top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 199 points 6 months ago (48 children)
  • [–] 134 points 6 months ago (29 children)

    The EFF warned that the legal risk could push sites to either ban all known VPN IPs or mandate age verification for every visitor globally.

    This is the goal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 6 months ago (25 children)

    Could they not also just selectively ban all Utah-based IPs?

    People in Utah could still access with a VPN, but never would, because that would be against the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 6 months ago* (22 children)

    Why is a company or person that doesn’t exist physically in Utah at all responsible for adhering to Utah’s laws? Should be their government’s responsibility to block sites, not the site’s responsibility to block Utah.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (19 children)

    Jurisdiction follows impact, not geography. If a service 'does business with' Utah residents then Utah has legal standing to regulate that interaction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Can’t they argue they “did business with” someone in whatever jurisdiction the VPN IP address is located? And then the Utah resident moved whatever digital goods or content from that location into Utah? So it’s the Utah resident who brought the contraband into Utah, not the website?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Can’t they argue they “did business with” someone in whatever jurisdiction the VPN IP address is located?

    Yes, that's why VPNs work for evading geo-blocking.

    This law creates a liability trap by explicitly saying that they cannot claim ignorance and are liable as as long as the State can prove that the user was physically located in the EU.

    The only way to effectively comply with the law is to implement universal age verification of all users, regardless of location. This is the actual goal, the law in this article is specifically designed to remove the VPN dodge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t see how they are going to prove that though. The website is going to say they sent the packets to someone in Russia (or wherever the vpn is.) My point is, I don’t even see how they can selectively enforce this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    I don’t see how they are going to prove that though. The website is going to say they sent the packets to someone in Russia (or wherever the vpn is.)

    They don't have to.

    What the law does is remove the ability for the company to apply the defense 'I knew they were located in Russia'.

    The State only has to prove two elements 1. The person was physically in Utah and 2. That they did business.

    This law makes it so that there is no 'I didn't know' defense.

    My point is, I don’t even see how they can selectively enforce this.

    A State investigator makes an account, uses a VPN, and 'does business with' the site.

    When they bring the case to court. The site is guilty because they can prove that the investigator was in Utah and that they did business with the site.

    States love to do this, they remove the mens rea (guilty mind) element so that you're guilty regardless of your knowledge or intent.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Then why won’t the US let other countries do digital services taxes.

    They can’t have it both ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    The same reason that sites like Anna's Archive and The Pirate Bay exist.

    State and Federal laws don't apply to other countries without an explicit treaty or agreement where a country agrees to enforce those laws on behalf of the other.

    Utah could issue fines for a foreign company but they would have no way to collect because the company doesn't own any assets in any location that would be required to follow a court order to seize their assets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    So, what you're saying is this law will encourage setting up shop somewhere without reciprocal agreements, which will encourage countries to lapse said agreements, weakening US soft power yet more.

    Sounds like a win.

    Shame so many of the world's governments have a hard on for de-anonymizing the internet though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    The EU is doing ID verification too, it's essentially bifurcating the Internet into the new 'We know exactly who you are' Internet and the old, possibly soon to be outlawed, wild wild west Internet that we're on today where you can remain pseudoanonymous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Yup, and something of value (especially to free speech) is being lost. My hope is "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore, still applies when enough governments go at it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    If someone comes from Utah to my state and then I break one of Utah's laws against them, does that mean I'm subject to Utah's laws? They aren't doing business in Utah. People in Utah are doing business with them.

    I don't have any way to prevent access to my site based on what laws you're subject to. Nor do I have any desire to learn 52 states worth of individual laws that may or may not apply to me. I didn't wire your computer up to the internet, you did that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    They aren’t doing business in Utah. People in Utah are doing business with them.

    In the law, those are mutually exclusive. If either end of the transaction is in Utah, it is under Utah jurisdiction.

    I don’t have any way to prevent access to my site based on what laws you’re subject to.

    If you're hosting an online business you do have the ability to block users based on location.

    Nor do I have any desire to learn 52 states worth of individual laws that may or may not apply to me. I didn’t wire your computer up to the internet, you did that.

    I would advise not running an online business then, because the law around jurisdiction and the Internet is well settled.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Geofencing is not trivial, cheap, or even reliable. Are there any cases of sites being legally required to geofence or do they all do it to preemptively avoid legal issues? I've only ever seen the latter.

