• cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 minutes ago

    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.

  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Wait… this is specifically about websites?

    Easy solution: stick your website behind a CDN. That way, people are using a VPN to contact a CDN, and only the CDN ever connects to your website.

    And if Utah thinks two degrees of separation isn’t enough… well, it’s likely that every legislator in Utah is two degrees away from someone who will break this law, so they should obviously be the first to be subject to its penalties.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Easy solution: stick your website behind a CDN.

      I would say the easy solution is to stop serving content to residents of the state

      • billwashere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        57 minutes ago

        Well that’s the problem. If you’re on a VPN, the site doesn’t know where you’re coming from. So either all VPN services ban Utah, or all websites ban VPNs. It’s a very insidious ploy to ban any anonymity on the internet. It’s essentially letting Utah set the rules for the entire network. And it doesn’t really work anyway. I can create a VPS and set up tailscale or something similar and all my traffic goes through that server. No block of knowable VPN IPs that a website can block. So either Utah blocks all services like tailscale, which is not going to happen, or this is just pointless.

        If two computers are connected to the same network, there will always be a way around these sort of restrictions.

        • jacksilver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          29 minutes ago

          There is no way to know someone is connecting to you via a VPN. They just blacklist known IP addresses, so there isn’t really a way to implement this. Sure, you can blacklist well known VPN providers, but anyone can rent a PC in another location to VPN through.

    • Lemmayng@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Oh those legislators are two degrees away from something being broken, and it ain’t this dumbass law.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 minutes ago

      Irrelevant. The end goal is they can say “you connected to a site without going through our checkpoint, you’re liable”. Then the fun begins.

      The teshnikully… discussions are useless against this. Heck, given how some networks operate, I would not be surprised if some people would fall into this without even knowing.

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      It’s a strict liability law.

      If the state chooses to prosecute the site then all they need to do is prove 1. That the user was actually in Utah and 2. That they did business with the site.

      It doesn’t matter if the user’s IP shows that they are on the Moon. The law doesn’t take into account their knowledge or intent, only what actually happened.

      It’s like manslaugher or statutory rape laws. What the person intended or knew doesn’t matter, only what actually happened.

  • disorderly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    4 hours ago

    To date, the only countries that have made progress in blocking VPN traffic with some success are authoritarian regimes with ISP-level surveillance.

    You know you’re on to something when the only playbook you can find was written by the Chinese government.

  • limonfiesta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    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.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 minute ago

      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 -_-

    • ferrule@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      34 minutes 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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Web services and websites should block all Utah IP addresses

      That won’t work on a VPN, though. The VPN will say the user is coming from outside the state. That’s the whole point of the VPN.

      • mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 minutes ago

        right, meaning everybody will need to get a VPN, defeating the purpose of the law

  • atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 hours ago

    “Designed to prevent bypassing age checks by people who don’t understand the technology they are trying to regulate” more at 11.

    Legislators should be required to understand technology or consult experts in the field before they enact legislation. This is a waste of tax payer dollars and I’m not even sure it’s enforceable.

  • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I’m shaking in my boots, Utah. I’m skared!!! Prove that I’m surfing PORN. Maybe I just want to protect my privacy and stop my ISP from selling my online activities. But also, porn. I know Europe has a few countries imposing this, but damn am I glad to not be in the USA anymore. I’d likely be shot and killed leading a revolution. At least people would have a martyr…

    Mullvad has quantum resistance and DIATA. Only when VPNs are outlawed will this be an issue.

    • Scott 🇨🇦🏴‍☠️@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Mullvad also has 5 anti-censorship technologies in their app which will help if ISPs in Utah start blocking VPNs. Customers can also request a list of server IPs if servers are being blocked.

      I’ve heard Mullvad works even in China, Utah doesn’t stand a chance.