6 ms·

Do we think VPNs will ever be banned in a state like Utah?

by MuffinFlavored 3y ago

detaro 3y ago
The "TikTok ban" draft (RESTRICT Act) is providing a template on federal level according to various comments on that.
- MuffinFlavored 3y ago
  Is the "TikTok ban" draft (RESTRICT Act) for consumers/regular people or only government personnel? Aka, are they really going to ban TikTok for regular people or just make it so govenment personnel can't install TikTok on their device? aka, only ban TikTok for government people and not regular people
  - beepbooptheory 3y ago
    Its for everyone, not just government personnel. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686?s=1&r=15 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35369075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35369075
  - detaro 3y ago
    Hopefully the thing is going to fail and they are not going to do anything. But yes, it provides for banning government-choosen foreign sites entirely, with heavy penalties for assisting in circumventing blocks. (Although I guess VPN services could avoid it by filtering their users traffic themselves)
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > it provides for banning government-choosen foreign sites entirely, with heavy penalties for assisting in circumventing blocks I recently heard the argument that TikTok is a media control issue. Rupert Murdoch famously had to become an American to buy Fox. Applying that precedent seems cleaner than the RESTRICT Act.
      - anigbrowl 3y ago
        I'm generally pro-migration but in Murdoch's case I don't think it worked out well for his new neighbors.
    - swamp40 3y ago
      Don't you just have to move the VPN offshore? China could even spin up their own VPN companies.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Don't you just have to move the VPN offshore Payment would still be a problem.
        throwaway742 3y ago
        I pay for my VPN with cryptocurrency.
  - smolder 3y ago
    It doesn't appear to have much to do with TikTok at all, from what I saw. It looks more like a regular old power grab by the federal government over tech generally, moving us towards censorship and overt surveillance and punishing circumvention.
  - seanp2k2 3y ago
    I'm 100% sure that no one who works for the government knows how to acquire and operate a separate smartphone either /s
struanr 3y ago
I feel like a VPN ban might be difficult to enforce due to corporate usage of the same technology
- freedomben 3y ago
  I doubt they try to ban them, but I could absolutely see them push an age verification requirement for "personal" VPNs that allow you to get an out-of-state IP address since it "illegally circumvents state laws". So you can have a VPN, but if you are in Utah the exit node must also be in Utah. Corporate VPNs wouldn't be a problem legally because they already verify your identify for state tax purposes so there's nothing more for corporate to do. Bonus: while your every access to porn is being logged for the state, they can log your VPN use too just in case there is anything relevant for law enforcement to care about.
  - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
    How would a law like that be enforced if none of the VPN's personnel or physical assets are in Utah or if they're entirely outside the US?
    - jrockway 3y ago
      I think they think they can just block them on a case-by-case basis, but that is harder than they think it is because IP bans will get most of AWS, and therefore the Internet blocked, and then the only option is an HTTPS MITM proxy, which would then break any site with cert pinning. Past options that don't work anymore include SNI inspection (replaced with ESNI/ECH, but wasn't hard to circumvent; say you want good.com when you're doing SNI, say you want evil.com when sending a Host: header), and DNS blocks (but now DNS-over-HTTPS is a thing, so as difficult to control at the state level; would require a court to compel in-state DNS-over-HTTPS providers to publish fake facts, which violates federal law; but irrelevant because AWS, Cloudflare, and Google don't have any assets of value in Utah). I'd say it's basically impossible to ban VPNs. If it happens, you'll see random VPN employees detained/arrested while on vacation or something like that, unless the news cycle blows over. China can do it, because they can just kill tech execs that won't cooperate, but we typically don't do that in the US.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
A few years ago, Walmart stopped stocking (some) beer in Utah because it was too difficult for them to bother getting the 3.2% alcohol by weight beer which had been the limit in Utah at the time[0]. Ultimately Utah's legislature decided to change the 3.2% restriction. I suspect this will go that way; more services will just say that they don't need to serve that population and move on. There will be a lot of people saying they like using their VPN totally because it keeps me private online and VPNs will just be normalized. [0] https://www.fox13now.com/2018/12/11/walmart-joins-the-push-for-utah-to-ditch-3-2-beer-as-six-packs-start-disappearing-from-shelves https://www.fox13now.com/2018/12/11/walmart-joins-the-push-f...
- freedomben 3y ago
  It will certainly be interesting to see. Utah is an interesting case because generally speaking high percentages of the population will praise and promote "freedom" and "liberty." Of course with humans often stated/conscious beliefs and actions are often disjointed, but there's still an interesting angle there where the state is a lot more limited on what it can do in the enforcement arena before people start pushing back. That said though, porn access in Utah would be a hard one for the average person to stand up for because the social pressure there is immense (speaking from experience here). The dominant religion teaches that "free agency" is an important and indeed essential aspect of our lives. We are here on Earth to grow and develop and learn to make good (i.e. obedient to God) choices. They even believe that a War in Heaven happened that split the masses because Satan (aka the Devil) wanted to force people to be righteous, but Jesus' plan was to give them choice. You would think they'd be a bunch of libertarians then, but no they clearly believe that God shouldn't force you to be righteous, but the state should. Furthermore God has told their prophets that things like alcohol, marijuana, porn, are wicked and sinful. Reducing or eliminating your access to them is for your own good (and the good of "society") and is therefore justified. I've tried pointing out that when it comes to enforcing your morals on others it can literally be taken to China-level authoritarianism with the same justication of "good for society," but that never seems to get anywhere.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
spacebanana7 3y ago
Banning VPNs would be very difficult for a US state. In China VPN restrictions are somewhat effective because of compliance from consumer platforms, ISPs and cloud service providers all operating inside a largely isolated pocket of the internet. If any of those stakeholders refused to play along or could operate outside of enforcement range then the VPN ban would fail. A ban isn’t truly impossible, especially with support from courts and the federal government, but I think it’s similar to the difficulty level of banning pirated content.
ignoramous 3y ago
That will accelerate the coming of on-device AI generated porn apps.
olliej 3y ago
The many (one would hope most?) tech and tech-adjacent businesses, the federal government, etc all require VPNs, so it would be hard to see how "ban VPNs for this already banned thing" would even work.
paxys 3y ago
Probably not, but only because it would be too technologically complex for them to do. VPN companies don't operate in their jurisdiction and don't care about Utah law.

