I am interested in how, exactly, Montana plans to enforce the law.
They gonna start extradition proceedings when Vicky Video from California posts content created while they were vacationing in Yellowstone?
@MPCavalier yesz it's both.
@MPCavalier I was about to rant about how Fast Company got it wrong, but after yet another read I did see where only "entities" are liable and a user is not considered an entity as defined.
However, an "entity" is liable each time a user accesses TikTok (as the law is written, and still up for debate if its App and Web or just App). So, I'd still be interested in how Google, Apple, and/or ByteDance are going to respond with Montana hits them with like 4,562,347 counts of violating SB0419.
@PrivacyL0st
There's going to be a lawsuit, that's already been established, filed way before the ban takes effect. And that will more than likely delay the ban, because it's totally unconstitutional. Montana will have to prove their case that the Chinese Gov't is receiving user info.
@PrivacyL0st
No speed limit though, so you know the state priorities
@PrivacyL0st As usual with these sorts of laws, they don't specify an enforcement mechanism because they can't think of one (another example: anti-trans bathroom use laws). Most likely this will be used in targeted harassment of disfavored groups by police.
If there were any justice in the world, the app stores would look at this and the market in MT and just say, "too bad, the app store is not available in your state." #politics
@lenaoflune I was about to agree 100%, then I looked again after @MPCavalier replied... it looks like only "entities" are liable and individual users are not a defined entity - only app stores and ByeDance.
So, yea, if I were them the response to this would definitely be a best effort geofence to support "too bad, the app store is not available in your state."
Of course, I'm sure if they can find a way to weaponize it against disfavored groups, I'm sure they will.
@PrivacyL0st @MPCavalier Ah, yeah, I see 1.7.b defining entity to not include individuals and 1.5 excluding users from being penalized under that act... though I'm sure police will love the ability to grab people's phones as "evidence in an investigation."
Of course, this law has a whole bunch of other issues. I Am Not A Laywer, but this seems like a violation of the Commerce Clause and might qualify as a bill of attainder?
@PrivacyL0st
Whats the law? Is it that you can’t USE it, or you can’t DOWNLOAD it?