I mean at the end of the day it doesn't matter. 99% of what is aloud under the patriot act isn't expressly stated under the patriot act. It's about 50 layers of if this is ok, than this must be ok because in order to do that, we have to be able to do this. They could expressly state that this cannot be used against American citizens, so you know who isn't an American citizen? about 1/3 of the US by some form of the definition. The issue is even if you had it 100000% in writing, that only matters if you hold them accountable. And the people who would be hit by this, are the people that are easiest to villainize. See the red scare for explanation.
There is also language in almost every section of the bill that excuses and exempts the US Secretary of Commerce from public accountability. It even specifically states "Inapplicability of FOIA" as a clause towards the end. FOIA = Freedom Of Information Act. Which means they can make a decision to block something or someone, and the public has no ability to ask for an explanation or evidence which lead to the decision.
@bruh They already gave _you_ the tools to stop this, without needing them. It's literally what the 2nd Ammendment is _actually_ for, rather than defence of homes or self. Funny how Americans love to cling to this Constitutional Right, but absolutely refuse to use it for it's intended purpose even when they have a legitimate cause/reason. The US government went tyrant a long time ago, but it seems not enough people are aware or willing to accept this.
@bruh the founding fathers were elitists who wanted to keep democracy away from the majority working, slave and non-property owning classes. who do you think created this myth? The same monopoly that is doing this stuff. The founding fathers wanted an indebted labor class, and that's exactly who we have become as a majority.
The fact that the writers of the bill are specifically trying to avoid accountability should be a massive red flag to anyone with a functioning cranium. It means they are planning to use this power for nefarious purposes from day 1 and don't want anybody to see what they're doing.
We had a customer come in to our garage last year asking if we knew if there was any way their ex could be tracking their car through the GPS, immediate alarm bells were ringing and we said we would have the car free of charge and look over it over a few days in quiet periods. Eventually we found a magnetic box hidden behind the suspension with a GPS tracker in it. As you can imagine she was feeling pretty emotional and we were concerned for her wellbeing. She came back and let us know a few weeks ago that he was being prosecuted for stalking. Turns out he actually had it for years as a way of tracking his work van if it were to be stolen and she was pretty understanding of the reason it's available to the public. My point being that a hammer is a tool until it's a weapon and everything is about who's using it for what not what it is first unless it has a singular use
Not sure how to explain this beyond just saying it: Third party means "not the phone's manufacturer". The US Government is a third party. But I would agree that work phone is for work stuff only.
@@RadicalEdwardStudios The noncommercial context is anything an organization might be using to continue functioning that a different organization manufactures for them to use.
It's in introductory stage so at this point i would say it is overreacting, any bogus bill can get into the introductory stage so it doesn't mean anything, when it passes senate that is when you should start to worry, and if it hits that point (extremely unlikely that it does) there will be strong funded opposition, then it has to go through house and then the president.
They are not banning VPNs has Linus tech tips actually read this or did he just rely on someone else because it doesn't actually say that people cannot be arrested for VPNs he isn't going to happen it's never going to happen This idea was first put out there by guess Who the CCP The Communist party of China put this out there and told people to protest because they were going to be jailed for using VPNs It wasn't true
Remember when it became public knowledge that Kryptonite bike locks could be beat by a bic pen? That was a big net positive and was somewhat easy to fix. Stuff like this adds real danger. Legislators aren't well equipped for dealing with these emerging technologies and devices.
Exactly. All you need to do is watch 30 seconds of most politicians discussing cybersecurity and technology to realize that the people who should be most knowledgeable on this stuff are grossly incompetent and uninformed. Stateside, the average age of Senators is 65, with 54 out of 100 over 65. The average age of Representatives is 57, with 130 over 65. There’s a reason so much tech-based legislation being introduced comes across as woefully uninformed. It’s because a huge portion of the people responsible for our legislation have been politicians since the days when the Rolodex was cutting-edge.
But that's the point. These technologies are not emerging at all, they have been around for a long time. The danger has always been there but you just consider naivety more secure than actual security. Just like realizing the lock you use to protect your bike was never actually protecting your bike is a net positive, knowing the digital forms of security you are relying on isn't actually secure, is ALSO a net positive. You are right that legislators are not well equipped with dealing with these old technologies they think are new, but saying it's the responsibility of anyone but their own, to be better educating themselves is wrong.
@@dabbopabblo Your comment is a bit off. The fact there is a workaround for the bike lock does NOT mean your bike was NEVER protected at all. You are taking that case to it's extreme. The time of the reporting of the issue was the most dangerous time in that case. That's also low tech compared to high tech issues, which have a higher barrier to entry. As has been said before, if someone is a determined thief specifically targeting your property (bike), they will get your bike, they are already prepared. It's about being a deterrent, stopping the opportunist thief NOT being infallible.
@@TheycallmeMrWonka Ok and same goes for the flipper, its not new technology, its literally the same tech as a garage door opener but with a simple processor and gui script loader built in. Releasing it in a easy to use package lowers the barrier for entry forcing companies to upgrade their security standards. When security implementations have known vulnerabilities, its not on a company to avoid letting tools to take advantage of those FLAWS get into a potential criminals hands. Its on the companies producing the products for using outdated security, and as for the example in this video where he says its not fair to make every little gas station owner have to upgrade their systems but the reality is its giving them a wake up call that even tho the average opportunist may not of targeted their systems, someone actually setting their mind to it like your pro bike thief example, isn't gonna let the lack of a simplifying tool stop them from Jerry rigging their own version with a garage opener and laptop. So overall its not a net negative that this lowers the bar for entry for the average opportunist. Just like a bike lock does the same, the moment it can be defeated with a pen its opportunist territory. There are no differences between the net positive bike lock example and the flipper one.
Any time someone says "think of the children" for a new proposed law, and the proposal isn't giving the children food, clothing, or shelter, it's a real turd that shouldn't pass.
@@libertas5005 How is that grooming children? Do you not know the definition of it? Wow, the education system has to have bigger problems than teaching kids about trans people if you dont know what grooming means.
It's funny that they mentioned the prevalence of lockpicks, because i used to lock myself out of the house all the time when i was 13. I taught myself how to pick a lock using bobby pins. There was some degree of skill involved then. I moved into my own apartment and got bored one night, so i ordered a lock picking set to see if having real tools made any difference. A wave rake can pop open a lock in less than a second with little to no effort. Instead of taking me 25-30 seconds to to unlock my door i can just pop it open instantly. That kit cost me like €15 on Amazon, and it came with 20+ picks
True though. Locks are more a deterrent/time-deterrent. Locks don't keep something safe forever. Give an amateur robber enough time, and in worst-case scenario for them, they'll eventually just break the darn thing and get in, as long as no one is there to intervene. This is important, because cyber-security is the same exact thing.
@@ForTheOmnissiah but i suppose one should argue if 5 seconds of lock picking time (according to @nutellaRLZ) is going to be enough of a deterrent for anyone who would have some level of expertise behind it...
@N the point was not that i cast the kit around. I don't. When i was younger i always had bobby pins in my backpack or in my hair. The point of my comment was that if someone wanted to defeat most physical locks they need only spend about €15 on Amazon and they're in
This bill is honestly horrific. Even being relatively politically conservative (at least for the western u.s.), this bill is reprehensible in how it leaves the door open for clear and obvious abuse. Its language involving lack of FOIA applicability is shady at BEST, and the blanket authority granted by the bill is the most obvious tell of future abuse. I completely agree with the idea that if this truly wasn't going to impact citizens and wasn't going to be abused, they should have written as such explicitly, and allowed citizens to hold them accountable through the FOIA.
As a center left libertarian, the US is unofficially copying China's Great Firewall and pretending it's different. If we were really concerned with privacy, we would've copied the GDPR by now. Also, China can just outright buy data through shell companies
I say the same thing about laws as I do about regulations, anything that is not **explicitly stated** is an entryway for abuse of the rules. Vagueness in rules always helps those already with the power to enforce their position, and always hurts those without the power.
Unfortunately, that's how U.S. politics works right now. The law in this country is built on bluntness, truth, fact, and explicitness. However, the "explicitness" is being toyed with heavily. You end up with bills that put law into place that are inherently vague/far-reaching, far past their "intended" scope. This isn't some uncommon occurrence, it's practically every bill on the table.
@@ForTheOmnissiah Yup, and politicians will use riders and other tricks (such as hooking up an opponent with their campaign donors to get them to relent and vote Yea on a bill to pass).
Yeah, but at the same time specificity leaves the door open for loopholes. With vague language you can atleast make the argument and a case for why it's going against that particular rule and yiu can patch a lot of those loop holes with vague terms. With specific language. There's going to be things in the bill that you cannot deal with because it skirts around the very specific language and since it not specifically violating the specific use of the language. This is how people get off scort free with certain crimes. The law they broke was stated in such a way they got off scott free on a technicality. This could've been prevented with more vague language. If you explicitly state something. You have to explicitly state EVERYTHING. Otherwise people will find loop holes. If you make the language vague and almost poetic like you can atleast try to persuade the jury that a violation did occur.
@@TallicaMan1986 You are mixing up explicit language of the law and non exclusive definitions. You do not have to list **everything** but you do have to make your law without vague blanket statements that can easily become either unenforceable at best, or overreaching at worst.
@@TallicaMan1986 For instance, you can write a law or regulation to use the phrase “including, but not limited to” which is perfectly acceptable and allows a judge to interpret new things or lateral thinking not originally anticipated as still violating the spirit of the law and being included in the definitions of things, despite not being explicitly against it. But if you phrase the law with a blanket statement as “anything that looks the least bit like _x_ is banned” and the spirit of the law is to ban the unsavory things that TikTok does, but the letter of the law can also be interpreted as bans to completely unrelated things, those things are effectively against the law, no matter what the original intent of the law was, because every judge everywhere is allowed to interpret the law as it is currently written, not as it was originally intended. Just look at the second amendment, originally intended as the right for a well regulated militia to exist and for people to keep their arms as part of one, but some judge decided that the comma meant “nah, this means everyone is allowed to have guns, full stop.” And we are now still dealing with that interpretation of it to this day, because the original writing of it was too vaguely written and with too few of definitions as to its full intent.
