conservative who cares about not being an asshole and a dipshit, something in short supply generally in the Republican party. But here you assume he’s liberal for saying that. Do you have to be an asshole dipshit to be conservative nowadays?
Re:
No, they paid for the services they received as they’re required to do by law. Should they not follow the law Matty? Should they just not pay their bills like your pal Musk?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
What? No. I honestly think you’re confused. I’m talking about all the think tanks and NGOs they hired to lobby twitter.
Re: Re: Re:
Here you are, just making up shit again.
Banning TikTok
I can think of multiple reasons to ban TikTok; the TidePod challenge, the boiling water challenge, the choking game challenge, and teaching kids “the shuffle” dance, but Chinese spying isn’t one of them.
Prohibiting its use on government (or company) issued phones is just a good security policy. Banning its availability in the country is just performative claptrap for the China haters.
Re:
Blame the user, not the service.
Re:
Mostly a myth made up by the media that then drove more attention to it. Not really a major TiKTok thing.
Both of which predate TikTok’s existence by years.
Have to admit I’m unfamiliar…
Re: Re:
If he’s referring to the Truffle Shuffle, that predates this entire site.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Ban TickTock
It’s a company partially owned by the CCP. China’s National Intelligence Law from 2017 requires organizations and citizens to “support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work.” while Google, twitter and practically every other social media site is blocked in China, to paraphrase from their foreign ministry “what are they afraid of?”. So no, you can’t come to the free market and ride it without governments taking notice of your ridiculous law and subsequently invoking national security issues.
Re:
So you… just didn’t read the article?
Re: Re: Small point
Chinas Laws, the gobbling of data, and the fact that they have other “Uber” apps like WeChat gobbling up data and being used to target Chinese minorities gives a lot of circumstantial evidence that the app is doing the same thing. On the other hand aside from the fact that the app is very good at figuring out what videos you like, and perhaps getting data on you if you post something, your looking at a LOT of useless information right now.
Now a counter intel guy will tell you, lots of small useless bits of data can build a picture that is actully helpful. AKA they can figure out whos in the military from geolocation and video uploads, leave location tracking on longer and you get a good picture of populations, soft and hard targets and more.
Getting hard evidence is a bit harder but you only need to look at other tech firms who have left China to see something is up and there is a fairly strong history of deniable actions by the gov. In fact most every tech firm that left China included language about spying and attempted access to trade secrets. Still circumstantial of course.
Circumstantial is obviously enough to ban something like this on Gov accounts and even on military bases (troops personal devices leak intel all the time, so yes they have the authority). Banning it nation wide is obviously something much harder since your not likely to find your smoking gun as getting anything out of China to investigate is more a spy game.
I would of course ask why would China do all this, and the likely response is so they can identify targets for retribution for being critical of China. Journalists, private citizens, Chinese religious or ethnic minority’s, and anyone else they think is of interest. But since they already did this, its really hard to point at TicTok and say they got the data from that app. The funny thing is that if this is the goal, its in line with the 1st Amendment unless they intended to kill these people, but more likely they just wont issue travel documents and they had that right already.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
The app was actively hacking into iOS and getting all sorts of info it shouldn’t have been until Apple got wise to it. (android too, but iOS has been a much tighter ship generally) That was years ago and supposedly solved now (we hope) but that’s only cuz they got caught. (I forget the exact details, but I remember engineers were surprised by how far they got)
Re: Re: Re:
The USA, the Bit Barn in Utah, regular reports of surveillance laws being ignored, a willingness to try and force people to spy om their peer groups….
Some fsckwit promised me evidence showing what secret data TikTok was stealing… still waiting for it.
Yup. Deliberately, even. It’s just that this time it’s not the American aristocracy benefitting.
Re:
That still doesn’t explain why people are concerned that kids’ brains will be turned into room-temp tapioca pudding by TikTok.
If anything, we’re already there.
Why does this matter?
The why are politicos so stupid about Sect. 230 podcast was pretty good. It feeds into this conversation. 1st Amend will win, and Sect 230 will save operators money and time.
As to TikTok and data mining, the phones themselves do it. All it takes is a few dedicated SW engineers and that info is free for the taking. So any app that is loaded can siphon the data, send it to a data broker that will sell it to anyone with a couple of nickels and the big deal concern is duplicated without even needing TikTok.
A new company in countries[rng] and some shovel ware with pretty graphics and sell it for next to nothing, or nothing and what about TikTok – nobody will remember them in 2y. Except MAGAt politicos and FOX.
Congress shall pass no law … even if we need a US Privacy Law. To protect and to fine data security failures.
But what about the children? Well, Senator Warren, they would be better off with TikTok and a privacy law with teeth.
As smart as that woman is, I am baffled by her inability to get the point of Section 230.
Just like everything else, they seek to add that last line about some being “more equal” than others. Forget the Bible, everyone should read their Orwell…and some Philip K. Dick for context.
Question, Mike:
If ByteDance divests TikTok, what happens to the bill that bans TikTok?
“The end result will simply justify more internet splintering, more geographical blocks, and hasten the end of a global, open internet.”
Off hand, I’d say they’re doing a really good of it too.
Re:
Geoblocking can be bypassed with a VPN
Using a VPN or proxy for that does break any laws in the USA
There is no law on the books that makes bypassing geo blocking a crime
Re: Re:
I’m sure the copyright cartel would gladly plead in court that using a VPN to “route around” geo blocking would be considered “technical circumvention” of the systems blocking you from accessing copyrighted materials.
DMCA FTW!!
Re: Re: Re:
That only applies if you do it for for financial gain
Using a VPN or proxy to bypass geo locking is not doing it for financial gain.
Therefire no crime committed
Re: Re: Re:2
Explain then how the financial centres in China are functioning if they blatantly violate the law every day.
ALL OF THEM rely on unauthorized VPN use. Using illegal VPNs, to boot.
You can’t use illegal VPNs in China if you want to be a good citizen, after all. Why then do the financial centers get to break the law?
Re: Re: Re:3
Chinese law is different than American law
What I am saying is that the criminal statutes of the DMCA only apply if you you do.it for financial gain,nl which means making money from it
When I take road trips to Canada or Mexico and use a VPN to get either my iheart or YouTube playlists while on the road I am not breaking any laws doing that
Using a VPN to bypass geo restrictions to listen to my playlists while driving vung in Alaska, Canada, Mexico or anywhere in central America does not break the law in those countries l,not dues ir break the DMCA because it is fir my own private use and not for for financial gain.
When I had my online radio station and traveled to broadcast some sporting events I always wiped my phone before entering Australia, Britain or the United States
Umam an Australia/USA dual national and when I traveled to either Cuba or North Korea using Australian passport I would hide it from us customs that I was in either country by wiping my phone and reinstalling my apps to get rid of evidence in my phone I was there because both countries require you to purchase one of their sim cards
Putting the original sim card back in the phone and then wiping my phone did not break any laws in the United States
Wiping any evidence from my devices that I was in either North Korea or Cuba did not break any laws in the United States.
In Mexico if you slip a $100 bill on.your passport it will not be stamped making it impossible to CBP to determine you were in Cuba and neitheg. Doing this to hide evidence of Cuba travel does not break any laws in Mexico or the United States
Then you use a VPN to civrumvent that