    I'm not trying to argue what is or isn't the current state of law around this; I'm pointing out the absurdity of enforcing it this way and the strange way it's being used to backdoor state laws into federal ones. This is extremely stupid from a technical, and legislative standpoint.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    I agree that it is absurd.

    The goal here is to force sites to do age verification.

    Creating absurd laws where the only possible way to not be held liable is to implement the age verification requirements regardless of the apparent source of the traffic is the tactic that they've chosen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Utah can charge me with whatever the fuck they want. If I'm not in Utah or doing business with Utah and ignore them what are they doing to do about it?

    If China decides my posts are a crime because one of their citizens might see it I am in no way obligated to go to China to defend myself or pay their fines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)

    Utah can charge me with whatever the fuck they want. If I’m not in Utah or doing business with Utah and ignore them what are they doing to do about it?

    If you live in the US then the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which is enforced with under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, requires that all states recognize and enforce valid final judgements from sister states.

    If Utah sues you for violating this law you could show up to court to contest the case or they would win a default judgement.

    After the State had a judgement they could seek a writ of execution or writ of garnishment to seize your wages or put liens on your properties.

    If you don't live in the US, and don't plan to ever work or own property in the US then you're functionally immune to such judgements.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    So the US continues to encourage businesses to operate elsewhere. Tired of winning yet?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    So the US continues to encourage businesses to operate elsewhere. Tired of winning yet?

    That argument only works if there are significant markets where a country could choose to operate that wouldn't impose the same verification restrictions.

    As of today a large amount of countries, representing around 4.5 billion people including the largest economies in the world are pushing for some sort of age verification requirement.

    You could choose to operate outside of these countries but you would only find a small, and poor, market. The countries pushing for this kind of identity verification account for the majority of the world's GDP.

    So, as it stands, unless you want to operate an e-commerce business serving Gabon and Congo, you would probably be forced to comply with a law similar to the one in Utah.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    As of today a large amount of countries, representing around 4.5 billion people including the largest economies in the world are pushing for some sort of age verification requirement.

    But that does not mean they are also pushing laws that hold the website responsible if someone connects through a VPN.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    The fact that a VPN can violate these laws is a well-known issue and it is being attacked from various angles depending on the country.

    They may not all be using a liability trap like Utah but it isn't as if the rest of the world are passing similar age verification laws and accepting that anybody who can download and install a VPN can ignore the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Why is a company or person that doesn’t exist physically in Utah at all responsible for adhering to Utah’s laws?

    This line of thinking is dangerous as it allows companies to disregard any sane legislation as long as their servers are located in a "safe" place. A large portion of websites accessible from Canada are served from US servers, for example. American companies ignoring Canadian laws because they don't have Canadian-based servers would be a nightmare

    If a company makes any money off users in a geographic area (which includes ad view revenue), they have to follow the rules there which is a GOOD thing - even if it's ridiculous in this case

    Also endorsing governments selectively blocking websites is just bad for obvious reasons

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    Allowing individual states the ability to dictate laws for the entire country is even more dangerous, for the non-hypothetical reasons we are currently experiencing.

    And what you're describing is exactly what happens with international websites. Its why you can go find tons of websites with open media piracy being hosted in Russia. Are parties in Russia now subject to US laws?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago

    In Hungary, we have a term "impossibilization", used to describe laws that are not technically banning things, but making them near impossible to do. The christofascists of the US want to ban porn without actually banning porn, because that pesky constitution doesn't allow it yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 210 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I think this is one if those laws where they get to selectively choose who to prosecute.

    ..everyone is always a criminal so those in charge can do whateverthefuck they want with little regard for actual laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I think this is one if those laws where they get to selectively choose who to prosecute.

    Like every law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 6 months ago

    Over the course of the last decade, each year has seen an average of 2,685 new laws - the equivalent of almost seven and a half a day or one every three-and-a-quarter hours

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/jun/04/houseofcommons.uk

    This was in 2007 in the UK. But I imagine it's much the same in the US. Literally impossible for anybody to follow every law, but that doesn't matter because as you say they're selectively enforced

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago*

    Were it me...