Luke said something that should all have us wondered. "People that are into software don't trust software locks. People that are into hardware don't trust hardware locks..." this tells you everything you need to know. Don't trust software nor hardware ever. Both are only safe to a certain degree. None are totally safe.
Put another way, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Use both physical and software methods of security. If one fails you have extra layers of security to fall back on.
Don't trust something made by human engineering, trust that it will fail. If the human that made the thing was not omniscient, no guarantee of certainty can be made.
@@alex-qn5xp Better than the alternative. At least I made my voice known and it didn't take very long. Plus, there is precedent of getting legislation stopped (e.g. SOPA).
I just think we need better data privacy laws instead of banning specific companies. Of course, that prevents the government from getting information from all the US companies that spy on their users, so they won't ever do that, but it would be ideal.
@@SuicidalBabyTTV It either will be limited in its scope or only target non american companies. Look at the stink google kicks up about having to share revenue, if this bill truly was about privacy, google, facebook, and a whole laundry list of companies woupd have already kicked up a fuss.
@@SuicidalBabyTTV It doesn't need to mention tiktok. Out government has tried to ban tiktok before. This is how they are doing it while taking away even more of our rights. The government already tracks everything you do through the NSA and they can buy up data from American companies already.
My problem with the, "Just harden/update your security", is that as soon as you do, there is a new way to bypass it. People WILL find a way around any barrier, period. A 3 lb sledge can bypass most security... also the person that always leaves the backdoor open because they smoke, etc..
@@maxinac thank you for the understanding. I'm a bit older (a little more than Linus). I have learned, to ask my self before I walk out the door and reach for that pocket as I say it, "Phone, Keys, Wallet, Badge (work/school)". 2nd, if you get something cool, don't tell EVERYONE. You never know who's jealous or a hater. Most of the time, you get screwed by someone you know (I have worked as a Credit Card Investigator for a MAJOR Bank). Enjoy life, just post that you went to that Festival, vacation, whatever, AFTER you get back, not before hand, letting people know that your place is empty. 3rd, as I am older, but I do love my gadgets/toys, I don't like electronic/wi-fi/app stuff on everything. Buy good locks (Master Lock Sucks, Schlage is Okay) and LOCK UP behind you, lol. Have a good one.
What security? China uses tik tok to promote Democrats. Deep State wants more power to censor Trump supporters, so they tell you this is about security in order to get you to go along with it.
@@1800BrokenSoul In the context of the US tech giants, they all cooperate with the US government on its geopolitical policies. For example, twitter had special whitelists for US agency accounts pushing colour revolution propaganda when they cracked down on "government influence". So the reason the US is worried about tiktok is because they probably won't be all that open to helping the US control the narrative.
In Russia and Turkey it started this way too. It slowly expands and due to vagueness of the law you can start enforcing for different things. Eventually it becomes too restricting
I'd argue that it's not vague at all. To me it seems very explicit that the restrict act is leaving it open for the gov to expand into different things. In Sec. 5. (a) - In carrying out sections 3 and 4, the Secretary shall prioritize evaluation of- (2) software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to telecommunications products and services, including- (A) wireless local area networks; (B) mobile networks; (C) satellite payloads; (D) satellite operations and control; (E) cable access points; (F) wireline access points; (G) core networking systems; (H) long-, short-, and back-haul networks; or (I) edge computer platforms; (3) any software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to data hosting or computing service that uses, processes, or retains, or is expected to use, process, or retain, sensitive personal data with respect to greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including- (A) internet hosting services; (B) cloud-based or distributed computing and data storage; (C) machine learning, predictive analytics, and data science products and services, including those involving the provision of services to assist a party utilize, manage, or maintain open-source software; (D) managed services; and (E) content delivery services;
@N Not really because when people work under the assumption that _everyone_ may be spying on them, they either will never do anything that could be deemed "suspicious" or, more likely, will try to step up their security game a little bit which in the end will be more helpful for them versus being naive and gullible to whichever bullshit propaganda the government decides to feed them and never taking any measure towards their own privacy.
On the topic about about cybersecurity on AI. In Cyberpunk world, AI scaled so much that the internet became unusable. Since there were so many automated AIs replicating and hiding in every electronic device, it became impossible to use the internet. Every device that was connected would get immediately infected by random viruses. It is a game. But I think that the idea is surprisingly believable.
@@randomdeliveryguy Noone. In a side mission (return to the landfill where Dex shot you and open the freezer, bring the deck to Nix at the Afterlife and from there the story explains itself) the history of the internet 1.0 is explained and how one Bartmoss basically nuked the entirety of it (probably with a propagating worm). so there is no more Internet 1.0 and the AIs that made it unsuable have since been deleted. When the second network was created, whoever made it probably put roadblocks in place to prevent something like that from happening again.
Even if that doesnt happen, the internet will still become unusable, unless for consooming purposes. Content farms are already bad enough, now imagine AI operated content farms with AI generated content. How many “presidents playing minecraft” youtube shorts have you seen. Probably way too many
@@tatzecom Yes. And the corporates created a smaller version of the internet that acts something like a quarantine zone held together by a massive AI holding back against the viruses. The "Voodoo Boys" gang is actively trying to break down the quarantine "barrier" in the new net to take down the corporates that have control over it. Netrunners are accessing the net. I'm not sure if it is the new net or the old net. But this is why they have to submerge themselves into cold baths. Their cyberware start overheating when connecting to it. Without the ice, they die.
@@Blastnet_DanHarris You don't understand the situation any better than Linus. This bill is the deep state's way of banning everything as "Russian disinfo". It goes hand in hand with lockdowns and wars and money printing and everything else your side is doing. You're acknowledging it's bad, but downplaying how bad, because you partook.
In France we have some funny presidential stories of smartphones left with foreign security guard in official meetings and of course, those phones were copied 😂 so I think they might have (the DGSE) decided to tighten up the security and remove all suspicious apps in the future.
@@dodo19923 "Free" healthcare in my experience is worse. I was for free healthcare in the past - but the tax burden and exploitation of it just leads to a downfall in quality. Paid for my first hospital visit abroad and received help in minutes instead of days/weeks/months. No referrals, no waiting. Sign the paper, pay, go in. So easy and efficient, holy shit. I also had to pay for a surgery, even easier. Sign the papers, go to pay, surgery is underway. The cost was a bit higher since no insurance was involved, but even then...Wow...I like it.
Imagine if humanity wasn't so scummy that we constantly had people looking for how to attack each other. The "attacks are good, they make defense improve" is kind of pointless, none of it would matter if there weren't countless bad people out there seeking to harm others. And like the saying, The good guy has to find ALL the holes, the bad guy only has to find one. Defense in the tech industry is near impossible, there will always be a vector that can't be properly protected.
This isn't about protection or some noble cause governments have always wanted to do this. The internet and the limitless knowledge avaliable at our fingertips is a thorn in their side they're just using this as an excuse to strip away your rights and you dont even know it! They won't be satisfied until they control every aspect of your life down to what you think, see, and feel.
Take my word for it, fellas, it's gonna become law. Quietly, and probably about 3 AM on a Friday night. They WILL slip this through, because the powers that be want it.
We can only hope the current SCOTUS respects the 1st amendment enough to slap it down. them being boomers who don't understand technology doesn't give me confidence though.
I see this as being more likely since the Net Neutrality act passed in 2016. I remember practically everybody in my high school (even people who didnt follow tech) being against it yet it still passed. Thankfully it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be but this seems much worse.
@Scott Grammer fun fact: the EU and most of the european countries are pushing through unpopular or dubious laws during european championships or world cups in soccer, because the public is distracted and the media is reporting on the event instead of political stuff.
if they want to take away our rights there's only so far they can go before everyone starts fighting back. the government is forgetting who they are messing with
Thanks for bringing this up. This bill is waaay over the top and is NOT about necessary restrictions. If you can stop a phone you can stop an app without a bill. Basically if this is enacted you could potentially go to prison for life just for using a vpn from another country or better yet connecting to another country (rusha) via a vpn if you are not "conformed" let's say. No wrongful or criminal evidence necessary.
The PATRIOT Act comparison is apt, that shit allows the government to label anyone an "Enemy Combatant" and effectively strip you of your rights and imprison you indefinitely.
A solution for streamers needing to enter passwords is to use a password manager secured with a hardware token. This lets you access the password manager without typing anything (or at least anything that is useful without the hardware token), and then the password manager can type in the password for whatever you are trying to access.
Alright, I am by no means an expert on any of this, but here’s something that I’m pretty sure holds true. Vague laws should not be justified with, “We’ll use common sense.” Common sense is vague, that’s why we have laws.
How to codify corporate collection, analysis, and sale of your citizen's information and location, by making counter measures to such illegal, while blaming another country's product for doing the exact same thing. All without ever saying as much.
I would’ve never thought these guys to have the stones to cover this topic. I’m quite impressed because this actually does take some courage, given their position.
The conversation at the end reminds me of the case of, if you watch The Lockpicking Lawyer and then you have to buy a bike lock. You've seen him probably open every lock on the market but you need to buy a lock that you need to trust to keep your bike safe.
International spying seems very realistic in Civ tbh, you either catch and release a spy and the other person gets a bit of favor for saying sorry, or you imprison a high level spy for 200 years because they have nothing to trade for em.
The problem is tencent has to report their data to the Chinese government if they ask, per their laws. They say they are storing their data in off shore data banks, but I can say the sky is purple. That’s the fear.
@@armorclasshero2103 it’s naive to assume naïveté and not very classy. Just because I had to explain some peoples way of thinking, doesn’t mean I adhere to or even agree with the idea. I’m well aware that everyone collects data. However, this is a situation where the data could get sent to a competing super power, which explains why some people think that way. You don’t have to agree with something to understand it, friend. 😉
@@Focused2341 they already do that. Facebook, Twitter, and all the rest can already be legally compelled to give up data to ANY government. It's called sovereignty. No American law is ever going to prevent that.
