This is what happens when you elect morons to legislate technology they dont understand.
if they are so concerned about children, how about doing something about the mormon church and the fucking horrible crimes that are committed against women and children in it?
More ways to control our lives and track our movements.
“Party of small government”.
Personally, I would stop using any site that did this. We all know nothing matters in this country but money. Companies stop making as much, they’ll get legislation changed.
But spoofing a phone number and harassing me all day isn’t worth solutioning. This Gov. is not representing us.
Land of the free etc
Maybe we should just start blocking Utah like folks block North Korea. Utahans clearly want only Facebook and MySpace, and it’s rude of us to second-guess.
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.
Porn sites have been doing that for years now.
And that’s exactly what they want.
They don’t want every website to do it though.
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.
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.
You don’t thing an extra 10,000 words in the EULA won’t absolve them of liability for ID theft?
Actually, the existing EULAs probably already do.
Its easier to implement and less crazy than blocking VPNs. It also pushes back on other jurisdictions doing the same. I’d be amazed if this isn’t what happens.
Indeed. ID laws are a wet dream of Meta and the like. Both because it gives them the unique ID the always wanted and because it is easier for them to comply than small upstarts.
I might not underestimate how much big tech companies hate this too. They are pretty famous about despising all regulation of their space. I wouldn’t put it past them to block a backwater like Utah.
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.
Your right, but I can imagine what it would be like, and that’s something.
They don’t want every website to do it
Are you sure?
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.
But VPN users using a VPN outside of Utah will still get through.
What Utah (and likely other dumb states soon) are trying to do is to force age verification worldwide through a state law, forcing websites to verify the age of every user from anywhere, because any user who accesses the site from anywhere in the world might possibly be someone in Utah using a VPN.
I understand.
Which is why I’m suggesting they preemptively block everyone in Utah. Protesting needs to inconvenience people and good protests redirect that anger towards those in power.
“Utah’s new law us makes us legally liable for providing our services to residence in Utah using a VPN. As that is not technically possible, we have no choice but to cease operating in Utah, or allowing Utah residents to use our services.”
But whether or not that particular strategy would be an effective from a protest, is a moot point, as big tech is behind these types of age verification and use identification laws, and those are the only websites and services with a large enough user base to make a difference here.
Which is why I’m suggesting they preemptively block everyone in Utah.
Pornhub and other porn sites already do this.
They would still be liable for transmitting content to a Utah resident using a VPN to appear as though they were in neighboring Arizona.
That just means that people in Utah would need to use a VPN to access those sites.
Which is hilarious, and a predictable result when your legislature is mostly filled with people who could’ve retired decades 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 -_-
The great firewall of Utah, all your pron must be inspected by government officials prior to delivery…
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.
right, meaning everybody will need to get a VPN, defeating the purpose of the law
So you’re saying we should blockade the blockade? /s
With a button saying “Actually, I’m using a VPN so it looks like I’m in Utah but I’m actually not.” that gives you access
It’s actually quite trivial to detect most VPN providers. There’s publicly available IP lists
Many VPN providers regularly rotate their IP ranges.
Regardless, that wouldn’t reveal to a website where the traffic was originating from.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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…
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…
so you would bully the people being bullied by this law to protest the law that bullies them? well that would show them!
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.
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.
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.
“Nah bro ya crazy”
“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
Removed by mod
I think you’re confused on the concept of protesting.
Or maybe you’re just a fan of this law, or don’t think it’s a big deal.
Either way, I disagree.
Americans not understanding how to protest? Surely not.
“You can’t punish the voters for the things the people they voted for did!”
yes, it would. their elected officials did this.
If I were a lawyer arguing against the law in court, my primary argument would be that this violates the interstate commerce section of the US Constitution.
looks at the scotus playbook
yeah that falls in between ‘nuhh uh’ and ‘don’t care’.
only problem is, it’s gonna get upheld 6-3
I remember the days before corporations started to see the internet as a sales and advertising platform and governments allowed it to grow organically. It was honestly great. I miss those days
The stupidity of these lawmakers is beyond wild. How the fuck is this real?
I have a similar idea, let’s prosecute the police when they fail to catch criminals and punish them instead. A killer got away? Death penalty for the police officer in charge. That will make the killers think twice!
Or even better, let’s prosecute politicians when their laws backfire and do more damage than good.
I bet you a dollar that all of them are technologically illiterate.
It’s not just that, it’s that they don’t care. People keep assuming it’s solely based on a lack of knowledge but the real point is establishing consequences to prevent the things that can’t fight it from existing to begin.
They’ll decline to go after the websites they as lawmakers use themselves, but will instead hit up independent things that can’t afford to fight back and will just close when contacted.
i mean, how are we defining tech illiteracy? they have heard of the twitter, okay?
I think politicians have special law right to avoid that consequences of their actions.
Citizens also have special action that leds them bypass laws.
It’s called anarchy to some, and full-on revolution to others.
It seems like it’s just a matter of time until the US has it’s own red firewall.
How is this enforceable?
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.
I think this is one if those laws where they get to selectively choose who to prosecute.
Like every law.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jurisdiction follows impact, not geography. If a service ‘does business with’ Utah residents then Utah has legal standing to regulate that interaction.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So the US continues to encourage businesses to operate elsewhere. Tired of winning yet?
Then why won’t the US let other countries do digital services taxes.
They can’t have it both ways.
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.
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.
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
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?
This would be easier than banning VPNs wholesale.
Could they not also just selectively ban all Utah-based IPs?
No. Because VPNs redirect traffic from the site to a third party to Utah, in order to disguise the location of the original request
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.
site traffic gets cut by 30%
“How could this have happened?”
Likely.
deleted by creator
Seems like it’s the first step in transferring control of the internet to the government.
Step 1 to China/Russia/Iran level internet?
They tried in Russia and electronic payment terminals, that use a VPN, stopped working.
The government? Whoever is the highest bidder for all the data being gathered. Probably Palantir, as ever.
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.
every website will start blocking VPN IPs, more so than what some already do, which is exactly what these cunts want
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.
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.
They can pull you over for a busted tail light.
They can pull you over for a tail light that isn’t broken.
Source: happened to me a couple times. Small town cops hate out of state plates.
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.
If they start looking into your stuff for any reason, and suspect that a user connected to your site through a VPN, you’re in.
It doesn’t have to be true to begin with. And it doesn’t have to be enforced at scale, only when needed.
Only if wanted, more like.
It’s not.
Have they thought about passing a law that checks to see if the people making the law have an IQ above 50?
This is the dumbest, most waste of time bullshit particularly when the rest of the country is imploding. Maybe they should focus on things that matter.
I would bet my shoes Facebook or someone lobbied for this.
It’s easy to blame Mormons, but I think that bloc was more of a mark.
These aren’t “age checks”…it’s identity tracking.
Absolutely! Journalists really need to start describing these as what they are rather than the marketing term. It is much more accurate to call them “ID Checks” or something like that.
