7 ms·

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

157 points by giantg2 6mo ago

close04 6mo ago
> 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 physical borders — regardless of their apparent virtual location. The title is disgustingly clickbaity.
- p_ing 6mo ago
  Seems like the first part of that law would be struck down on First Amendment challenges. Second would be technically impossible, or the responsibility of VPN providers to somehow forward geo-location information for website operators to consume.
  - giantg2 6mo ago
    "Seems like the first part of that law would be struck down on First Amendment challenges." Should be, but I wouldn't bet on it. We can see what states have been doing about "child sex abuse material" and arresting people for fictional stories, animations, etc on the theory that it might contribute to viewers becoming predators. It's disgusting stuff to even think about in this principled context, but it's wild that something fake is treated basically the same as the real thing. That's a lot of maybes and what-ifs resulting in child abuse convictions for something fictional. Might as well start up the pre-crime division. Edit: Why do people disagree? Is it just because it is repulsive? Or is there an actual legal theory and material harm you are thinking about? If it's just "gross", isn't that the basis for many people's anti-gay stances, and how is this different?
  - psadauskas 6mo ago
    The current iteration of the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear they're going to decide whatever partisan truth they want, and that pesky Bill of Rights will not stand in their way.
- giancarlostoro 6mo ago
  I usually hate weird laws like that, and I hate giving the government more control in general, but... I'm having a hard time really freaking out about just being barred from websites being told not to tell their users... how to bypass the law. This would be bad in many scenarios.
  - giantg2 6mo ago
    I'd be more concerned about the second part dealing with blocking. You'd have to undermine the tech to implement it.
  - axus 6mo ago
    Same category as banning HTTP links , it's an egregious violation of our natural free-speech rights.
  - gh02t 6mo ago
    The concern with this law is that it's constructed in such a way that the only way to comply may end up being for VPN providers to ban Utah. Though that's not the same as Utah banning VPNs since private VPNs would still work, for most users it would be since setting a private VPN up is beyond most people. Plus the issue of compelling otherwise fully lawful speech around providing VPN instructions.
  - junofan 6mo ago
    The law has a lot more stuff. I wonder what this part is all about: > if a person suffers damages from a minor committing the same offense repeatedly on school grounds … the person may bring a cause of action against a parent or guardian with legal custody of the minor to recover costs and damages caused by the repeated offense … the court may waive part or all of the parent's or guardian's liability for costs or damages if the court finds … that the parent or guardian reported the minor's wrongful conduct to law enforcement after the parent or guardian knew of the minor's wrongful conduct. And of course > A person may not bring a cause of action against the state, an agency of the state, or a contracted provider of an agency of the state, under this section Is this standard stuff?
- giantg2 6mo ago
  I don't think so. How do you think they can implement your third quote with substantially undermining VPNs? Do you know of other states closer to banning them, either directly or indirectly?
  - cvoss 6mo ago
    There are many comments here that are confused about what the bill actually says. Headline very much implies something about a law banning VPNs. But that's not what the headline really means. So it's misleading.
    - giantg2 6mo ago
      The headline suggests that Utah is moving in the direction of banning VPNs, and is closer than other states. I don't see anything misleading about that, especially when you see the enforcement piece would fundamentally gut VPNs if implemented.
      - cvoss 6mo ago
        The most natural reading of "Utah is close to banning VPNs" is that there is a bill working its way through the statehouse that would ban VPNs if it passed. But that is an untrue reading. Another reading of "Utah is close to banning VPNs" is "Utah did something that is not banning VPNs but (as an editorial opinion) is thematically and logically adjacent to that concept." This matches reality (under some viewpoint) but is an unnatural reading. Hence, the sentence "Utah is close to banning VPNs" is misleading, as evidenced by others' comments. That you read the headline "correctly" does not show the headline to be forthright.
        giantg2 6mo ago
        Where did you get the quote you are using in your argument? That isn't what the title says. Do you not think this law going into effect will indirectly lead to VPN bans? It will also move the Overton Window to where a ban is the next step.
- babypuncher 6mo ago
  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.
- Barbing 6mo ago
  Is that why this post is missing from the front page? But it doesn’t show flagged.
antibull 6mo ago
[dead]
allears 6mo ago
"Subject to the state's age verification law" -- does that mean any site hosted by a Utah ISP? Any site with a server in Utah? The boundaries get hazier the more you think about them. The intertubes are a global thing, how they gonna enforce that?
OutOfHere 6mo ago
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.
- jmclnx 6mo ago
  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.
  - tastyfreeze 6mo ago