Do we think VPNs will ever be banned in a state like Utah?

detaro 3y ago

The "TikTok ban" draft (RESTRICT Act) is providing a template on federal level according to various comments on that.

MuffinFlavored 3y ago
Is the "TikTok ban" draft (RESTRICT Act) for consumers/regular people or only government personnel? Aka, are they really going to ban TikTok for regular people or just make it so govenment personnel can't install TikTok on their device? aka, only ban TikTok for government people and not regular people
- beepbooptheory 3y ago
  Its for everyone, not just government personnel. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686?s=1&r=15 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35369075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35369075
- detaro 3y ago
  Hopefully the thing is going to fail and they are not going to do anything. But yes, it provides for banning government-choosen foreign sites entirely, with heavy penalties for assisting in circumventing blocks. (Although I guess VPN services could avoid it by filtering their users traffic themselves)
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > it provides for banning government-choosen foreign sites entirely, with heavy penalties for assisting in circumventing blocks I recently heard the argument that TikTok is a media control issue. Rupert Murdoch famously had to become an American to buy Fox. Applying that precedent seems cleaner than the RESTRICT Act.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      I'm generally pro-migration but in Murdoch's case I don't think it worked out well for his new neighbors.
  - swamp40 3y ago
    Don't you just have to move the VPN offshore? China could even spin up their own VPN companies.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Don't you just have to move the VPN offshore Payment would still be a problem.
      - throwaway742 3y ago
        I pay for my VPN with cryptocurrency.
- smolder 3y ago
  It doesn't appear to have much to do with TikTok at all, from what I saw. It looks more like a regular old power grab by the federal government over tech generally, moving us towards censorship and overt surveillance and punishing circumvention.
- seanp2k2 3y ago
  I'm 100% sure that no one who works for the government knows how to acquire and operate a separate smartphone either /s

struanr 3y ago

I feel like a VPN ban might be difficult to enforce due to corporate usage of the same technology