My government telling everyone they're fighting the CCP, as they try to pass laws that could have been written by the Central Committees in Beijing aimed squarely at the average American citizen.
@ LTT : READ THE BILL, STOP ASSUMING! [11] (c) Criminal penalties.- (1) IN GENERAL.-A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
@@mitchellhowell9380 yeah, that's perfect lol. I think i was just meaning more the logistics of a separate touch screen. Even a somewhat basic streaming setup like I have, I am constantly in a battle of daisy-chaining and struggling to cram in as many USB peripherals in as possible. Its certainly a problem that gets worse the bigger the setup gets
Here in America we have what is referred to "Chevron Deference" (Chevron v NRDC), a simple explanation for this is that if a regulatory statue is ambiguous then the court will defer to the regulatory agency's interpretation in that instance. Well if that sounds kind of wishy-washy and bad to you then you would be right, it requires no consistency on the part of the interpretation of the regulation by the regulatory authority. As a result it has lead law makers to write increasingly broader and ambiguous regulations, as a way to extend government reach, as you see here. An example of this would be imagine a fictitious government organization that had the power to "ban offensive colors on your house" punishable by law. So one day a regulator shows up and writes you a ticket for having on a "offensive color" on your house. So you accept your fine, you look around and realize that everyone else has the same color on their houses. So you get mad and take the organization to court and the judge will ask the organization what their interpretation of the regulation is. They replay that this particular color is offensive and you obviously lose your case. You promptly go home repaint your house using the same colors on the inspectors home, those will certainly be 'non-offensive'. The next week the inspector shows up and cites you for having "offensive colors". So clearly you have a case this time, so you take the organization to court and again the court will ask the organization what their interpretation of the regulation is? They will replay that this particular shade of color is offensive and you have just lost your case again. This is one of the reasons 'Chevron Deference' needs to go away, with out clear concise laws and regulation you can be punished for nearly anything at anytime. Arguments against doing away with Chevron Deference has basically been "this means a lot more work for law makers", but that is literally their jobs. Given the number of stupid special group pandering that happens it seems like lawmakers have way too much free time on their hands anyways,
I like Linus talking about the potential stalking victims not having the ability to upgrade their own security. And the other problem is that the average person has terrible threat modeling skills. I knew a guy who ordered a steel reinforced front door and spent a couple grand on new "pick proof" electronic locks for all his doors. Never replaced the back door with a window, with the expensive lock's deadbolt within arms reach of the window.
In the UK we had the Investigatory Powers Bill introduced in 2016, so now ISPs are forced to log all citizen's network traffic for up to a year. The only upside is that due to HTTPS they cannot see detailed info, just which websites, when, and how much traffic. Now they're pushing through an "Online Safety Bill" which is pushing to let them backdoor encryption. People complain about the US, but the UK is actually worse right now. US is just playing catch-up. And of course, once quantum computing can reliably decrypt data at scale, we're all fucked.
I think with increasing risks to cyber security, we'll start taking the route of just taking things offline. We've gotten used to having so many things connected to the internet, uploading everything to the cloud, etc. but if your home security cameras are disconnected from the internet, no one can hack them no matter how advanced they are.
This is exactly the reason I tell people not to buy into the Ring ecosystem. All live footage of my home is stored on an encrypted harddrive onsite. Thanks Ubiquiti :)
asking the human population to go back like 25 YEARS or so before the internet became mainstream? thats gonna be super tough to do. now that everyone and their grandma and dog uses the net. Man I'm starting to miss late 90s and early 2000s when the net was still niche and ppl were more "normal"
@heyjeySigma doesn't have to go that far back, but not everything needs to use the internet, we can have something like separate things like your GPS doesn't need Google, it just needs to know your location and have a road map. Everything being inter connected and expecting security is like sleeping with everyone you know and expecting to never get an STD
We used to drive around and find peoples open wifi with a pringles cantenna, and then print out a flyer for our network security firm on their printer.
The exact same argument for the flipper zero could be applied to firearms. They are a net positive even though it can lead to dangerous situations in certain hands.
I love the idea of the flipper, and in theory, its existence should act as a wakeup called to security companies. I'm planning on buying one eventually (I'm more than happy to be on a watch list to own one). My plan is to cut a bunch of items out of my life and to very occasionally do something along the lines of doing security testing for people (primarily those who live in rented housing that doesn't offer enough security).
On the password typing-- I feel like a simpler solution is a password manager. I very rarely type many of my passwords anymore. The streamer would have to sign into their password manager beforehand, and maybe mute if they have to type any passwords that aren't in the manager, but copy-paste doesn't leave an incriminating audio trail!
I think this hits sort of a same chord for me as the FTC/Xbox+Activison stuff. I have nothing against blocking mergers. I actively promote it. I have nothing against killing social media's power - I think it's the "cigarettes" of our generation where we'll look back in 20 years and say "how on earth did we let them go completely unregulated for so long". But doing it to "protect the competitor" (ABK) or "prevent data collection" (Tiktok) is stupid. If they're going to block ABK, why didn't they block Disney + Fox? If they're going after Tiktok, why didn't they go after Facebook? And the reason is corporate/political money. And I hate it. So I'm going to do everything I can to fight both of them because while the end result is fine, the reasoning for it is absolute BOGUS and isn't being applied fairly to all players on the field.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING ABOUT THIS! I am American and everyone I've heard talk about it just say it's to ban TikTok... They have no idea it's much much worse! So thank you!
Unless you are planning to: Damage critical infrastructure or digital economy, interfering in result of a Federal elections, be involved in criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions, otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States Then there isn't any reason to freak out...
I think that China and Chinese-owned apps pose a somewhat unique risk in that China has a law (and no real courts to stop it) where they can order domestic companies to do things without telling anyone (e.g. pushing updates to TikTok which exploit a 0-day to infect people's devices). With that said, I 100% agree that if the law isn't intended to target individuals, it should say that.
@@acheyawachtel9409 Correct, the US government cannot do that. Sometimes companies will comply with requests but they don't have to and there are some pretty high profile cases of companies defying requests from the government and winning in court.
@@TheUnlocked Really? You mean they even win in that secret one, whose judges and their rulings aren't made public? Where the process is that the objecting party has to disprove the government request? Also the one with a published 19k:4 ratio of approved vs unapproved warrants, the one whose appellate arm was set up 24 years after the regular one The US sure isn't doing exactly what they accuse china of doing, that datacenter recording all internet traffic is for "backup".
The question "Is it a tool or is it a weapon?" is pretty rhetorical because everything is always both. I can always strangle someone with a USB cable.. weapon or tool?
Notice how they said the list of “foreign adversaries” “could be expanded in the future,” with no mention of the potential for reducing it. We’ve given up.
The talk about hacking hardware is the same talk people had with security tools getting available way back in time. They are made for the good guys to use to show the leaks but yes there are bad uses of them but that's with a lot of gear. A wrench can be used for good but can also be used to beat a person to death so that argument can be made for a lot of tools
Also, if VPN servers will be removed from USA\EU, in problematic countries, where gov-t runs amok, for ex. Russia, my country, this will result in inability for reasonable natives to break through the propaganda veil, and basically just seal all sane people's efforts to show what actually happens in the world. Now, however ineffective those efforts were for changing the propaganda noise are, making them even less a factor is not helpful to anyone imo.
No? The US banning use of VPNS in the US has no affect on whether someone can use VPN's in problematic countries, why would it? The US banning VPN's does not mean people using VPNS in other countries wouldn't be allowed to share information on the internet, why would it?
@@dabbopabbloEven forgetting the fact that US brings a lot of weight and can create precedent, just the fact that Internet architecture of any kind depends a lot, due to historical reasons, on servers in the US jurisdiction makes any laws in the US, that regulate said structure, problematic to the whole thing. If legislation will not allow servers to exist in US, there wouldn't be any servers in the US to connect to, and VPN need a server, a real physical computer, to act as your router in the country of choice. For awhile that alone wouldn't be a problem to just get the news, but then again, it depends how this - big- legislation will affect other countries, every other Internet law had it's analogue in EU countries as well, as was briefly mentioned in this video, since the underlying worries about potential spyware are international and real problem, and needs to be solved one way or another
@@dabbopabblo If laws would only regulate people using VPN, not companies themselves, the only existing financial mode of such services would be kind of exclusively "export" service. It is maybe possible but still fringe and weird. I am not sure how viable "using is illegal, but we are not using, just building infrastructure for it in this country " is . I would also imagine this will definitely make them way more inherently shady business model, since then it absolutely would depend on external benefactors
@@yearswriter I see the point you are making, but you are assuming to be financially viable a VPN service would need to be operated from within the US, however there are many currently profitable VPN companies that are not operated in the US at all and are not affected by these laws whatsoever. Sure it prevents users of VPNs in other countries from connecting to a US VPN, but VPN's aren't exclusive to the US and there are many other VPNs in other countries someone in a problematic country could connect to and avoid their governments censorship, allowing them to share whatever is actually happening in their country just as easily as they could before. These laws may have a trickling affect like you mention but not enough censorship-less countries are aligned with the US for it to be a conceivable issue for people trying to avoid censorship in countries where VPN's are used not as toys but actual commodities for freedom of speech.
in theory the US could use the threat of sanctions to force companies overseas to comply with US bans on VPNs. However. in countries that are already hostile to the US. Said VPN companies maybe insulated. If things got bad enough its conceivable that an american uses crypto currency to pay for a chinese VPN service to use Tiktok and the US government can do nothing about that.
I bet people can't remember the last 5 tik toks they watched. Most people spend AT LEAST an hour a day on tik tok. In one year, you've wasted 2 WEEKS of your life. They could have learned an instrument instead.
This quite literally is every bill. Every act. Show me a bill where they don't try to sneak crap into. I don't think people understand that granting more power to groups that have proven they will overreach until they are reprimanded is setting us up for failure.
I am waiting for my government display that I will be required to have in my house. WIth this display we will be required to listen to government broadcasts and do morning exercises in front of (and they will be able to tell if we don't participate).