    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.
- convolvatron 6mo ago
  I assure you that the NSA has its own substantial backhaul infrastructure, so local policies don't really affect its operations in any way. I think Utah is just very politically receptive to the idea that citizens communications should be monitored. I guess sure, the NSA likes that position in general, but it doesn't really have anything to do with where they store the bits.
  - gosub100 6mo ago
jceg 6mo ago
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.
- roumenguha 6mo ago
  People make tradeoffs when it comes to where to live. You can surely move, but that assumes you have the financial means (if finding a new job is possible for you and your partner, and your children aren't at a point in their lives where moving would be detrimental), the support system, the friend circles, the third spaces and accompanying social systems, the kind of nature and access to that nature that you've grown used to. Yes, there are 50 states. But besides some superficial differences, they tend to cluster in terms of policy. So, as a state slides further towards one extreme, it's not easy to decide which straw will break the camel's back. Because it could always be worse elsewhere, and is it really worth the trouble?
  - jnovek 6mo ago
    I think people who aren’t or haven’t been poor often don’t realize that moving to another state — or even away from your hometown — is a privilege that is cost prohibitive for many Americans.
    - dylan604 6mo ago
      This is definitely something lost in an echo chamber like HN. Moving out of state is quite expensive. Most jobs do not provide moving expenses as a perk of the new job and receiving them shows just how privileged you are. For the foreseeable future the fuel costs of moving will also contribute to that expense making it worse. Some family connections make it very difficult for some to break away. For those that can, it is hard to understand.
    - mathgladiator 6mo ago
      I've been homeless and in debt and still moved. It's 100% mindset.
jmclnx 6mo ago
Too bad companies did not have 'ba*s' to block their sites from being accessed in Utah. If all companies did that, it would stop all these crazy laws instantly. Where I live, one site I log into started asking for my birth date. That is in a State were age verification is not yet even being talked about. So my response is to never go to that site again. I believe it will change once users start dropping off that site.
- 8organicbits 6mo ago
  > 'ba*s' Is this balls? You can curse here.
  - shevy-java 6mo ago
    Could be bats.
  - recursive 6mo ago
    Surely it's 'barns'.
- Aurornis 6mo ago
  I don’t understand how this is related. As I understand it, many of the websites affected by these laws did chose to blanket-ban those states from accessing them. This VPN law is a weak attempt to claim that it’s not enough to geo-block people, similar to the UK governing bodies that are trying to go after websites that have geoblocked the UK because they don’t believe that’s sufficient.
  - jmclnx 6mo ago
    From what I have heard, only porn and smaller sites did this. I am referring to facebook, twitter, blue sky, tiktoc and other such large sites. If those sites starts blocking States like Utah, you would see a big outcry and laws changing.
mlmonkey 6mo ago
[flagged]
- JohnTHaller 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - netule 6mo ago
    They also love to be tread upon if the boot is just right.
shevy-java 6mo ago
They have no valid reason to want to ban so - all illegal corporate laws. This is Palantir wanting to sniff after everyone.
bena 6mo ago
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.
- Avicebron 6mo ago
  I wonder if any of the lawmakers asked their IT how they work remotely before drafting any of this..
  - giantg2 6mo ago
    These are aspirational laws. They pass them to try to force innovative enforcement measures. Same thing with NJ and smart guns, NYC and 3D printing, TX abortion meds, etc.
- asdfman123 6mo ago
  Not to defend the bill, but if I read the article right it only applies to websites subject to the state's age verification laws.
- GCUMstlyHarmls 6mo ago
  Dont they just pass a bill saying you can use the state audited VPN as provided by SecUTAH for remote access. Submit your business requirements for review and oh we also know all the keys for anti terror reasons.
- Barbing 6mo ago
  Perhaps your CEO has less political capital than Meta’s. Story goes they need proof of humanity for their business (advertising) survive. Pesky things like the continuity of businesses they don’t own, that can be figured out later.
- codedokode 6mo ago
  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.
0xbadcafebee 6mo ago
This is the next part of the national Orwellian surveillance system that is "age verification". The first part installs spyware in every operating system. The second part makes it illegal to work around it or find any alternative means of privacy. The final step is a government-mandated ID for logging into these devices with the OS controls, so the government can track everything you do on every device. This is the most wildly dangerous threat to liberty in this nation's history. And yes I know that sounds weird, but it's true.
- Barbing 6mo ago
  Thanks for laying this out. “The hill to die on“
  - raverbashing 6mo ago
    Which in Utah might be a problem (or is it another state, I don't remember)
    - QuercusMax 6mo ago
      Are you thinking of Kansas or Nebraska? Utah is famous for having big ass mountains that people ski on.
      - raverbashing 6mo ago
        Kansas, but Google says the flattest is Florida (surprisingly - or maybe not)
    - Barbing 6mo ago