    Wireguard is too obvious, so, Yggdrasil to an out of state or ideally country VPS, VPS to, you name it, tor, ygg, i2p, "the works".

    but, this makes the barrier to entry that much higher. Any public TOR relay is an instant breach of the law and provable if the target IP is identified as one, and most could very easily be. One would need to go private, on their own hardware.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Seems like it’s the first step in transferring control of the internet to the government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 6 months ago

    It's not, it's an add-on for shifting liability after the fact. Basically, if a site gets dinged as being part of showing some youth something truly evil, like confirming the existence of LGTBQI+ people on earth, then if the youth used a VPN, somehow the site is to blame. And likely fines come into play.

    It's like if a person that's 19 buys alcohol with a fake ID in Utah - the liability is still on the place that unknowingly sold the liquor. It's probably based on the same lack of logic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    This will be be one of those that they use to tag onto your allegedly illegal activities. Probably a larger penalty but a secondary infraction that can be painful. They just need reason.

    I think you can equate it to if you were pulled over for speeding, and they noticed a busted taillight which makes the fine larger. They can’t pull you over for a busted taillight alone but they can add those fees on and wow do they add up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago

    Depends just how willing you are: demand domestic websites block any non residential IPs and report any attempted or even successful VPS connections, allow only registered businesses to operate VPNs, use government shipped mobile apps to detect people's network configs/installed apps/private and public IPs, block any known VPN IP ranges, use DPI to block VPN protocols and detect unusual traffic, allow access only to a select list of domains and IP addresses, etc. There's a myriad of ways to enforce this, but in the US they will need a few years to set up the hardware necessary to do it, that's the one thing the US has going for it. Sleep on it, though? You will wake up to intranet in 10 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    every website will start blocking VPN IPs, more so than what some already do, which is exactly what these cunts want

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago

    So then something else will be found that yields a degree of anonymity, that is the game we all play. They sell us security which tastes like totalitarianism and we respond with compliance which smells like subversion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 380 points 6 months ago* (36 children)

    Web services and websites should block all Utah IP addresses and redirect to page explaining that because they cannot tell who's using a VPN, their only option is to block all of Utah.

    Yes, I understand how dumb that is, but sometimes you have to fight stupid with stupider.

  • source
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 157 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Porn sites have been doing that for years now.

    And that's exactly what they want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 88 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    They don't want every website to do it though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    I like the thought, but it won't work. The big websites won't be willing to lose money they don't have to, and like ID laws that give them reasons to extract more data from users anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    They actually want to avoid the liability of storing someone’s id.

    The government wants to make these things illegal, but they also want to track every person on the internet through their government ID, so they create the problem (age restriction and id checks) because they have the planned solution: digital id for every computer!

    Do you have your computer license? Do you? You think the internet is a psy-op and Big Brother’s watching you? Just wait until a government admin message pops up on your screen because you visited the wrong website.

    You’re getting fined for spreading misinformation or receiving a letter for libel due to some offhand tweet about some famous person. Don’t worry about receiving a notice in the mail, if you have a printer they’ll make it print your ticket for you immediately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Big websites will only have to do it for a little while though, a month perhaps. If suddenly Utah can't reach youtube or Netflix... Constituents will complain, the citizens simply won't have it, and then the legislators have a problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Even worse, that would not necessarily help. If someone's accessing your website through a VPN that's not located in that state, you would not block it… then become liable.

    Better block everything at this point -_-

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    It's actually quite trivial to detect most VPN providers. There's publicly available IP lists

    https://ipinfo.io/tools/vpn-providers-detected

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Many VPN providers regularly rotate their IP ranges.

    Regardless, that wouldn't reveal to a website where the traffic was originating from.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    wouldn't reveal to a website where the traffic is coming from

    that's... exactly the point here. If you're connecting thru a VPN then the web site is supposed to ID you because you might be circumventing their local ID laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    I was replying specifically to your comment...

    "It's actually quite trivial to detect most VPN providers. There's publicly available IP lists..."

    None of that has anything with what I'm suggesting, or why I suggested it.

    I've explained the rationale in other comments, but this is an action of protest, not a technical response or workaround to the law.

    If Utah passed the stupid law, you have to inconvenience Utah voters, and to do that, websites should block all Utah IP addresses. Making clear to their users that due to the new regulatory framework, they're no longer doing business in Utah.

