Could the RESTRICT Act(TikTok Ban) Criminalize the Use of VPNs?

[Down1]

https://reason.com/2023/03/29/could-...e-use-of-vpns/

[Ares]

https://reason.com/2023/03/29/could-...e-use-of-vpns/

It could likely be used to criminalize VPN usage. I've incorporated VPN routing into my network and have destination based routes.

If traffic is destined for certain domains, then take VPN route.
if traffic is destined for plain vanilla domains, take normal route.

I host my own recursive DNS servers, and I have all DNS lookups go over the VPN tunnel.

[ziero0]

Is the Internet flat or are things round and orbit other objects?

[keehah]

Where would we be, if we had I.O.U.’s, scrip, and certificates floating all around the country?

[keehah]

coincenter.org: The RESTRICT Act creates blanket authority, with few checks, to ban just about anything linked to a ‘foreign adversary’

March 28, 2023
The Restrict Act directs the Secretary of Commerce to ban transactions in which a foreign adversary has an interest, much as IEEPA [The International Emergency Economic Powers Act] directs OFAC [The Office of Foreign Assets Control]. We would not object to that power being used narrowly with regard to any particular Bitcoin transaction involving a specific recipient. We would, however, object to an overbroad interpretation of “interest” wherein the Secretary attempted to argue that the entire class of all Bitcoin transactions, for example, is a class of transactions in which U.S. foreign adversaries have an interest. If such an unreasonable and overbroad interpretation of the RESTRICT Act was made, we’d be fighting it in court just like we’re now fighting the Tornado Cash designation by OFAC. All things considered, we’d rather not have these broad and abuse-prone powers being wielded somewhat redundantly by either the Commerce Secretary or OFAC, and it’s not clear why this additional legislation is needed when IEEPA already provides the administration with very broad authority to block transactions with foreigners that threaten our interests.

Differences Between IEEPA and the RESTRICT Act

While the two acts are very similar in the broad powers they give to the executive, there are some differences between IEEPA and the RESTRICT Act that could make fighting overbroad interpretations more difficult if the act was to become law:

1. The RESTRICT Act does not have a statutory carve-out for transactions dealing primarily in information and protected speech activities, like the Berman Amendments in IEEPA.
2. It empowers the Secretary of Commerce to make prohibitions without the need for the President to first declare a national emergency, as with the cyber executive order that preceded the Tornado Cash sanctions.
3. It limits judicial review to the D.C. Circuit, which raises real questions about fairness and access to justice for aggrieved Americans.
4. It exempts agency action pursuant to the Act from review under the most relevant sections of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Altogether, while the substance of the law is little different from IEEPA, the process for challenging abuses of power is worryingly circumscribed. If the RESTRICT Act was passed into law and misinterpreted to ban an entire open source cryptocurrency protocol, Americans would have trouble bringing a challenge:

1. The challenge would need to be in the D.C. Circuit, even if many of the aggrieved parties are elsewhere.
2. It would need to make constitutional rather than statutory arguments about protected speech activities.
3. The challenge may not be able to make the administrative procedure arguments that we are making in our Tornado Cash case.

A broad and discretionary power to ban and disrupt all manner of information technologies should not be wielded without appropriate oversight and opportunity for review. The RESTRICT Act not only fails to ensure these rule of law protections, in many cases it attempts to subvert them.