      Hoo else could ya mean then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoodoo_(geology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoodoo_(geology) (beautiful state! see hoodoo pics)
- kdheiwns 6mo ago
  National is understating it. It's global. People got too comfortable with the idea of just turning on a VPN to get around various bans and thought it'd be a permanent solution. OS level ID verification laws are already being passed. Countries that are often preferred as being "free" and the VPN regions of choice for those with censored internet are now passing insane restrictions. The usefulness of VPNs is coming to an end pretty quickly, as well as anonymity entirely. And any time this is ever mentioned, it's always responded to with "Good. Anonymity was bad and I'm glad to see it gone" from people too cowardly to stand for their beliefs and post a scan of their ID with their posts.
semiquaver 6mo ago
[flagged]
- rafram 6mo ago
  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.
  - semiquaver 6mo ago
    It’s not just reporting, this is a legal analysis that is in my view not very good.
    - rafram 6mo ago
      It really isn’t legal analysis, unless you think all reporting on legislation is legal analysis.
darknavi 6mo ago
> 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-how-to-not-make-wine/ https://www.grapecollective.com/prohibitions-grape-bricks-ho...
- hellojesus 6mo ago
  How is this not a 1A violation?
  - ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
    Because you also cannot counsel anyone on how to rob a house, or steal a car, or commit arson. You can teach them how to start a fire, and fire safety rules for the home, and you can teach them how to secure their cars and point out common vulnerabilities, but you can't actually counsel people on how to commit a crime or do something illegal. Well, you can and I guess that is your "free speech" but the judge is also going to show you the schedule of fines and penalties.
    - dylan604 6mo ago
      yet there are plenty of sites with written or video instructions on how to pick a lock.
      - ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
        Picking a lock is not necessarily illegal. You could be a locksmith in training; you could be picking your own locks. You could be just in a lab or a classroom or a manufacturer that does this stuff.
        Kim_Bruning 6mo ago
        You could even be a lawyer! https://www.youtube.com/@lockpickinglawyer https://www.youtube.com/@lockpickinglawyer
jonathanstrange 6mo ago
"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" I thought the US has free speech?
- anikom15 6mo ago
  It does. That isn’t going to survive judicial review.
  - giantg2 6mo ago
    It very well could. See the restriction of fictional adult material depicting fictional minors just because there is a theory of those fake materials contributing to viewers becoming predators in the future. Same sort of harm to children logic could be used here.
    - tempaccountabcd 6mo ago
      [dead]
    - anikom15 6mo ago
      VPN instructions aren’t obscene.
      - giantg2 6mo ago
        When they are on a porn site and intended to expose the porn, then the result is.
  - dylan604 6mo ago
    That's a very bold statement. What gives you the confidence to make it?
    - Freedom2 6mo ago
      Must be the confident free speech.
anthk 6mo ago
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
Barbing 6mo ago
“The internet is built to, and will always, route around censorship. If Utah successfully hampers commercial VPN providers, motivated users will transition to non-commercial proxies, private tunnels through cloud services like AWS, or residential proxies that are virtually indistinguishable from standard home traffic. These workarounds will emerge within hours of the law taking effect. Meanwhile, the collateral damage will fall on businesses, journalists, and survivors of abuse who rely on commercial VPNs for essential data security. These provisions won't stop a tech-savvy teenager, but they certainly will impact the privacy of every regular Utah resident who just wants to keep their data out of the hands of brokers or malicious actors.” https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/utahs-new-law-regulating-vpns-goes-effect-next-week https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/utahs-new-law-regulati... (incl. donation link) Utah legislators should know the reason the EFF makes this statement is that it’s true.
- chrisweekly 6mo ago
  Perfect quote. Thanks for sharing it!
- lxgr 6mo ago
  A nice idea in theory, but would you seriously argue that all the Internet censorship in several countries has been completely without effects? A law doesn't need to be impossible to circumvent to cause great damage.
  - Barbing 6mo ago
    It can, right. One effect’s directly listed (“the collateral damage will fall on businesses, journalists, and survivors of abuse who rely on commercial VPNs for essential data security.”)
- bigbadfeline 6mo ago
  > Utah legislators should know the reason the EFF makes this statement is that it’s true. Well, it's not true, and Utah's legislators know better than the EFF. The whole idea that political restrictions can be fixed by technical means is a scam. Simply put, today Utah - tomorrow the universe. This didn't start in Utah and it won't end there. The piecemeal removal of privacy and freedoms has reached an advanced stage and one of the major factors that made it possible is the misplaced faith in circumvention by technical means.
eth0up 6mo ago
