Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's official: Utah is the U.S. state closest to banning VPNs

tech.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 192 posts

Re: It's official: Utah is the U.S. state closest to banning VPNs

#41

Post by babypuncher »

close04 wrote: post #2

> It's official: Utah is the U.S. state closest to banning VPNs > The law, which takes effect May 6, doesn't make VPNs illegal — but it's a blow to your rights, even if you don't live in Utah. > websites subject to the state's age verification law will be legally barred from explaining how to use a VPN to get around age restrictions. They'll also be liable for enforcing age verification for any user within Utah's phy…

I fail to see how making it illegal to tell people how to use a VPN isn't a blatant violation of the First Amendment, but I have a feeling the average Republican in my home state thinks Freedom of Speech only applies to them.

Re: It's official: Utah is the U.S. state closest to banning VPNs

#42

Post by Avicebron »

bena wrote: post #25

Uh, that's not going to fly. We use a VPN to enable remote users to access our internal network for things we don't want exposed to the public at large. And we're not a tech company. This really sounds like someone who has no fucking clue trying to legislate away all the loopholes to their other shitty legislation.

I wonder if any of the lawmakers asked their IT how they work remotely before drafting any of this..

Re: It's official: Utah is the U.S. state closest to banning VPNs

#43

Post by ramesh31 »

jespinel wrote: post #9

IMO, this is one of the main strengths of the US: you have 50 different options to live according to your values and beliefs, and relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them.

>IMO, this is one of the main strengths of the US: you have 50 different options to live according to your values and beliefs, and relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them.

Also a weakness. Utah, one of the most stunningly beautiful states in the union, is completely under the grip of a regressive theocracy that has controlled nearly every aspect of life there for over a century. Really sucks.

Re: It's official: Utah is the U.S. state closest to banning VPNs

#44

Post by rafram »

semiquaver wrote: post #36

[flagged]

I can’t believe I’m defending a Yahoo tech blogger, but this is unnecessarily rude. You don’t need to be an attorney to report on legislation, and being from Portland has absolutely no bearing on his qualifications. You’re just appealing to lazy stereotypes.

Re: It's official: Utah is the U.S. state closest to banning VPNs

#45

Post by darknavi »

> When Utah's Senate Bill 73 goes into force on May 6, websites subject to the state's age verification law will be legally barred from explaining how to use a VPN to get around age restrictions.

This will definitely work. It sounds like it's time for some "How not to use a VPN" articles.

https://www.grapecollective.com/prohibitions-grape-bricks-ho...

Re: It's official: Utah is the U.S. state closest to banning VPNs

#46

Post by yalogin »

jespinel wrote: post #9

IMO, this is one of the main strengths of the US: you have 50 different options to live according to your values and beliefs, and relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them.

In theory yes, but it’s not applicable to the vast majority of people. You have to be musk or bezos to have that flexibility.

Even then as you see with the abortion ban, the folks on that side will not be satisfied without a federal level policy and they are just whittling away state by state.

Re: It's official: Utah is the U.S. state closest to banning VPNs

#47

Post by kstrauser »

jespinel wrote: post #9

IMO, this is one of the main strengths of the US: you have 50 different options to live according to your values and beliefs, and relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them.

The problem is when some states get full of themselves and try to regulate wants to remove the right for local kids to see adult content by pushing complex, unmeetable requirements onto all 50 states. Texas wants to block the other 49 from sending Federally-legal medicines to Texas residents. In general, "small government" states spent a lot of time and effort making other states implement their local experiments.

If Utah wants a firewall, they can erect one at their borders. It's crazy of them to expect everyone else to do their work for them.

Re: It's official: Utah is the U.S. state closest to banning VPNs

#48

Post by nine_k »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #35
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true in principle, but there's a lot of people trapped in red states who in a practical sense don't have the means to leave. I'm privileged to not have to worry about that friction, but I never forget that others do.

There are lots of people “trapped” in blue states too, if that is how you want to put it.

Blue states are mostly states with large coastal cities, and thus larger incomes.

Re: It's official: Utah is the U.S. state closest to banning VPNs

#50

Post by tastyfreeze »

jmclnx wrote: post #12
OutOfHere wrote: post #8

This ban has got to be challenged in the Supreme Court for various reasons, not limited to the First Amendment and technological infeasibility. It is quite the coincidence that the NSA has their datacenter in Utah.

The current Supreme Court ?? I really doubt it will say these laws are illegal. They believe in "originalism", that means since the Internet did not exist in 1783, you have no rights to it and can be controlled in any manner the state of site owner sees fit.

That is not what "originalism" in regards to Constitutional interpretation means. An originalist will attempt to determine how a modern thing like the Internet would fit in to the original purpose of relevant parts of the Constitution. Something as broad as the "the Internet" falls into multiple areas. In regards to this story of the relevant area in the Constitution are the 1st and 4th amendments.

When the Bill of Rights was passed the purpose of those amendments was to restrict government action that may limit a person's ability to share ideas. I think that clearly makes anything that makes privacy online harder unconstitutional.

But, we also don't need the Supreme Court to weigh in on constitutionality. It is the responsibility of citizens to assert their Constitutional rights. That often looks like law suits against the State trying to infringe on our rights.

Post reply on HN