I'm convinced that VPNs are run by state intelligence agencies specifically so they can hoover up as much traffic as possible. How else could they operate for $3-5/month??? You can run TBs/month through a VPN at well below wholesale rates.
I mean even breathing a word bad about the government or even wanting to move out of the country because you openly don't like the country in say Russia could get you locked up in Siberia for 20+ years, this will not happen in the US "You can call the president an Asshole right to his face and be just fine, other then maybe being escorted away lol". Even things like simple speech freedoms don't exist in these country's, we have the power to go to you local congressmen and have a say and vote for people to push against the bill, you don't have this in many country's. There are many issues with our county, but compared to the always watching camera of the CCP. It is much more free.
@@gayjoebiden I mean, yes. Still better than most countries with more women's rights, and gay rights, and trans rights than most countries. Other countries are still killing people who come out as gay or even in expressing wanting to be trans. many women overseas still don't have a voice, get beat around more and treated like meat bags more often. Such as Yemen, Iran, Nigeria Qatar the list goes on just to give an example. Also slavery is still a bigger issue overseas than it is here in the west. Not sure if you were using sarcasm or not but like @springbok4015 was not wrong in all honesty and anyone denying it is just ignoring the obvious for the sake of a blinding hate.
Ppl that want to do harm will do, with whatever tool they can... If it's not a flipper it can be a lockpick... Should lockpicks not be sold because of bad actors?
there was a private estate in the USA and the residents were pitched a CCTV setup for security, the residents held a meeting and agreed that in the interests of security it was installed. latter it was uncovered that the security team were useing it as there own live TV show.
What data is TikTok collecting, that data brokers like Google do not already get for themselves, and is wholly believable that some foreign adversary is a customer to such data brokers? The perfect words to sum up the Restrict Act are "a bad solution to the wrong problem"
Why would I want people that are likely still using windows xp and can’t figure out how Wi-Fi works to tell me what I can or can’t use. “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” comes to mind.
It's so weird as a foreigner to hear a native English speaker that sounds American as Canadians usually say "we are not American!" It takes a few seconds for my brain to process that Canada is a thing and it does make sense that they are not Americans even though they sound like it. I guess when I move to Canada I'll be accustomed to the Canadian accent to be able to distinguish it from American as fast as I do to British accents. (This text was auto corrected using ChatGPT. Thanks mr OpenAI!) I suck at spelling words xD I freaking love Scottish accent and Scots language! But not in a "Ha ha! funny guys speak funny way. ", or, "I can't understand a word u said buddy!" like most do, but in an appreciation to how close it sounds to older forms of English and even old Norse at times compared to other forms of native English. I am a language enthusiast learning old Norse and Latin(native romance language speaker, makes sense) I can pick apart each word's origin now like never before. It's so cool!
@Bee Bgegegeg He is only as good as the average liberal. He doesn't seem to understand systems and how people interact with them. For the record I am not conservative or a liberal
It's not the fault of one app that the US educational system fails, or that parents do not assume the responsibilities that fall to them, who prefer to pass a cell phone to a 7-year-old child or leave them for hours in front of the idiot box to save the trouble of educating them themselves.
At work we need to use private vpn tunnels, in order to connect to other companies networks, for obvious security reasons. So if you they ban / restrict vpn's in the US, they will basicly force everyone to the public internet... which sounds fun, and VERY SECURE...
That spy balloon collected electronic information from many military bases and even picked up speed when it went public that it was a spy balloon. They were even shutting down electronic devices on bases that the balloon was in the path of.
I wish the one thing that was talked about in regards to TikTok, isn't the data surveillance but rather the control of what data is shown. People bitched and moaned about foreign influence in elections. Well, how else do you combat it. TikTok isn't the only one, Facebook and Twitter are also documented. But TikTok being a CCP influenced company isn't exactly in the best interests of America for example. Same could be said for Twitter and FB however, the CCP already influenced and controls what apps are allowed in their great firewall.
@@RusticRonnie what is harm? The bill looks like intentionally made vague. This way the government can navigate the law to impose additional restrictions.
Fun fact, that didn’t happen. Both parties want the ban of TikTok The No TikTok on United States Devices Act would: Direct the President to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) within 30 days to block and prohibit transactions with TikTok's parent company ByteDance, with stiff penalties for entities that attempt to evade these sanctions. This was the purpose act you are talking about which was never block but had more and more dumbed into it becoming this.
US Citizen who hasn't been able to get his medication for Autism Spectrum Disorder (specifically ADD) for several months (I literally need this to be a functioning member of society and hold down a job and had to switch to one of the few available medications which costs more than $300 more a month) for no other reason than because Congress decided to arbitrarily limit manufacturers to 10% growth in production per year. The fact that these clowns make on average $174,000 per year for spewing hot air and coming up with questionable policies often with the best interests of companies in mind, rather than constituents, is infuriating.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 83 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "พันฤทธิ์ vs ซุปเปอร์บอล วันของโอม MBK"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1b4pkKHa_Fk/mqdefault.jpg)
This law has “Trust me bro” vibes. Put it in writing.
Just a t-shirt should be enough right?
It’s okay, a spokeperson for a senator said “Just trust me” so now you can just trust it because they’ve never lied right?
...Right?
Just mention China and you’ve got politicians from either side rubbing their hands together being like “aight bet”
I mean at the end of the day it doesn't matter. 99% of what is aloud under the patriot act isn't expressly stated under the patriot act. It's about 50 layers of if this is ok, than this must be ok because in order to do that, we have to be able to do this.
They could expressly state that this cannot be used against American citizens, so you know who isn't an American citizen? about 1/3 of the US by some form of the definition. The issue is even if you had it 100000% in writing, that only matters if you hold them accountable. And the people who would be hit by this, are the people that are easiest to villainize. See the red scare for explanation.
This might be a good thing to make a main channel video for, really extend the reach and letting people know how much this bill affects.
+1
Ditto
Yes please.
might get the tik tok people, outside and play in the sun, instead of staring at screens.. brilliant idea..
Oh, yes. Linus spouting even more misinformation about China is exactly what we need.
American politicians: "Trust me bro."
Literally anyone with any sense: "Absolutely the hell not."
Even if I 100% trust the person who wrote the law, I sure as hell don't trust everyone in the future who will be responsible for executing it
@Republic of Texas That's their excuse for not writing everything in the legislation.
Why would y’all be against this legislation? It’s for national security. Y’all mist be traitors and saboteurs.
I already trust the gov (to steal all my data and collect taxes for this great service).
@Republic of Texas Wise people have nuanced positions on complex topics.
There is also language in almost every section of the bill that excuses and exempts the US Secretary of Commerce from public accountability. It even specifically states "Inapplicability of FOIA" as a clause towards the end. FOIA = Freedom Of Information Act. Which means they can make a decision to block something or someone, and the public has no ability to ask for an explanation or evidence which lead to the decision.
Yep, that was something Louis Rossmann specifically pointed out. If/when this bill is misused we won't even be able to know about it.
And it may even be true that citizens don't know that a given technology or person has been thusly sanctioned.
@bruh They already gave _you_ the tools to stop this, without needing them. It's literally what the 2nd Ammendment is _actually_ for, rather than defence of homes or self. Funny how Americans love to cling to this Constitutional Right, but absolutely refuse to use it for it's intended purpose even when they have a legitimate cause/reason. The US government went tyrant a long time ago, but it seems not enough people are aware or willing to accept this.
@bruh the founding fathers were elitists who wanted to keep democracy away from the majority working, slave and non-property owning classes. who do you think created this myth? The same monopoly that is doing this stuff. The founding fathers wanted an indebted labor class, and that's exactly who we have become as a majority.
The fact that the writers of the bill are specifically trying to avoid accountability should be a massive red flag to anyone with a functioning cranium. It means they are planning to use this power for nefarious purposes from day 1 and don't want anybody to see what they're doing.
We had a customer come in to our garage last year asking if we knew if there was any way their ex could be tracking their car through the GPS, immediate alarm bells were ringing and we said we would have the car free of charge and look over it over a few days in quiet periods. Eventually we found a magnetic box hidden behind the suspension with a GPS tracker in it. As you can imagine she was feeling pretty emotional and we were concerned for her wellbeing. She came back and let us know a few weeks ago that he was being prosecuted for stalking. Turns out he actually had it for years as a way of tracking his work van if it were to be stolen and she was pretty understanding of the reason it's available to the public. My point being that a hammer is a tool until it's a weapon and everything is about who's using it for what not what it is first unless it has a singular use
This is a great analogy for this situation.
Any government device should never have any third party apps, regardless if the app is from that country or a foreign one.
the rest is a bit ඞ
💯 agreed 👍
Not sure how to explain this beyond just saying it: Third party means "not the phone's manufacturer". The US Government is a third party. But I would agree that work phone is for work stuff only.
@@RadicalEdwardStudios The noncommercial context is anything an organization might be using to continue functioning that a different organization manufactures for them to use.
@bruh this should've been the case for us too. and it would've too back in the linux days but then microsoft and apple came and fked it all up
"What are you in for?"
"I used a VPN."
Turns to the rest of the inmates "and now time for our sponsor nord vpn"
VPNs won't get you in jail if they become illegal. Look at China.
@@mcflubnugg6429 "raid mobile legends !"
@@PrograError "Glasswire!"
its no small sentence either 20 years
"Ban vpn"
Every cyber security company just ruptured blood vessels in their eyes yelling into the void.
It's in introductory stage so at this point i would say it is overreacting, any bogus bill can get into the introductory stage so it doesn't mean anything, when it passes senate that is when you should start to worry, and if it hits that point (extremely unlikely that it does) there will be strong funded opposition, then it has to go through house and then the president.
They are not banning VPNs has Linus tech tips actually read this or did he just rely on someone else because it doesn't actually say that people cannot be arrested for VPNs he isn't going to happen it's never going to happen This idea was first put out there by guess Who the CCP The Communist party of China put this out there and told people to protest because they were going to be jailed for using VPNs It wasn't true
@@ChristopherGray00 lol its not overreacting
@@ChristopherGray00 yeah, just like the Patriot Act eh?