I remember watching the news right after the C. Kirk event and listening to governor Cox refer to social media as "worse than a cancer" I pretty much foresaw this and much more that very moment. Not that I think social media isn't partly carcinogenic or worse, but I think monopolies and censorship are worse. And sometimes, for best results, we must accept some bad with the good...
ohnei 6mo ago
It's a liability to businesses not to know who may physically be in Utah so they should probably ban together to exclude Utah from all networks. I.e. ISPs caught dealing with Utah should have their peering revoked.
soperj 6mo ago
How does this work with VPNing into work?
- cvoss 6mo ago
  The headline leaves much to be desired. It has nothing to do with actually banning VPNs. The rule is that age-restricted websites aren't allowed to help you figure out how to use a VPN.
burnt-resistor 6mo ago
Speed running becoming Russia.
mindcrime 6mo ago
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone to read Cory Doctorow's novel Attack Surface and to think deeply about the message contained within. He has something significant to say, IMO, about the need for people like "us" (that is, people who care deeply about these issues) to use our knowledge, resources, skills, etc. to help effect changes in public policy through the legislative process as opposed to trying to "out tech the bad guys". And that's rooted, as I understood it, in an argument that you can't "out tech the bad guys" over the long run, because they (the US government and other nation states) can always just beat you on resources and volume. Anyway, I hate trying to summarize that, because I'm afraid I'll mis-state things and fail to do it justice. Seriously, just read the book. It's worth it. And if you don't want to read the book, a reasonable proxy might be to suggest "just donate some money to the EFF".
- chrisweekly 6mo ago
  I felt the same way after reading "Little Brother".
  - mindcrime 6mo ago
    I haven't gotten to that one yet, but it's on my list! Actually, Attack Surface was my first (and so far only) Cory Doctorow novel, but after reading it, I'm definitely game to dig into more of his oeuvre.
- lxgr 6mo ago
  Couldn't agree more. "I'll just work around it because I know how to" is the hacker's version of "I'll just pay my way out of it because I can afford to".
- classified 6mo ago
  > they ... can always just beat you on resources and volume. Or they beat you with this $5 wrench: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
incomingpain 6mo ago
VPNs communicate via text. Text is protected by first amendment. Best of luck with your unconstitutional ban on speech.
grahamburger 6mo ago
Living in Utah is so frustrating. On the one hand, we have a law that protects 'free range parenting': https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/28/utahs-free-range-parenting-law-said-to-be-first-in-the-nation/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/2... as a parent, I genuinely appreciate this, especially when compared to stories from other HNers here of pearl-clutchers calling CPS for kids doing regular kid-stuff outside: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47815127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47815127 On the other hand, in addition to this draconian (and almost certainly unconstitutional, not that that's worth much these days) law, we also have a legislature that absolutely refuses to do anything the people want. Back in 2018, Utah voters forced Prop. 2, an initiative to legalize medical cannabis, onto the ballot. The ballot initiative passed with 52% of the vote and polled with even higher support. Nevertheless, the Utah legislature, who somehow always knows better than the voters, replaced Prop 2 with their own, heavily modified and far more restrictive version, HB 3001.https://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Proposition_2,_Medical_Marijuana_Initiative_(2018) https://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Proposition_2,_Medical_Marijuan... Also in 2018, voters passed Prop 4, which created an independent redistricting commission to create fair maps. The Utah legislature promptly gutted the commission, passing HB200 in an attempt to continue creating heavily gerrymandered maps. Fortunately, the Utah supreme court ruled that the legislature had overstepped their constitutional authority with HB200 and required the legislature to draw new maps or accept those proposed by the committee. When they refused, a judge put one of the committee's maps in place. Utah Republicans have been whining about this ever since. They tried to run a petition of their own, but could only gather signatures through fraud and deceit, with many signers reporting that signature gatherers told them they were signing in support of the judge's ruling when the opposite was true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Utah_Proposition_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Utah_Proposition_4 And then, on the other hand, driven by Utah's highly conservative Mormon mono-culture, there is a rich and thriving counter-culture ready and waiting to accept folks who don't fit the standard mold.
- aworks 6mo ago
  The thriving counter-culture was a surprise when I visited several times last year.
ChrisArchitect 6mo ago
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47997358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47997358
nacozarina 6mo ago
Let Utah implement a ban and crash itself out. Real damage will discourage imitators far more effectively than any volume of reasoned argument. No pain, no gain!
shantnutiwari 6mo ago
As a Britisher: our politicians are sitting there on the edge of their seats, their faces full of glee and joy, anticipating this so they can copy the whole thing . Pretty sure the joke will be: "Oye! mate you got a loicense for that vpn there?"

