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

181–190 of 192 posts

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

#181

Post by [deleted] »

iamnothere wrote: post #172
ramesh31 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 c…

Isn’t that the choice of the people who live there? Personally I am for cultures deciding their own local laws and customs, whether it’s Utah, India, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, or England, no matter how repugnant I may find their choices.

[deleted]

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

#182

Post by mothballed »

rexpop wrote: post #180
mothballed wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name a single case of a parent being prosecuted for negligence, or even having their children taken away by the state for the dangers endured in the Darien Gap. They are treated like kid gloves compared to how a US parent is treated if they exposed their children to such risks in moving. No one is claiming the US didn't fuck up South/Central America, your point there is a red herring (US also spent hundreds of years…

I feel like you struggle with the concept of "jurisdiction", and if we were going to look at the holistic picture, rather than charging foreign refugees with child endangerment, we'd be offering them reparations eg subsidizing schooling the way USAID used to until Lord Musk and the DOGE boys took a chainsaw to it. I still think it's ridiculous that you refer to ICE detention as "kid gloves." Again, rather than ignori…

Yes being under the jurisdiction of the evil USA obviously increases your risk profile while you're in the move. I don't understand why you think that's off the table. That's the whole point. It's legally impermissible to have your kids hopping freight trains and living in the desert in the USA while you move. The USA has the highest per capita of people in jail or under supervision and they aggressively pursue the tiniest infractions, unlike someplace like Mexico or Panama.

You're going to point out that's illegal in random latin american country too. Except the state apparatus is far weaker and more corrupt there, so there's actually a chance to bribe your way around it or just pass through the cracks.

The whole point is to end up with your family in the end, except if nature or criminals take them away, but if in the end the state breaks up the surviving family then you're heading for a dead end regardless. Latin American countries aren't breaking up families to anything near the extent the US does. The USA's bread and butter is breaking up families using the might of the state and they can't do that while you're out of their jurisdiction. If you can stay out of their jurisdiction for most of the move, you can bypass the CPS apparatus in the meanwhile. It actually might be better to go through Mexico to move from say California to Texas while broke, for that reason.

If you want to point out post-move if you are present illegally that might get you tossed out, then sure. But that's the case about everywhere but Argentina, Brazil, and back-bush Africa. A domestic family can also get tossed out for being here illegally (renounced citizenship, or whatever). That's another red herring though. ICE doesn't enforce moving without money, they enforce being present in the USA illegally (or, occasionally, legally, a la Goode / Pretti). If you get the visa to enter the USA, they won't give a single shit about all the kids that got ripped into some river in the Darien, died of some tropical disease while camped without mosquito nets, or all manner of other things they would damn a domestic family for.

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

#183

Post by red-iron-pine »

lxgr wrote: post #152
r14c wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For context, states within 100mi of Salt Lake City are: - Wyoming - Idaho 100mi doesn't get you into the population center of either state. the western US is BIG, really you're talking like 1k miles to get anywhere that's meaningfully different from utah. Depending on where you live in utah, that might not get you out of the state either.

Also, how high are the chances that these two states will never pass similar laws? As far as I can tell for similar laws (e.g. age verification), once one state moves ahead on some controversial issue and gets away with it at the Supreme Court level, others follow suit very quickly, and then your odds quickly go to 50:50 when you thought you were picking out the best of 50.

colorado won't. but plenty of others like idaho are pretty red and pretty heavy into the jesus "won't they think of the children" vibe.

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

#184

Post by red-iron-pine »

chrisweekly wrote: post #124
f1shy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still easier to move country inside the EU, as an example.

What? That seems highly improbable. Moving to a different US state is pretty trivial.

having moved often for the military -- it's not trivial. and I had the military paying to schlep my stuff and was single + no kids.

but it is easier than Europe would be, for sure. yeah there is free movement but often wildly different language, customs, and processes.

meanwhile there is WellsFargo, Safeway, and a DMV office in WA and MD

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

#185

Post by red-iron-pine »

ramesh31 wrote: post #43
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 c…

regressive tho it may be, I'd rather live in Utah than most of the South.

I'd take SLC over all of Mississippi, for example.

The VPN thing skews that a little more -- and is hilarious given how it's like the state that is largest consumer of internet porn -- but the city is far more livable than people give it credit.

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

#186

Post by red-iron-pine »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #155
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.

All the states are passing these laws, as part of a coordinated billion-dollar lobbying campaign.

by facebook.

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

#187

Post by red-iron-pine »

vkou wrote: post #98
3form wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the outside, it's particularly ridiculous given your 1st Amendment and all. I hope the tide turns for you and everyone else.

None of the amendments but the second do anything in 2026, and exercising that one is now sufficient grounds to be held down and executed on the sidewalk by a group of masked bandits. It's a major problem with no fix for it.

there is absolutely a fix, and it is one of the amendments you alluded to

volume matters

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

#188

Post by codedokode »

eterps wrote: post #123
codedokode wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How it works in Russia, if your corporate VPN is blocked by mistake, you can just submit the application to whitelist it, providing all the necessary documentation (we have pretty advanced e-government system so you can submit it online), and with high probability it would be accepted. If your VPN gets accidentally blocked again, all you need is to write to an on-duty officer and it will be unblocked.

> all you need is to write to an on-duty officer and it will be unblocked What if the pretty advanced e-government system decides it will not be unblocked?

Then it won't be unblocked.

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

#189

Post by rexpop »

mothballed wrote: post #182
rexpop wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you struggle with the concept of "jurisdiction", and if we were going to look at the holistic picture, rather than charging foreign refugees with child endangerment, we'd be offering them reparations eg subsidizing schooling the way USAID used to until Lord Musk and the DOGE boys took a chainsaw to it. I still think it's ridiculous that you refer to ICE detention as "kid gloves." Again, rather than ignori…

Yes being under the jurisdiction of the evil USA obviously increases your risk profile while you're in the move. I don't understand why you think that's off the table. That's the whole point. It's legally impermissible to have your kids hopping freight trains and living in the desert in the USA while you move. The USA has the highest per capita of people in jail or under supervision and they aggressively pursue the t…

> You're going to point out that's illegal in random latin american country too.

No, I'm not. I'm done reading your lazy bullshit.

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

#190

Post by mothballed »

rexpop wrote: post #189
mothballed wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes being under the jurisdiction of the evil USA obviously increases your risk profile while you're in the move. I don't understand why you think that's off the table. That's the whole point. It's legally impermissible to have your kids hopping freight trains and living in the desert in the USA while you move. The USA has the highest per capita of people in jail or under supervision and they aggressively pursue the t…

> You're going to point out that's illegal in random latin american country too. No, I'm not. I'm done reading your lazy bullshit.

It's hilarious how fast your interest in latin american conditions of migrants vaporizes as soon as it's not furthering your agenda of 'reparations' or '500 years of' various grudges. You accuse me of intellectual laziness, but you're unable to do anything other than a brain-dead echo chamber of progressive grievances when confronted with an entirely other subject, clinging on to your little red herring for dear life hoping it will throw off the subject and keep you in your safe space with all your pre-canned arguments against imperialism. That is intellectual laziness. I hope you step back and understand the root failure mode of your intellectual weaknesses here and why you resort to accusing others of what you see in the mirror.

But of course you aren't reading this as you are "done reading." Unless of course, you are a liar. Only you know, deep inside, but I think I know the answer. And the fact you have to quietly live with that, or else betray your own statement, is quite amusing thought for me to end this conversation on, so I truly appreciate the entertainment you've given from your last response.

Post reply on HN