    If that upsets people in Utah, they can reach out to their representatives to ask why they voted to ruin the internet in Utah.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    you originally said

    they cannot tell who's using a VPN

    I was replying to that specific statement only. Lists of IP ranges are updated regularly and publicly available. Web sites hosted in Utah will have to make use of them to ID check visitors to comply.

    I agree with you that web sites hosted outside of Utah should just block Utah IP addresses with a "contact your representative" message."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    No, the better solution is for sites that age verification is pointless to block Utah. If you make a mobil app check the GPS or IP and disabl the app if they are in Utah. People should go on sites like Yelp in mass and put down votes on every establishment in Utah so that ths site becomes useless for anyone in Utah. Pretty much just destroy all tech and internet for all things Utah.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    Yes, I understand how dumb that is

    i don't think you do. residents of utah don't have to use vpn with endpoint in utah, so in order for your "gotcha" to work, they would have to block whole world. since most people will choose endpoint far from them, it would probably be enough to block anything but utah...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 6 months ago* (10 children)

    That's the point....

    It would be protest against Utah's dumb law, with an even dumber response, that's designed specifically to inconvenience people in Utah.....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -22 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    so you would bully the people being bullied by this law to protest the law that bullies them? well that would show them!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Unless you are willing to admit that Utah is a dictatorship, then yes "bullying" the people is very appropriate.

    This is an issue with american thinking, the sanctity of normality. You think doing anything that effects the every person is somehow off limits, you think the daily life of the people is unassailable. Its the same nonsense over and over across everything and I think why americans always talk about how "nothing can be done" about any issue that comes up. The us of a is flying off a cliff in multiple ways but americans will put up with it as long as they don't notice a change in their daily life.

    It is why you are all ok with war, right up until the gas price goes up.

    It is why you are all ok with losing liberties, right up until it effects you personally.

    It is why you are all ok with your media and entertainment pushing usa #1 bullshit that always ends up "back to normal", right up until you can't ignore reality.

    It is why you are all ok with a clearly broken and non democratic system, right up until nether party is able to guarantee your lifestyle.

    It is why you are all ok with draconian "purity" laws being put into place, right up until sites you like to use realize that Utah is not worth the work to be there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    hey doc, here is one who forgot to take their pills!

    This is an issue with american thinking

    You think doing

    it is why you are all ok with

    it is why you are all ok with

    it is why you are all ok with

    it is why you are all ok with

    it is why you are all ok with

    you do know there are people in the world that are not americans, right?

    “bullying” the people is very appropriate.

    no, it is not. once you are done with this tantrum, i suggest to talk to a mental health professional and ask them for explanation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    no, it is not. once you are done with this tantrum, i suggest to talk to a mental health professional and ask them for explanation.

    Yes, it is. You americans will get to see the results of your madness first hand over the next few years, there is no "tantrum" over it, just the explanation of the consequences you are all facing from thinking you are special.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago

    “The people being bullied” lol, they are called voters and they voted for the government that does this. Americans can fuck right off with their victim mentality. Go fix your shithole country instead

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 100 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Remember when we told people "they'll make it illegal to use a VPN" and we got snarky replies like "it's not enforceable LOL".

    The fuck it isn't. Traffic coming from a VPN? That's a paddlin', kiddo.

    They're not even trying to masquerade it as… oh, yes, they're still trying to masquerade as a "think of the children!" measure. Those fuckers.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    and we got snarky replies like "it's not enforceable LOL".

    Not being enforceable hasn't stopped a lot of bad laws from being enacted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    My housing complex has a 10km/hr speed limit, it is completely unenforceable (police aren't going to put in a speed trap or monitor a road inside a housing complex). Doesn't stop people getting all upset because they're sure someone was going 15.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] 13 points 6 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    This seems a bit sketchy to me. How am I getting paid for participating when it's completely free?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    So what legally protects a provider from prison if users view illegal content via my network?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Reminds me of the guy who got his home raided and electronics seized for running a Tor exit node.

    https://www.zdnet.com/article/austrian-man-raided-for-operating-tor-exit-node/

    Seems risky and a huge legal hassle even if you don't end up in prison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago*

    looks sketchy af

    agentic browser ew

    corporate ew

    real trustworthy privacy/security/anonymization/decentralization software is libre, open source, non-corporate, an unpaid not-for-profit free-time project that never makes use of any money, decentralized with no official host, and most importantly made by trans anarchist catgirls who use obscure operating systems

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›