157 points by giantg2 6mo ago

> 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 physical borders — regardless of their apparent virtual location. The title is disgustingly clickbaity.

p_ing 6mo ago
Seems like the first part of that law would be struck down on First Amendment challenges. Second would be technically impossible, or the responsibility of VPN providers to somehow forward geo-location information for website operators to consume.
- giantg2 6mo ago
  "Seems like the first part of that law would be struck down on First Amendment challenges." Should be, but I wouldn't bet on it. We can see what states have been doing about "child sex abuse material" and arresting people for fictional stories, animations, etc on the theory that it might contribute to viewers becoming predators. It's disgusting stuff to even think about in this principled context, but it's wild that something fake is treated basically the same as the real thing. That's a lot of maybes and what-ifs resulting in child abuse convictions for something fictional. Might as well start up the pre-crime division. Edit: Why do people disagree? Is it just because it is repulsive? Or is there an actual legal theory and material harm you are thinking about? If it's just "gross", isn't that the basis for many people's anti-gay stances, and how is this different?
- psadauskas 6mo ago
  The current iteration of the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear they're going to decide whatever partisan truth they want, and that pesky Bill of Rights will not stand in their way.
giancarlostoro 6mo ago
I usually hate weird laws like that, and I hate giving the government more control in general, but... I'm having a hard time really freaking out about just being barred from websites being told not to tell their users... how to bypass the law. This would be bad in many scenarios.
- giantg2 6mo ago
  I'd be more concerned about the second part dealing with blocking. You'd have to undermine the tech to implement it.
- axus 6mo ago
  Same category as banning HTTP links , it's an egregious violation of our natural free-speech rights.
- gh02t 6mo ago
  The concern with this law is that it's constructed in such a way that the only way to comply may end up being for VPN providers to ban Utah. Though that's not the same as Utah banning VPNs since private VPNs would still work, for most users it would be since setting a private VPN up is beyond most people. Plus the issue of compelling otherwise fully lawful speech around providing VPN instructions.
- junofan 6mo ago
  The law has a lot more stuff. I wonder what this part is all about: > if a person suffers damages from a minor committing the same offense repeatedly on school grounds … the person may bring a cause of action against a parent or guardian with legal custody of the minor to recover costs and damages caused by the repeated offense … the court may waive part or all of the parent's or guardian's liability for costs or damages if the court finds … that the parent or guardian reported the minor's wrongful conduct to law enforcement after the parent or guardian knew of the minor's wrongful conduct. And of course > A person may not bring a cause of action against the state, an agency of the state, or a contracted provider of an agency of the state, under this section Is this standard stuff?
giantg2 6mo ago
I don't think so. How do you think they can implement your third quote with substantially undermining VPNs? Do you know of other states closer to banning them, either directly or indirectly?
- cvoss 6mo ago
  There are many comments here that are confused about what the bill actually says. Headline very much implies something about a law banning VPNs. But that's not what the headline really means. So it's misleading.
  - giantg2 6mo ago
    The headline suggests that Utah is moving in the direction of banning VPNs, and is closer than other states. I don't see anything misleading about that, especially when you see the enforcement piece would fundamentally gut VPNs if implemented.
    - cvoss 6mo ago
      The most natural reading of "Utah is close to banning VPNs" is that there is a bill working its way through the statehouse that would ban VPNs if it passed. But that is an untrue reading. Another reading of "Utah is close to banning VPNs" is "Utah did something that is not banning VPNs but (as an editorial opinion) is thematically and logically adjacent to that concept." This matches reality (under some viewpoint) but is an unnatural reading. Hence, the sentence "Utah is close to banning VPNs" is misleading, as evidenced by others' comments. That you read the headline "correctly" does not show the headline to be forthright.
      - giantg2 6mo ago
        Where did you get the quote you are using in your argument? That isn't what the title says. Do you not think this law going into effect will indirectly lead to VPN bans? It will also move the Overton Window to where a ban is the next step.
babypuncher 6mo ago
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.
Barbing 6mo ago
Is that why this post is missing from the front page? But it doesn’t show flagged.

antibull 6mo ago

[dead]

allears 6mo ago

"Subject to the state's age verification law" -- does that mean any site hosted by a Utah ISP? Any site with a server in Utah? The boundaries get hazier the more you think about them. The intertubes are a global thing, how they gonna enforce that?