@@sigmamale4147 yes it is... introductory stage means nothing... research how bills work
Remember when it became public knowledge that Kryptonite bike locks could be beat by a bic pen? That was a big net positive and was somewhat easy to fix. Stuff like this adds real danger. Legislators aren't well equipped for dealing with these emerging technologies and devices.
Exactly. All you need to do is watch 30 seconds of most politicians discussing cybersecurity and technology to realize that the people who should be most knowledgeable on this stuff are grossly incompetent and uninformed. Stateside, the average age of Senators is 65, with 54 out of 100 over 65. The average age of Representatives is 57, with 130 over 65. There’s a reason so much tech-based legislation being introduced comes across as woefully uninformed. It’s because a huge portion of the people responsible for our legislation have been politicians since the days when the Rolodex was cutting-edge.
But that's the point. These technologies are not emerging at all, they have been around for a long time. The danger has always been there but you just consider naivety more secure than actual security. Just like realizing the lock you use to protect your bike was never actually protecting your bike is a net positive, knowing the digital forms of security you are relying on isn't actually secure, is ALSO a net positive. You are right that legislators are not well equipped with dealing with these old technologies they think are new, but saying it's the responsibility of anyone but their own, to be better educating themselves is wrong.
Legislators aren't trying to deal with emerging technologies. They're trying to take us back to the 1800's where we existed under their thumb.
@@dabbopabblo Your comment is a bit off. The fact there is a workaround for the bike lock does NOT mean your bike was NEVER protected at all. You are taking that case to it's extreme. The time of the reporting of the issue was the most dangerous time in that case. That's also low tech compared to high tech issues, which have a higher barrier to entry. As has been said before, if someone is a determined thief specifically targeting your property (bike), they will get your bike, they are already prepared. It's about being a deterrent, stopping the opportunist thief NOT being infallible.
@@TheycallmeMrWonka Ok and same goes for the flipper, its not new technology, its literally the same tech as a garage door opener but with a simple processor and gui script loader built in. Releasing it in a easy to use package lowers the barrier for entry forcing companies to upgrade their security standards. When security implementations have known vulnerabilities, its not on a company to avoid letting tools to take advantage of those FLAWS get into a potential criminals hands. Its on the companies producing the products for using outdated security, and as for the example in this video where he says its not fair to make every little gas station owner have to upgrade their systems but the reality is its giving them a wake up call that even tho the average opportunist may not of targeted their systems, someone actually setting their mind to it like your pro bike thief example, isn't gonna let the lack of a simplifying tool stop them from Jerry rigging their own version with a garage opener and laptop. So overall its not a net negative that this lowers the bar for entry for the average opportunist. Just like a bike lock does the same, the moment it can be defeated with a pen its opportunist territory. There are no differences between the net positive bike lock example and the flipper one.
Any time someone says "think of the children" for a new proposed law, and the proposal isn't giving the children food, clothing, or shelter, it's a real turd that shouldn't pass.
@Steve Sherman Be more specific.
@Steve Sherman you mean the GOP, right? Over 400 GOP members have been convicted of pedophilic crimes.
@@memwyvern *cough* pushing transgender ideology in schools *cough*
The left is misrepresenting the right as saying "think of the children" in order to get you to support the bill.
@@libertas5005 How is that grooming children? Do you not know the definition of it? Wow, the education system has to have bigger problems than teaching kids about trans people if you dont know what grooming means.
It's funny that they mentioned the prevalence of lockpicks, because i used to lock myself out of the house all the time when i was 13. I taught myself how to pick a lock using bobby pins. There was some degree of skill involved then. I moved into my own apartment and got bored one night, so i ordered a lock picking set to see if having real tools made any difference. A wave rake can pop open a lock in less than a second with little to no effort. Instead of taking me 25-30 seconds to to unlock my door i can just pop it open instantly. That kit cost me like €15 on Amazon, and it came with 20+ picks
True though. Locks are more a deterrent/time-deterrent. Locks don't keep something safe forever. Give an amateur robber enough time, and in worst-case scenario for them, they'll eventually just break the darn thing and get in, as long as no one is there to intervene. This is important, because cyber-security is the same exact thing.
"This is the lock picking lawyer and today we'll be leaving interesting comments on the Linus tech tips channel..."
@N reread the last sentence of the first comment.
In what galaxy is it this hard to not miss the point of the subject?
@@ForTheOmnissiah but i suppose one should argue if 5 seconds of lock picking time (according to @nutellaRLZ) is going to be enough of a deterrent for anyone who would have some level of expertise behind it...
@N the point was not that i cast the kit around. I don't. When i was younger i always had bobby pins in my backpack or in my hair. The point of my comment was that if someone wanted to defeat most physical locks they need only spend about €15 on Amazon and they're in
This bill is honestly horrific. Even being relatively politically conservative (at least for the western u.s.), this bill is reprehensible in how it leaves the door open for clear and obvious abuse. Its language involving lack of FOIA applicability is shady at BEST, and the blanket authority granted by the bill is the most obvious tell of future abuse. I completely agree with the idea that if this truly wasn't going to impact citizens and wasn't going to be abused, they should have written as such explicitly, and allowed citizens to hold them accountable through the FOIA.
As a conservative small government enjoyer, agreed completely
As a center left libertarian, the US is unofficially copying China's Great Firewall and pretending it's different. If we were really concerned with privacy, we would've copied the GDPR by now.
Also, China can just outright buy data through shell companies
Well ofc that's how it is this is all just part of a larger plan to control the flow of information
This bill has bipartisan support. Both sides join each other when its about violating people's freedom
@sigma male Exactly they did this when they instituted Federal income tax too parties are an illusion
I say the same thing about laws as I do about regulations, anything that is not **explicitly stated** is an entryway for abuse of the rules. Vagueness in rules always helps those already with the power to enforce their position, and always hurts those without the power.
Unfortunately, that's how U.S. politics works right now. The law in this country is built on bluntness, truth, fact, and explicitness. However, the "explicitness" is being toyed with heavily. You end up with bills that put law into place that are inherently vague/far-reaching, far past their "intended" scope. This isn't some uncommon occurrence, it's practically every bill on the table.
@@ForTheOmnissiah Yup, and politicians will use riders and other tricks (such as hooking up an opponent with their campaign donors to get them to relent and vote Yea on a bill to pass).
Yeah, but at the same time specificity leaves the door open for loopholes.
With vague language you can atleast make the argument and a case for why it's going against that particular rule and yiu can patch a lot of those loop holes with vague terms.
With specific language. There's going to be things in the bill that you cannot deal with because it skirts around the very specific language and since it not specifically violating the specific use of the language. This is how people get off scort free with certain crimes. The law they broke was stated in such a way they got off scott free on a technicality. This could've been prevented with more vague language.
If you explicitly state something. You have to explicitly state EVERYTHING. Otherwise people will find loop holes. If you make the language vague and almost poetic like you can atleast try to persuade the jury that a violation did occur.
@@TallicaMan1986 You are mixing up explicit language of the law and non exclusive definitions. You do not have to list **everything** but you do have to make your law without vague blanket statements that can easily become either unenforceable at best, or overreaching at worst.
@@TallicaMan1986 For instance, you can write a law or regulation to use the phrase “including, but not limited to” which is perfectly acceptable and allows a judge to interpret new things or lateral thinking not originally anticipated as still violating the spirit of the law and being included in the definitions of things, despite not being explicitly against it.
But if you phrase the law with a blanket statement as “anything that looks the least bit like _x_ is banned” and the spirit of the law is to ban the unsavory things that TikTok does, but the letter of the law can also be interpreted as bans to completely unrelated things, those things are effectively against the law, no matter what the original intent of the law was, because every judge everywhere is allowed to interpret the law as it is currently written, not as it was originally intended.
Just look at the second amendment, originally intended as the right for a well regulated militia to exist and for people to keep their arms as part of one, but some judge decided that the comma meant “nah, this means everyone is allowed to have guns, full stop.” And we are now still dealing with that interpretation of it to this day, because the original writing of it was too vaguely written and with too few of definitions as to its full intent.
Luke said something that should all have us wondered. "People that are into software don't trust software locks. People that are into hardware don't trust hardware locks..." this tells you everything you need to know. Don't trust software nor hardware ever. Both are only safe to a certain degree. None are totally safe.
Put another way, don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Use both physical and software methods of security.
If one fails you have extra layers of security to fall back on.
Don't trust something made by human engineering, trust that it will fail. If the human that made the thing was not omniscient, no guarantee of certainty can be made.
"We promise we won't abuse the unlimited power we are asking for so there's no need to worry"
I emailed all of my representatives in an attempt to stop this brave new world. I hope other people try to do the same. This law is scary!
politicians and representatives are all puppets. democracy doesnt exist.
Yeah, fat chance that's gonna do anything but god loves a trier.
The only thing that will work is to revolt
@Lethargy someone who tries. lol
@@alex-qn5xp Better than the alternative. At least I made my voice known and it didn't take very long. Plus, there is precedent of getting legislation stopped (e.g. SOPA).
I just think we need better data privacy laws instead of banning specific companies. Of course, that prevents the government from getting information from all the US companies that spy on their users, so they won't ever do that, but it would be ideal.
the bill doesn't mention tiktok once. it's not about tiktok, its about being able to look at everything you do.
@@SuicidalBabyTTV
It either will be limited in its scope or only target non american companies. Look at the stink google kicks up about having to share revenue, if this bill truly was about privacy, google, facebook, and a whole laundry list of companies woupd have already kicked up a fuss.
@@SuicidalBabyTTV It doesn't need to mention tiktok. Out government has tried to ban tiktok before. This is how they are doing it while taking away even more of our rights.
The government already tracks everything you do through the NSA and they can buy up data from American companies already.
Doesn't work when those laws don't apply to overseas goverment
@N lol good one
My problem with the, "Just harden/update your security", is that as soon as you do, there is a new way to bypass it. People WILL find a way around any barrier, period. A 3 lb sledge can bypass most security... also the person that always leaves the backdoor open because they smoke, etc..
