• itchy_lizard@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    The RESTRICT Act…could also criminalize common practices like using a VPN or side-loading to install a prohibited app

    Lol wut? They want to make it illegal for me to install software on my device?

    These fuckijg Mellon head legislators should be jailed for suggesting such violations…

    • abuttifulpigeon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, they want to make it illegal to install an illegal app.

      It’s like saying: “Lol wut? They want to make it illegal to grow weed in my home?”

      Now, I am NOT for this bill regardless, but that shouldn’t be your reason.

      • Zyansheep@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What should be your reason? Why is wanting the right to use whatever software I want not a good reason?

        Software is not weed, it is not an automatic assault rifle, it is information. You could literally speak the binary encoding of the software aloud if you had enough time, and I’m pretty sure freedom of speech is a right everyone has.

      • Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The first step is to make it illegal to sideload “illegal” apps. It’s the step that sounds reasonable that less informed people might agree with or at least not protest. The next step is to arbitrarily decide what makes an app illegal. By that point, it’s too late to protest the actual law.

        It’s like the law in Florida making the punishment death for sexual assault on a child. That sounds fine until you realize that their legislature has announced their intent to make wearing clothes opposite your gender in public into sexual assault on a child.

        Unilateral restrictive laws, without specific stipulations or conditions, even innocent sounding ones like this, are one bad actor away from being changed to a political weapon.

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Way late to this, but:

        First: it doesn’t say “illegal”, it says “prohibited”. Could be (and probably is) talking about apps prohibited either by the device manufacturer or apps that are otherwise legal but copied from another device (i.e. loaded through a 3rd party app store)

        Second: the use of the “illegal” app should be the illegal thing, not the side-loading of it on your device. In your analogy, growing any plants in your house at all would be the new restriction, on top of weed being illegal (for now)