OutOfHere 6mo ago

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.

jmclnx 6mo ago
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.
- tastyfreeze 6mo ago
  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.
convolvatron 6mo ago
I assure you that the NSA has its own substantial backhaul infrastructure, so local policies don't really affect its operations in any way. I think Utah is just very politically receptive to the idea that citizens communications should be monitored. I guess sure, the NSA likes that position in general, but it doesn't really have anything to do with where they store the bits.
- gosub100 6mo ago

jceg 6mo ago

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.

roumenguha 6mo ago
People make tradeoffs when it comes to where to live. You can surely move, but that assumes you have the financial means (if finding a new job is possible for you and your partner, and your children aren't at a point in their lives where moving would be detrimental), the support system, the friend circles, the third spaces and accompanying social systems, the kind of nature and access to that nature that you've grown used to. Yes, there are 50 states. But besides some superficial differences, they tend to cluster in terms of policy. So, as a state slides further towards one extreme, it's not easy to decide which straw will break the camel's back. Because it could always be worse elsewhere, and is it really worth the trouble?
- jnovek 6mo ago
  I think people who aren’t or haven’t been poor often don’t realize that moving to another state — or even away from your hometown — is a privilege that is cost prohibitive for many Americans.
  - dylan604 6mo ago
    This is definitely something lost in an echo chamber like HN. Moving out of state is quite expensive. Most jobs do not provide moving expenses as a perk of the new job and receiving them shows just how privileged you are. For the foreseeable future the fuel costs of moving will also contribute to that expense making it worse. Some family connections make it very difficult for some to break away. For those that can, it is hard to understand.
  - mathgladiator 6mo ago
    I've been homeless and in debt and still moved. It's 100% mindset.

jmclnx 6mo ago

Too bad companies did not have 'ba*s' to block their sites from being accessed in Utah. If all companies did that, it would stop all these crazy laws instantly. Where I live, one site I log into started asking for my birth date. That is in a State were age verification is not yet even being talked about. So my response is to never go to that site again. I believe it will change once users start dropping off that site.

8organicbits 6mo ago
> 'ba*s' Is this balls? You can curse here.
- shevy-java 6mo ago
  Could be bats.
- recursive 6mo ago
  Surely it's 'barns'.
Aurornis 6mo ago
I don’t understand how this is related. As I understand it, many of the websites affected by these laws did chose to blanket-ban those states from accessing them. This VPN law is a weak attempt to claim that it’s not enough to geo-block people, similar to the UK governing bodies that are trying to go after websites that have geoblocked the UK because they don’t believe that’s sufficient.
- jmclnx 6mo ago
  From what I have heard, only porn and smaller sites did this. I am referring to facebook, twitter, blue sky, tiktoc and other such large sites. If those sites starts blocking States like Utah, you would see a big outcry and laws changing.

mlmonkey 6mo ago

[flagged]

JohnTHaller 6mo ago
[flagged]
- netule 6mo ago
  They also love to be tread upon if the boot is just right.

shevy-java 6mo ago

They have no valid reason to want to ban so - all illegal corporate laws. This is Palantir wanting to sniff after everyone.

bena 6mo ago

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.

Avicebron 6mo ago
I wonder if any of the lawmakers asked their IT how they work remotely before drafting any of this..
- giantg2 6mo ago
  These are aspirational laws. They pass them to try to force innovative enforcement measures. Same thing with NJ and smart guns, NYC and 3D printing, TX abortion meds, etc.
asdfman123 6mo ago
Not to defend the bill, but if I read the article right it only applies to websites subject to the state's age verification laws.
GCUMstlyHarmls 6mo ago
Dont they just pass a bill saying you can use the state audited VPN as provided by SecUTAH for remote access. Submit your business requirements for review and oh we also know all the keys for anti terror reasons.
Barbing 6mo ago
Perhaps your CEO has less political capital than Meta’s. Story goes they need proof of humanity for their business (advertising) survive. Pesky things like the continuity of businesses they don’t own, that can be figured out later.
codedokode 6mo ago
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.

0xbadcafebee 6mo ago

This is the next part of the national Orwellian surveillance system that is "age verification". The first part installs spyware in every operating system. The second part makes it illegal to work around it or find any alternative means of privacy. The final step is a government-mandated ID for logging into these devices with the OS controls, so the government can track everything you do on every device. This is the most wildly dangerous threat to liberty in this nation's history. And yes I know that sounds weird, but it's true.