I'm in solo dorm style housing... paranoid with cameras in my room etc but leave my window open because it's a hassle if I leave my key somewhere 😅
@@maxinac thank you for the understanding. I'm a bit older (a little more than Linus). I have learned, to ask my self before I walk out the door and reach for that pocket as I say it, "Phone, Keys, Wallet, Badge (work/school)".
2nd, if you get something cool, don't tell EVERYONE. You never know who's jealous or a hater. Most of the time, you get screwed by someone you know (I have worked as a Credit Card Investigator for a MAJOR Bank). Enjoy life, just post that you went to that Festival, vacation, whatever, AFTER you get back, not before hand, letting people know that your place is empty.
3rd, as I am older, but I do love my gadgets/toys, I don't like electronic/wi-fi/app stuff on everything. Buy good locks (Master Lock Sucks, Schlage is Okay) and LOCK UP behind you, lol. Have a good one.
What security? China uses tik tok to promote Democrats. Deep State wants more power to censor Trump supporters, so they tell you this is about security in order to get you to go along with it.
Censorship isn't designed to protect anyone it's designed to combat dissent
@@wafflecone_wombatdrone what
can you expand on your stament please
Boilerplate censorship statement. This is not what this is about, it’s not to combat dissent.
@@1800BrokenSoul
In the context of the US tech giants, they all cooperate with the US government on its geopolitical policies. For example, twitter had special whitelists for US agency accounts pushing colour revolution propaganda when they cracked down on "government influence". So the reason the US is worried about tiktok is because they probably won't be all that open to helping the US control the narrative.
Reminder that this turtle account is a bot
In Russia and Turkey it started this way too. It slowly expands and due to vagueness of the law you can start enforcing for different things. Eventually it becomes too restricting
I'd argue that it's not vague at all. To me it seems very explicit that the restrict act is leaving it open for the gov to expand into different things.
In Sec. 5. (a) - In carrying out sections 3 and 4, the Secretary shall prioritize evaluation of-
(2) software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to telecommunications products and services, including- (A) wireless local area networks; (B) mobile networks; (C) satellite payloads; (D) satellite operations and control; (E) cable access points; (F) wireline access points; (G) core networking systems; (H) long-, short-, and back-haul networks; or (I) edge computer platforms;
(3) any software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to data hosting or computing service that uses, processes, or retains, or is expected to use, process, or retain, sensitive personal data with respect to greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including- (A) internet hosting services; (B) cloud-based or distributed computing and data storage; (C) machine learning, predictive analytics, and data science products and services, including those involving the provision of services to assist a party utilize, manage, or maintain open-source software; (D) managed services; and (E) content delivery services;
Email your repersentivites people. I've already emailed mine and straight up told them if they support this I will be voting against them.
Did they get scared?
It has bipartisan support. You can't
@@jme2006 Yes you can...
@@josefstalin4532 You can, but it won't have any impact on the decision.
The US: No one can spy on our citizens except us!
But on the other hand they are allowed to spy on the rest of the world
But they can spy on the rest of the world, and their jurisdiction applies even in foreign countries... fuck the USA
@N Not really because when people work under the assumption that _everyone_ may be spying on them, they either will never do anything that could be deemed "suspicious" or, more likely, will try to step up their security game a little bit which in the end will be more helpful for them versus being naive and gullible to whichever bullshit propaganda the government decides to feed them and never taking any measure towards their own privacy.
The US doesn't spy on its citizens.
The rest of the 5 eyes spy on US citizens and then inform the US government. Big difference...
@N no.. no it is not
On the topic about about cybersecurity on AI. In Cyberpunk world, AI scaled so much that the internet became unusable. Since there were so many automated AIs replicating and hiding in every electronic device, it became impossible to use the internet. Every device that was connected would get immediately infected by random viruses.
It is a game. But I think that the idea is surprisingly believable.
If it's unusable who is keeping the A.I running? Some psycho in a bunker in Alaska? Just for the memes?
@@randomdeliveryguy Noone. In a side mission (return to the landfill where Dex shot you and open the freezer, bring the deck to Nix at the Afterlife and from there the story explains itself) the history of the internet 1.0 is explained and how one Bartmoss basically nuked the entirety of it (probably with a propagating worm). so there is no more Internet 1.0 and the AIs that made it unsuable have since been deleted. When the second network was created, whoever made it probably put roadblocks in place to prevent something like that from happening again.
@@randomdeliveryguy The AIs are running themselves i.e. self improving AIs
Even if that doesnt happen, the internet will still become unusable, unless for consooming purposes.
Content farms are already bad enough, now imagine AI operated content farms with AI generated content.
How many “presidents playing minecraft” youtube shorts have you seen. Probably way too many
@@tatzecom Yes. And the corporates created a smaller version of the internet that acts something like a quarantine zone held together by a massive AI holding back against the viruses.
The "Voodoo Boys" gang is actively trying to break down the quarantine "barrier" in the new net to take down the corporates that have control over it.
Netrunners are accessing the net. I'm not sure if it is the new net or the old net. But this is why they have to submerge themselves into cold baths. Their cyberware start overheating when connecting to it. Without the ice, they die.
Linus: "If that's what you mean, write it down!"
Politicians be like "Trust me bro" 😂
(I'll grant I trust Linus far more than these politicians!)
He's not wrong either. Laws need specifics, vague language leads to creeping and also when things go before courts makes them hard to enforce
Linus: : and I would know about restrictions cause I vote for Trudeau
@@noheader wow, gonna start that nonsense fight here now...
@@Blastnet_DanHarris You don't understand the situation any better than Linus. This bill is the deep state's way of banning everything as "Russian disinfo". It goes hand in hand with lockdowns and wars and money printing and everything else your side is doing. You're acknowledging it's bad, but downplaying how bad, because you partook.
In France we have some funny presidential stories of smartphones left with foreign security guard in official meetings and of course, those phones were copied 😂 so I think they might have (the DGSE) decided to tighten up the security and remove all suspicious apps in the future.
The DGSE is our version of the NSA in France, for our English speaking friends
@@zakkazz1201 And then it's still not as bad as the American ;-)
@@El_Cattivo1988 Free healthcare doesn't mean good healthcare. This is the bit so many get wrong.
@@dodo19923 "Free" healthcare in my experience is worse. I was for free healthcare in the past - but the tax burden and exploitation of it just leads to a downfall in quality. Paid for my first hospital visit abroad and received help in minutes instead of days/weeks/months. No referrals, no waiting. Sign the paper, pay, go in. So easy and efficient, holy shit. I also had to pay for a surgery, even easier. Sign the papers, go to pay, surgery is underway. The cost was a bit higher since no insurance was involved, but even then...Wow...I like it.
@@yosutzuhruoj It's a case of you get what you pay for. People can be big mad about this all they want but it doesn't change the fact.
Imagine if humanity wasn't so scummy that we constantly had people looking for how to attack each other. The "attacks are good, they make defense improve" is kind of pointless, none of it would matter if there weren't countless bad people out there seeking to harm others. And like the saying, The good guy has to find ALL the holes, the bad guy only has to find one. Defense in the tech industry is near impossible, there will always be a vector that can't be properly protected.
wow yeah duud why r they all so bad dude wtf duude
lets just all smoke some weed and ponder all the spiritual shit like duude right?
"Countless bad people" in power positions😏
This isn't about protection or some noble cause governments have always wanted to do this. The internet and the limitless knowledge avaliable at our fingertips is a thorn in their side they're just using this as an excuse to strip away your rights and you dont even know it! They won't be satisfied until they control every aspect of your life down to what you think, see, and feel.
"Attacks are good, they make defense imporve" is what a failed austrian painter did and we know the results.
@@surplusking2425 Oh we know all too well about the failed austrian painter…. 😔
Never forget
Take my word for it, fellas, it's gonna become law. Quietly, and probably about 3 AM on a Friday night. They WILL slip this through, because the powers that be want it.
lol, better get out before the fascist dictatorship in full swing
@@MidNightClub2000we don't need Nazi propaganda here
We can only hope the current SCOTUS respects the 1st amendment enough to slap it down. them being boomers who don't understand technology doesn't give me confidence though.
I see this as being more likely since the Net Neutrality act passed in 2016. I remember practically everybody in my high school (even people who didnt follow tech) being against it yet it still passed. Thankfully it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be but this seems much worse.
@Scott Grammer fun fact: the EU and most of the european countries are pushing through unpopular or dubious laws during european championships or world cups in soccer, because the public is distracted and the media is reporting on the event instead of political stuff.
It's complete and utter Bull Sh!t, if this goes through, we will NEVER be free again, online or in our personal lives.
if they want to take away our rights there's only so far they can go before everyone starts fighting back. the government is forgetting who they are messing with
More people need to know about this!!!!!
Thanks for bringing this up. This bill is waaay over the top and is NOT about necessary restrictions. If you can stop a phone you can stop an app without a bill. Basically if this is enacted you could potentially go to prison for life just for using a vpn from another country or better yet connecting to another country (rusha) via a vpn if you are not "conformed" let's say. No wrongful or criminal evidence necessary.
Nevermind tor
still not safe without practices
The PATRIOT Act comparison is apt, that shit allows the government to label anyone an "Enemy Combatant" and effectively strip you of your rights and imprison you indefinitely.
The government probably looked at TH-cam using vague rules to grant themselves whatever powers they want, and realized... they could also do that.
Private [publicly traded public private partnership] can do anything they want because they put it in the Terms and Conditions.
Snowden called it from the start! He knew that it would only get worse!
This conversation led me to believe that we really live in weird dystopian society.
"First time?"
A solution for streamers needing to enter passwords is to use a password manager secured with a hardware token. This lets you access the password manager without typing anything (or at least anything that is useful without the hardware token), and then the password manager can type in the password for whatever you are trying to access.
Has nothing to do with it.
Tik Tok has major security concerns that need to be addressed but this bill is not the way to do it
The problem here is they cant make this direct enough because that would require admission of guilt on their part.
Alright, I am by no means an expert on any of this, but here’s something that I’m pretty sure holds true.
Vague laws should not be justified with, “We’ll use common sense.” Common sense is vague, that’s why we have laws.
