[throwawayou812]

there's only one offense in the bill that includes that thread: knowingly certifying fraudulent data protection reports.

That's what it says, but one would have to believe that failing to file such reports would also be a criminal violation in any final draft of the bill. Otherwise what would be the point of the bill? Does it make sense to you that they would have a bill like this, and provide a simple way to avoid it: just don't file? That appears to be an oversight by the author, but one would undoubtedly be fixed.

By the way, did Flappy Bird even collect NPI?

Since this bill uses a vague and legally untested definition of "personal information," simply maintaining weblogs containing IP addresses could trigger this.

[tptacek]

You've now moved the goalposts past the present text of the proposal and into hypothetical future versions of it.

[throwawayou812]

That's not "moving goalposts" as you put it. Are you saying that you believe that they would allow such an enormous loophole in such a bill?

[djur]

It is often the case under US law that failing to file paperwork is treated as a much less serious act than filing fraudulent paperwork. If you fail to file a tax return, you're nearly always assessed a penalty (it's a misdemeanor). If you file a fraudulent tax return, you can easily go to prison for a long time (it's a felony).

[CatRabbit499]

The original discussion was about the bill draft as it stands - not what it might be in the future - so why would you say it isn't "moving the goalposts" to make an argument out of speculation on the future?