Barbing 6mo ago
Thanks for laying this out. “The hill to die on“
- raverbashing 6mo ago
  Which in Utah might be a problem (or is it another state, I don't remember)
  - QuercusMax 6mo ago
    Are you thinking of Kansas or Nebraska? Utah is famous for having big ass mountains that people ski on.
    - raverbashing 6mo ago
      Kansas, but Google says the flattest is Florida (surprisingly - or maybe not)
  - Barbing 6mo ago
    Hoo else could ya mean then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoodoo_(geology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoodoo_(geology) (beautiful state! see hoodoo pics)
kdheiwns 6mo ago
National is understating it. It's global. People got too comfortable with the idea of just turning on a VPN to get around various bans and thought it'd be a permanent solution. OS level ID verification laws are already being passed. Countries that are often preferred as being "free" and the VPN regions of choice for those with censored internet are now passing insane restrictions. The usefulness of VPNs is coming to an end pretty quickly, as well as anonymity entirely. And any time this is ever mentioned, it's always responded to with "Good. Anonymity was bad and I'm glad to see it gone" from people too cowardly to stand for their beliefs and post a scan of their ID with their posts.

semiquaver 6mo ago

[flagged]

rafram 6mo ago
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.
- semiquaver 6mo ago
  It’s not just reporting, this is a legal analysis that is in my view not very good.
  - rafram 6mo ago
    It really isn’t legal analysis, unless you think all reporting on legislation is legal analysis.

darknavi 6mo ago

> 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-how-to-not-make-wine/ https://www.grapecollective.com/prohibitions-grape-bricks-ho...

hellojesus 6mo ago
How is this not a 1A violation?
- ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
  Because you also cannot counsel anyone on how to rob a house, or steal a car, or commit arson. You can teach them how to start a fire, and fire safety rules for the home, and you can teach them how to secure their cars and point out common vulnerabilities, but you can't actually counsel people on how to commit a crime or do something illegal. Well, you can and I guess that is your "free speech" but the judge is also going to show you the schedule of fines and penalties.
  - dylan604 6mo ago
    yet there are plenty of sites with written or video instructions on how to pick a lock.
    - ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
      Picking a lock is not necessarily illegal. You could be a locksmith in training; you could be picking your own locks. You could be just in a lab or a classroom or a manufacturer that does this stuff.
      - Kim_Bruning 6mo ago
        You could even be a lawyer! https://www.youtube.com/@lockpickinglawyer https://www.youtube.com/@lockpickinglawyer

jonathanstrange 6mo ago

"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" I thought the US has free speech?

anikom15 6mo ago
It does. That isn’t going to survive judicial review.
- giantg2 6mo ago
  It very well could. See the restriction of fictional adult material depicting fictional minors just because there is a theory of those fake materials contributing to viewers becoming predators in the future. Same sort of harm to children logic could be used here.
  - tempaccountabcd 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - anikom15 6mo ago
    VPN instructions aren’t obscene.
    - giantg2 6mo ago
      When they are on a porn site and intended to expose the porn, then the result is.
- dylan604 6mo ago
  That's a very bold statement. What gives you the confidence to make it?
  - Freedom2 6mo ago
    Must be the confident free speech.

anthk 6mo ago

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

Barbing 6mo ago

“The internet is built to, and will always, route around censorship. If Utah successfully hampers commercial VPN providers, motivated users will transition to non-commercial proxies, private tunnels through cloud services like AWS, or residential proxies that are virtually indistinguishable from standard home traffic. These workarounds will emerge within hours of the law taking effect. Meanwhile, the collateral damage will fall on businesses, journalists, and survivors of abuse who rely on commercial VPNs for essential data security. These provisions won't stop a tech-savvy teenager, but they certainly will impact the privacy of every regular Utah resident who just wants to keep their data out of the hands of brokers or malicious actors.” https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/utahs-new-law-regulating-vpns-goes-effect-next-week https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/utahs-new-law-regulati... (incl. donation link) Utah legislators should know the reason the EFF makes this statement is that it’s true.

chrisweekly 6mo ago
Perfect quote. Thanks for sharing it!
lxgr 6mo ago
A nice idea in theory, but would you seriously argue that all the Internet censorship in several countries has been completely without effects? A law doesn't need to be impossible to circumvent to cause great damage.
- Barbing 6mo ago
  It can, right. One effect’s directly listed (“the collateral damage will fall on businesses, journalists, and survivors of abuse who rely on commercial VPNs for essential data security.”)
bigbadfeline 6mo ago
> Utah legislators should know the reason the EFF makes this statement is that it’s true. Well, it's not true, and Utah's legislators know better than the EFF. The whole idea that political restrictions can be fixed by technical means is a scam. Simply put, today Utah - tomorrow the universe. This didn't start in Utah and it won't end there. The piecemeal removal of privacy and freedoms has reached an advanced stage and one of the major factors that made it possible is the misplaced faith in circumvention by technical means.