Worst part is that "common sense" isnt all that common.
How to codify corporate collection, analysis, and sale of your citizen's information and location, by making counter measures to such illegal, while blaming another country's product for doing the exact same thing. All without ever saying as much.
I would’ve never thought these guys to have the stones to cover this topic. I’m quite impressed because this actually does take some courage, given their position.
every law is against humanity
still waiting for a 24 hour wan show guys
The problem is that the judiciary will judge the law as written, the lawmakers' intent to "not impact individuals" doesn't matter
The conversation at the end reminds me of the case of, if you watch The Lockpicking Lawyer and then you have to buy a bike lock. You've seen him probably open every lock on the market but you need to buy a lock that you need to trust to keep your bike safe.
This act is even worse than SOPA/PIPA was. If you're an American please write your senators telling them to oppose this.
"nobody has the intention to built a (fire)wall"
International spying seems very realistic in Civ tbh, you either catch and release a spy and the other person gets a bit of favor for saying sorry, or you imprison a high level spy for 200 years because they have nothing to trade for em.
The problem is tencent has to report their data to the Chinese government if they ask, per their laws. They say they are storing their data in off shore data banks, but I can say the sky is purple. That’s the fear.
So is every other tech company. USA demands data all the time, too. Naive, much?
@@armorclasshero2103 it’s naive to assume naïveté and not very classy. Just because I had to explain some peoples way of thinking, doesn’t mean I adhere to or even agree with the idea. I’m well aware that everyone collects data. However, this is a situation where the data could get sent to a competing super power, which explains why some people think that way. You don’t have to agree with something to understand it, friend. 😉
@@Focused2341 they already do that. Facebook, Twitter, and all the rest can already be legally compelled to give up data to ANY government. It's called sovereignty. No American law is ever going to prevent that.
My government telling everyone they're fighting the CCP, as they try to pass laws that could have been written by the Central Committees in Beijing aimed squarely at the average American citizen.
@ LTT : READ THE BILL, STOP ASSUMING!
[11] (c) Criminal penalties.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
All weapons can be used as tools and all tools can be used as weapons
Streamers could use a small extra touchscreen with swipe-based text input. That would probably take some figuring out though
just use an onscreen keyboard
@@mitchellhowell9380 yeah, that's perfect lol. I think i was just meaning more the logistics of a separate touch screen.
Even a somewhat basic streaming setup like I have, I am constantly in a battle of daisy-chaining and struggling to cram in as many USB peripherals in as possible.
Its certainly a problem that gets worse the bigger the setup gets
Here in America we have what is referred to "Chevron Deference" (Chevron v NRDC), a simple explanation for this is that if a regulatory statue is ambiguous then the court will defer to the regulatory agency's interpretation in that instance. Well if that sounds kind of wishy-washy and bad to you then you would be right, it requires no consistency on the part of the interpretation of the regulation by the regulatory authority. As a result it has lead law makers to write increasingly broader and ambiguous regulations, as a way to extend government reach, as you see here.
An example of this would be imagine a fictitious government organization that had the power to "ban offensive colors on your house" punishable by law. So one day a regulator shows up and writes you a ticket for having on a "offensive color" on your house. So you accept your fine, you look around and realize that everyone else has the same color on their houses. So you get mad and take the organization to court and the judge will ask the organization what their interpretation of the regulation is. They replay that this particular color is offensive and you obviously lose your case. You promptly go home repaint your house using the same colors on the inspectors home, those will certainly be 'non-offensive'. The next week the inspector shows up and cites you for having "offensive colors". So clearly you have a case this time, so you take the organization to court and again the court will ask the organization what their interpretation of the regulation is? They will replay that this particular shade of color is offensive and you have just lost your case again.
This is one of the reasons 'Chevron Deference' needs to go away, with out clear concise laws and regulation you can be punished for nearly anything at anytime. Arguments against doing away with Chevron Deference has basically been "this means a lot more work for law makers", but that is literally their jobs. Given the number of stupid special group pandering that happens it seems like lawmakers have way too much free time on their hands anyways,
How many women voters do you think care about that? Libertarian Party is like 1%.
I like Linus talking about the potential stalking victims not having the ability to upgrade their own security. And the other problem is that the average person has terrible threat modeling skills.
I knew a guy who ordered a steel reinforced front door and spent a couple grand on new "pick proof" electronic locks for all his doors.
Never replaced the back door with a window, with the expensive lock's deadbolt within arms reach of the window.
In the UK we had the Investigatory Powers Bill introduced in 2016, so now ISPs are forced to log all citizen's network traffic for up to a year.
The only upside is that due to HTTPS they cannot see detailed info, just which websites, when, and how much traffic.
Now they're pushing through an "Online Safety Bill" which is pushing to let them backdoor encryption.
People complain about the US, but the UK is actually worse right now. US is just playing catch-up.
And of course, once quantum computing can reliably decrypt data at scale, we're all fucked.
I think with increasing risks to cyber security, we'll start taking the route of just taking things offline. We've gotten used to having so many things connected to the internet, uploading everything to the cloud, etc. but if your home security cameras are disconnected from the internet, no one can hack them no matter how advanced they are.
This is exactly the reason I tell people not to buy into the Ring ecosystem. All live footage of my home is stored on an encrypted harddrive onsite. Thanks Ubiquiti :)
asking the human population to go back like 25 YEARS or so before the internet became mainstream? thats gonna be super tough to do.
now that everyone and their grandma and dog uses the net. Man I'm starting to miss late 90s and early 2000s when the net was still niche and ppl were more "normal"
@heyjeySigma doesn't have to go that far back, but not everything needs to use the internet, we can have something like separate things like your GPS doesn't need Google, it just needs to know your location and have a road map. Everything being inter connected and expecting security is like sleeping with everyone you know and expecting to never get an STD
We used to drive around and find peoples open wifi with a pringles cantenna, and then print out a flyer for our network security firm on their printer.
The exact same argument for the flipper zero could be applied to firearms. They are a net positive even though it can lead to dangerous situations in certain hands.
If you're powerful enough to censor, why do you need to?
How does everyone seem to have amnesia about the NSA and what Edward Snowden gave to Wikileaks? Is this another example of the Mandela Effect?
I love the idea of the flipper, and in theory, its existence should act as a wakeup called to security companies. I'm planning on buying one eventually (I'm more than happy to be on a watch list to own one). My plan is to cut a bunch of items out of my life and to very occasionally do something along the lines of doing security testing for people (primarily those who live in rented housing that doesn't offer enough security).
On the password typing-- I feel like a simpler solution is a password manager. I very rarely type many of my passwords anymore. The streamer would have to sign into their password manager beforehand, and maybe mute if they have to type any passwords that aren't in the manager, but copy-paste doesn't leave an incriminating audio trail!
I think this hits sort of a same chord for me as the FTC/Xbox+Activison stuff. I have nothing against blocking mergers. I actively promote it. I have nothing against killing social media's power - I think it's the "cigarettes" of our generation where we'll look back in 20 years and say "how on earth did we let them go completely unregulated for so long". But doing it to "protect the competitor" (ABK) or "prevent data collection" (Tiktok) is stupid. If they're going to block ABK, why didn't they block Disney + Fox? If they're going after Tiktok, why didn't they go after Facebook? And the reason is corporate/political money. And I hate it. So I'm going to do everything I can to fight both of them because while the end result is fine, the reasoning for it is absolute BOGUS and isn't being applied fairly to all players on the field.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING ABOUT THIS!
I am American and everyone I've heard talk about it just say it's to ban TikTok... They have no idea it's much much worse!
So thank you!
Unless you are planning to:
Damage critical infrastructure or digital economy, interfering in result of a Federal elections, be involved in criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions, otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States
Then there isn't any reason to freak out...
I think that China and Chinese-owned apps pose a somewhat unique risk in that China has a law (and no real courts to stop it) where they can order domestic companies to do things without telling anyone (e.g. pushing updates to TikTok which exploit a 0-day to infect people's devices). With that said, I 100% agree that if the law isn't intended to target individuals, it should say that.
As opposed to the US government?
@@acheyawachtel9409 Correct, the US government cannot do that. Sometimes companies will comply with requests but they don't have to and there are some pretty high profile cases of companies defying requests from the government and winning in court.
@@TheUnlocked
Really? You mean they even win in that secret one, whose judges and their rulings aren't made public? Where the process is that the objecting party has to disprove the government request?
Also the one with a published 19k:4 ratio of approved vs unapproved warrants, the one whose appellate arm was set up 24 years after the regular one
The US sure isn't doing exactly what they accuse china of doing, that datacenter recording all internet traffic is for "backup".
@@TheUnlocked Back in my day Apple actually had some brownie points for unilaterally refusing to comply with data requests and backdoors.
Yep. My bet would be that it gets an amendment. If they leave if too vague itll probably not survive the courts.
The question "Is it a tool or is it a weapon?" is pretty rhetorical because everything is always both. I can always strangle someone with a USB cable.. weapon or tool?
Holy crap. This is huge
Notice how they said the list of “foreign adversaries” “could be expanded in the future,” with no mention of the potential for reducing it.
We’ve given up.
The talk about hacking hardware is the same talk people had with security tools getting available way back in time. They are made for the good guys to use to show the leaks but yes there are bad uses of them but that's with a lot of gear. A wrench can be used for good but can also be used to beat a person to death so that argument can be made for a lot of tools
Flipper zero channel super fun mischief video is now a must 😂
Also, if VPN servers will be removed from USA\EU, in problematic countries, where gov-t runs amok, for ex. Russia, my country, this will result in inability for reasonable natives to break through the propaganda veil, and basically just seal all sane people's efforts to show what actually happens in the world. Now, however ineffective those efforts were for changing the propaganda noise are, making them even less a factor is not helpful to anyone imo.
No? The US banning use of VPNS in the US has no affect on whether someone can use VPN's in problematic countries, why would it? The US banning VPN's does not mean people using VPNS in other countries wouldn't be allowed to share information on the internet, why would it?