freedomben 3y ago
I doubt they try to ban them, but I could absolutely see them push an age verification requirement for "personal" VPNs that allow you to get an out-of-state IP address since it "illegally circumvents state laws". So you can have a VPN, but if you are in Utah the exit node must also be in Utah. Corporate VPNs wouldn't be a problem legally because they already verify your identify for state tax purposes so there's nothing more for corporate to do. Bonus: while your every access to porn is being logged for the state, they can log your VPN use too just in case there is anything relevant for law enforcement to care about.
- BeFlatXIII 3y ago
  How would a law like that be enforced if none of the VPN's personnel or physical assets are in Utah or if they're entirely outside the US?
  - jrockway 3y ago
    I think they think they can just block them on a case-by-case basis, but that is harder than they think it is because IP bans will get most of AWS, and therefore the Internet blocked, and then the only option is an HTTPS MITM proxy, which would then break any site with cert pinning. Past options that don't work anymore include SNI inspection (replaced with ESNI/ECH, but wasn't hard to circumvent; say you want good.com when you're doing SNI, say you want evil.com when sending a Host: header), and DNS blocks (but now DNS-over-HTTPS is a thing, so as difficult to control at the state level; would require a court to compel in-state DNS-over-HTTPS providers to publish fake facts, which violates federal law; but irrelevant because AWS, Cloudflare, and Google don't have any assets of value in Utah). I'd say it's basically impossible to ban VPNs. If it happens, you'll see random VPN employees detained/arrested while on vacation or something like that, unless the news cycle blows over. China can do it, because they can just kill tech execs that won't cooperate, but we typically don't do that in the US.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

A few years ago, Walmart stopped stocking (some) beer in Utah because it was too difficult for them to bother getting the 3.2% alcohol by weight beer which had been the limit in Utah at the time[0]. Ultimately Utah's legislature decided to change the 3.2% restriction. I suspect this will go that way; more services will just say that they don't need to serve that population and move on. There will be a lot of people saying they like using their VPN totally because it keeps me private online and VPNs will just be normalized. [0] https://www.fox13now.com/2018/12/11/walmart-joins-the-push-for-utah-to-ditch-3-2-beer-as-six-packs-start-disappearing-from-shelves https://www.fox13now.com/2018/12/11/walmart-joins-the-push-f...

freedomben 3y ago
It will certainly be interesting to see. Utah is an interesting case because generally speaking high percentages of the population will praise and promote "freedom" and "liberty." Of course with humans often stated/conscious beliefs and actions are often disjointed, but there's still an interesting angle there where the state is a lot more limited on what it can do in the enforcement arena before people start pushing back. That said though, porn access in Utah would be a hard one for the average person to stand up for because the social pressure there is immense (speaking from experience here). The dominant religion teaches that "free agency" is an important and indeed essential aspect of our lives. We are here on Earth to grow and develop and learn to make good (i.e. obedient to God) choices. They even believe that a War in Heaven happened that split the masses because Satan (aka the Devil) wanted to force people to be righteous, but Jesus' plan was to give them choice. You would think they'd be a bunch of libertarians then, but no they clearly believe that God shouldn't force you to be righteous, but the state should. Furthermore God has told their prophets that things like alcohol, marijuana, porn, are wicked and sinful. Reducing or eliminating your access to them is for your own good (and the good of "society") and is therefore justified. I've tried pointing out that when it comes to enforcing your morals on others it can literally be taken to China-level authoritarianism with the same justication of "good for society," but that never seems to get anywhere.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

spacebanana7 3y ago

Banning VPNs would be very difficult for a US state. In China VPN restrictions are somewhat effective because of compliance from consumer platforms, ISPs and cloud service providers all operating inside a largely isolated pocket of the internet. If any of those stakeholders refused to play along or could operate outside of enforcement range then the VPN ban would fail. A ban isn’t truly impossible, especially with support from courts and the federal government, but I think it’s similar to the difficulty level of banning pirated content.

ignoramous 3y ago

That will accelerate the coming of on-device AI generated porn apps.

olliej 3y ago

The many (one would hope most?) tech and tech-adjacent businesses, the federal government, etc all require VPNs, so it would be hard to see how "ban VPNs for this already banned thing" would even work.

paxys 3y ago

Probably not, but only because it would be too technologically complex for them to do. VPN companies don't operate in their jurisdiction and don't care about Utah law.