eth0up 6mo ago

I remember watching the news right after the C. Kirk event and listening to governor Cox refer to social media as "worse than a cancer" I pretty much foresaw this and much more that very moment. Not that I think social media isn't partly carcinogenic or worse, but I think monopolies and censorship are worse. And sometimes, for best results, we must accept some bad with the good...

ohnei 6mo ago

It's a liability to businesses not to know who may physically be in Utah so they should probably ban together to exclude Utah from all networks. I.e. ISPs caught dealing with Utah should have their peering revoked.

soperj 6mo ago

How does this work with VPNing into work?

cvoss 6mo ago
The headline leaves much to be desired. It has nothing to do with actually banning VPNs. The rule is that age-restricted websites aren't allowed to help you figure out how to use a VPN.

burnt-resistor 6mo ago

Speed running becoming Russia.

mindcrime 6mo ago

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone to read Cory Doctorow's novel Attack Surface and to think deeply about the message contained within. He has something significant to say, IMO, about the need for people like "us" (that is, people who care deeply about these issues) to use our knowledge, resources, skills, etc. to help effect changes in public policy through the legislative process as opposed to trying to "out tech the bad guys". And that's rooted, as I understood it, in an argument that you can't "out tech the bad guys" over the long run, because they (the US government and other nation states) can always just beat you on resources and volume. Anyway, I hate trying to summarize that, because I'm afraid I'll mis-state things and fail to do it justice. Seriously, just read the book. It's worth it. And if you don't want to read the book, a reasonable proxy might be to suggest "just donate some money to the EFF".

chrisweekly 6mo ago
I felt the same way after reading "Little Brother".
- mindcrime 6mo ago
  I haven't gotten to that one yet, but it's on my list! Actually, Attack Surface was my first (and so far only) Cory Doctorow novel, but after reading it, I'm definitely game to dig into more of his oeuvre.
lxgr 6mo ago
Couldn't agree more. "I'll just work around it because I know how to" is the hacker's version of "I'll just pay my way out of it because I can afford to".
classified 6mo ago
> they ... can always just beat you on resources and volume. Or they beat you with this $5 wrench: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/

incomingpain 6mo ago

VPNs communicate via text. Text is protected by first amendment. Best of luck with your unconstitutional ban on speech.

grahamburger 6mo ago

Living in Utah is so frustrating. On the one hand, we have a law that protects 'free range parenting': https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/28/utahs-free-range-parenting-law-said-to-be-first-in-the-nation/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/2... as a parent, I genuinely appreciate this, especially when compared to stories from other HNers here of pearl-clutchers calling CPS for kids doing regular kid-stuff outside: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47815127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47815127 On the other hand, in addition to this draconian (and almost certainly unconstitutional, not that that's worth much these days) law, we also have a legislature that absolutely refuses to do anything the people want. Back in 2018, Utah voters forced Prop. 2, an initiative to legalize medical cannabis, onto the ballot. The ballot initiative passed with 52% of the vote and polled with even higher support. Nevertheless, the Utah legislature, who somehow always knows better than the voters, replaced Prop 2 with their own, heavily modified and far more restrictive version, HB 3001.https://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Proposition_2,_Medical_Marijuana_Initiative_(2018) https://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Proposition_2,_Medical_Marijuan... Also in 2018, voters passed Prop 4, which created an independent redistricting commission to create fair maps. The Utah legislature promptly gutted the commission, passing HB200 in an attempt to continue creating heavily gerrymandered maps. Fortunately, the Utah supreme court ruled that the legislature had overstepped their constitutional authority with HB200 and required the legislature to draw new maps or accept those proposed by the committee. When they refused, a judge put one of the committee's maps in place. Utah Republicans have been whining about this ever since. They tried to run a petition of their own, but could only gather signatures through fraud and deceit, with many signers reporting that signature gatherers told them they were signing in support of the judge's ruling when the opposite was true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Utah_Proposition_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Utah_Proposition_4 And then, on the other hand, driven by Utah's highly conservative Mormon mono-culture, there is a rich and thriving counter-culture ready and waiting to accept folks who don't fit the standard mold.

aworks 6mo ago
The thriving counter-culture was a surprise when I visited several times last year.

ChrisArchitect 6mo ago

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47997358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47997358

nacozarina 6mo ago

Let Utah implement a ban and crash itself out. Real damage will discourage imitators far more effectively than any volume of reasoned argument. No pain, no gain!

shantnutiwari 6mo ago

As a Britisher: our politicians are sitting there on the edge of their seats, their faces full of glee and joy, anticipating this so they can copy the whole thing . Pretty sure the joke will be: "Oye! mate you got a loicense for that vpn there?"