@@dabbopabbloEven forgetting the fact that US brings a lot of weight and can create precedent, just the fact that Internet architecture of any kind depends a lot, due to historical reasons, on servers in the US jurisdiction makes any laws in the US, that regulate said structure, problematic to the whole thing. If legislation will not allow servers to exist in US, there wouldn't be any servers in the US to connect to, and VPN need a server, a real physical computer, to act as your router in the country of choice. For awhile that alone wouldn't be a problem to just get the news, but then again, it depends how this - big- legislation will affect other countries, every other Internet law had it's analogue in EU countries as well, as was briefly mentioned in this video, since the underlying worries about potential spyware are international and real problem, and needs to be solved one way or another
@@dabbopabblo If laws would only regulate people using VPN, not companies themselves, the only existing financial mode of such services would be kind of exclusively "export" service. It is maybe possible but still fringe and weird. I am not sure how viable "using is illegal, but we are not using, just building infrastructure for it in this country " is . I would also imagine this will definitely make them way more inherently shady business model, since then it absolutely would depend on external benefactors
@@yearswriter I see the point you are making, but you are assuming to be financially viable a VPN service would need to be operated from within the US, however there are many currently profitable VPN companies that are not operated in the US at all and are not affected by these laws whatsoever. Sure it prevents users of VPNs in other countries from connecting to a US VPN, but VPN's aren't exclusive to the US and there are many other VPNs in other countries someone in a problematic country could connect to and avoid their governments censorship, allowing them to share whatever is actually happening in their country just as easily as they could before. These laws may have a trickling affect like you mention but not enough censorship-less countries are aligned with the US for it to be a conceivable issue for people trying to avoid censorship in countries where VPN's are used not as toys but actual commodities for freedom of speech.
in theory the US could use the threat of sanctions to force companies overseas to comply with US bans on VPNs. However. in countries that are already hostile to the US. Said VPN companies maybe insulated. If things got bad enough its conceivable that an american uses crypto currency to pay for a chinese VPN service to use Tiktok and the US government can do nothing about that.
I bet people can't remember the last 5 tik toks they watched. Most people spend AT LEAST an hour a day on tik tok. In one year, you've wasted 2 WEEKS of your life. They could have learned an instrument instead.
This quite literally is every bill. Every act. Show me a bill where they don't try to sneak crap into. I don't think people understand that granting more power to groups that have proven they will overreach until they are reprimanded is setting us up for failure.
I am waiting for my government display that I will be required to have in my house. WIth this display we will be required to listen to government broadcasts and do morning exercises in front of (and they will be able to tell if we don't participate).
So is private internet access still the LTT vpn of choice? 🤔
PIA should be avoided. IMHO the best is mullvad
@@tomkeehn new vpn service and customer service test video?
@@tomkeehn This is the way.
IIRC, LMG is staying clear of VPNs completely, at least as video sponsors
I'm convinced that VPNs are run by state intelligence agencies specifically so they can hoover up as much traffic as possible. How else could they operate for $3-5/month??? You can run TBs/month through a VPN at well below wholesale rates.
"The free west " lol 😂
Compared to countries like China, Russia, Iran (and a list of others), yes, it is the ‘free west’
@@springbok4015wow thank god. if its better than north korea then it must be pretty good
I mean even breathing a word bad about the government or even wanting to move out of the country because you openly don't like the country in say Russia could get you locked up in Siberia for 20+ years, this will not happen in the US "You can call the president an Asshole right to his face and be just fine, other then maybe being escorted away lol". Even things like simple speech freedoms don't exist in these country's, we have the power to go to you local congressmen and have a say and vote for people to push against the bill, you don't have this in many country's. There are many issues with our county, but compared to the always watching camera of the CCP. It is much more free.
@@springbok4015 that's a stupid argument
@@gayjoebiden I mean, yes. Still better than most countries with more women's rights, and gay rights, and trans rights than most countries. Other countries are still killing people who come out as gay or even in expressing wanting to be trans. many women overseas still don't have a voice, get beat around more and treated like meat bags more often. Such as Yemen, Iran, Nigeria Qatar the list goes on just to give an example. Also slavery is still a bigger issue overseas than it is here in the west. Not sure if you were using sarcasm or not but like @springbok4015 was not wrong in all honesty and anyone denying it is just ignoring the obvious for the sake of a blinding hate.
Ppl that want to do harm will do, with whatever tool they can... If it's not a flipper it can be a lockpick... Should lockpicks not be sold because of bad actors?
there was a private estate in the USA and the residents were pitched a CCTV setup for security, the residents held a meeting and agreed that in the interests of security it was installed.
latter it was uncovered that the security team were useing it as there own live TV show.
source?
@@tomk.7685 no thanks i pefer my food dry with a glass of water on the side.
This is one of those "law" things that nobody will care about, just like piracy.
What data is TikTok collecting, that data brokers like Google do not already get for themselves, and is wholly believable that some foreign adversary is a customer to such data brokers?
The perfect words to sum up the Restrict Act are "a bad solution to the wrong problem"
Why would I want people that are likely still using windows xp and can’t figure out how Wi-Fi works to tell me what I can or can’t use. “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” comes to mind.
TikTok in hands of people is like a natural selection tool.
Did not realize garage opener isn’t secure. Dang.
It's so weird as a foreigner to hear a native English speaker that sounds American as Canadians usually say "we are not American!" It takes a few seconds for my brain to process that Canada is a thing and it does make sense that they are not Americans even though they sound like it. I guess when I move to Canada I'll be accustomed to the Canadian accent to be able to distinguish it from American as fast as I do to British accents.
(This text was auto corrected using ChatGPT. Thanks mr OpenAI!) I suck at spelling words xD
I freaking love Scottish accent and Scots language! But not in a "Ha ha! funny guys speak funny way. ", or, "I can't understand a word u said buddy!" like most do, but in an appreciation to how close it sounds to older forms of English and even old Norse at times compared to other forms of native English. I am a language enthusiast learning old Norse and Latin(native romance language speaker, makes sense) I can pick apart each word's origin now like never before. It's so cool!
lmfao
They sound different to us which is funny.
Its the o sound that stands out.
All governments have there own interests in mind just a fact....shocks me that some people just cant see or get that in there heads
China cares about China. America cares about everything except America.
Linus is king of context, great political mind
Not really
@@sladehunter yes he is, slade.
@Bee Bgegegeg He is only as good as the average liberal. He doesn't seem to understand systems and how people interact with them. For the record I am not conservative or a liberal
@@sladehunter "I'm not a conservative or a liberal", You're a clown, we get it.
@@jme2006 He doesn't buy into the false dichotomy
It's not the fault of one app that the US educational system fails, or that parents do not assume the responsibilities that fall to them, who prefer to pass a cell phone to a 7-year-old child or leave them for hours in front of the idiot box to save the trouble of educating them themselves.
i was lucky i raised my kids in the80s. no cell phones for them! and not much internet.
At work we need to use private vpn tunnels, in order to connect to other companies networks, for obvious security reasons.
So if you they ban / restrict vpn's in the US, they will basicly force everyone to the public internet... which sounds fun, and VERY SECURE...
And very easy to monitor, which is the entire point.
That spy balloon collected electronic information from many military bases and even picked up speed when it went public that it was a spy balloon. They were even shutting down electronic devices on bases that the balloon was in the path of.
I wish the one thing that was talked about in regards to TikTok, isn't the data surveillance but rather the control of what data is shown. People bitched and moaned about foreign influence in elections. Well, how else do you combat it. TikTok isn't the only one, Facebook and Twitter are also documented. But TikTok being a CCP influenced company isn't exactly in the best interests of America for example. Same could be said for Twitter and FB however, the CCP already influenced and controls what apps are allowed in their great firewall.
TikTok has literally been proven to show harmful content to people. Where the Chinese version shows only positive content.
Lmao u think the american corporations and governments have americans best interests?!
@@MozTS not the point.
@@UnBoundBeatz are they wrong?
If you give gov't an inch they will take a mile. They NEVER relinquish power they've gained.
Ban VPNs!!!? that is dystopian i hope this bill never gets enforced
If you read the bill, that part is actually specifically for using harm
@@RusticRonnie what is harm? The bill looks like intentionally made vague. This way the government can navigate the law to impose additional restrictions.
@@RusticRonnie is piracy harm it's illegal but it ain't hurting anyone it's hurting the company's but it's not hurting anyone physically
Government can't pass something that could help people and the country and always seem to add BS like this.
Linus and Luke, spot on as always. I'm an Ethical Hacker, I approve this message.
Way ahead of America, india already banned tiktok in all possible way ..
America has no intention of banning Tik Tok. This bill is about banning criticism of Tik Tok, as "Russian disinfo".
Fun fact, this bill was created after the democrat party shut down another bill called the "Ban TikTok on All U.S. Devices Act..."
Fun fact, that didn’t happen. Both parties want the ban of TikTok
The No TikTok on United States Devices Act would: Direct the President to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) within 30 days to block and prohibit transactions with TikTok's parent company ByteDance, with stiff penalties for entities that attempt to evade these sanctions.
This was the purpose act you are talking about which was never block but had more and more dumbed into it becoming this.
US Citizen who hasn't been able to get his medication for Autism Spectrum Disorder (specifically ADD) for several months (I literally need this to be a functioning member of society and hold down a job and had to switch to one of the few available medications which costs more than $300 more a month) for no other reason than because Congress decided to arbitrarily limit manufacturers to 10% growth in production per year. The fact that these clowns make on average $174,000 per year for spewing hot air and coming up with questionable policies often with the best interests of companies in mind, rather than constituents, is infuriating.
Tiktok is a weapon, you cant change my mind.
Tiktok counting down until the day China owns the world. There is a Peter Pan joke in there somewhere.
You need to have one to be able to change it
The workaround for typing passwords is using a password manager. Flip side is vulnerabilities in those managers.
Linus: " this bill is bad" Also Linus: "...gOvErNmEnT rEgUlAtIoN iS gOoD..." 🙄
Slippery slop
Depends on the regulation lol.
I was one of the first civilian internt users and have to say if you don't want your information out there, don't sign into any website.