Hacker News Reader

Comment by lolinder | Hacker News Reader

Do you have a basis for this claim or are you just throwing it out there to see if it catches on? The document linked refers to IaaS, which as an acronym definitely does not include ISPs.

View on HN

In practice, as long as a definition can conceivably cover something, the DOJ or some agency will use it. Case in point from yesterday: money transmitter as applied to arresting the developers of a NON-CUSTODIAL wallet, as part of a wider war on crypto mixing:

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/04/24/samourai-wallet-f...

This comes amid a war on end-to-end encryption, and so on. It's not like they are going to stop here.

Reading the definition https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-01580/p-46 and the paragraph following it, it's intentionally broad and i'd say it's not that much of a stretch to say ISPs provide services that match this.

Some AI services such as Synthesia https://www.synthesia.io › ethics " Your avatar can be created only with your explicit consent, following a thorough KYC-like procedure. Complete control: Our platform ensures you can decide"

There are probably very few ISPs that can fall outside of this standard. For example if your provider provides e-mail, it's providing infrastructure. And yet, the slope can get much more slippery than this.

Please read EO 13894 before proceeding further. Is the user able to run custom software directly with a customary ISP (because that's in the definition)? I agree with EGreg that they can possibly twist this, but as written it's actually narrower than you think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com