all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 23 points 6 months ago (5 children)

So just like how they attacked piracy sites which then went distributed via torrents, does this mean the world will go onion routing so all IPs are local addresses?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    More likely I2P — TOR doesn’t scale as well.

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

    How does one get started with I2P? I'm surprised i'm just hearing about this.

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

    Interesting. I never knew. Apparently i2p is more like an anonymous and secure intranet within the internet, while tor is an abstraction layer focused on exit nodes to the internet. Internally vs externally focused if I understand correctly.

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

    Pushing sexual material further underground can't be anything but positive. Look how well prohibition of alcohol worked. /s

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

    I read the article and I still don't understand why companies that are located outside the state of Utah would give a shit. Aren't they outside the state's jurisdiction?

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

    Not if someone inside Utah sends them money. Then Utah’s laws intersect with interstate commerce laws, so any company in the US is affected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 13 points 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Enforcement does not need to be perfect for the law to have an impact.

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

    No internet for Utah then.

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

    Silly Mormons up there in their high desert.

    Maybe they should be focusing on their imminent water issues. You know, actual problems.

    FAFO, baby!

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

    so a couple days ago? hows that working out?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago
    15 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 44 points 6 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Ha, where do you think we are? America? Oh, wait... Yeah were cooked.

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

    Oh look, Gilead is back in the news. What a shithole. Beautiful state but the people are awful.

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

    Praise Jesus. #FreedomSurveillance

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

    As a Utahn I'd missed this. But reading what applies... how would a company realize I'm in Utah and be forced to age verify me? My guess is this is actually mostly targeted at sports betting. I don't know a lot about how people are using VPNs there but I'd be surprised if they're running them on their phone constantly.

    Not saying I'm okay with it, but the headline made me think I was in for issues using my VPN. What seems to really be coming is a liability rats nest for websites that makes no sense.

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

    This effectively pushes risk averse platforms to universally apply age gating to everyone. The technical impossibility is a feature in this case. As it increases the legal risk of selectively age gating. The path of least resistance then becomes universal age gating, as the alternative is increased costs and liability from selective enforcement. Selective compliance may be acceptable depending on the company, if revenue loss is greater than the maintenance cost. But it is a blow for privacy and win for censorship that these questions even need be asked.

  • source
  • parent
  • 3 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 20 points 6 months ago

    The Utah legislature is dominated by white Mormon men, who care more about protecting the Mormon church and lining their own pockets than anything else.

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

    The new law explicitly addresses VPN use in Section 14, which amends Section 78B-3-1002 of existing Utah statutes in two primary ways:

    Regulation based on physical location: Under the law, an individual is considered to be accessing a website from Utah if they are physically located there, regardless of whether they use a VPN, proxy server, or other means to disguise their geographic location.

    Yeah, that part's gonna get killed by the courts when it inevitably gets challenged, because the US is never going to accept the same doctrine in reverse, where, for example, a Utah company would be subject to, say, liability under sharia law because someone in Iran is accessing it and they touch a Utah-based company that doesn't conform to sharia law, though it looks like they're coming from Salt Lake City.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 2 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Utah puts mayonnaise on their tacos.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 1 comment in c/privacy@lemmy.ml view that post
    [+] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)