Neither is enforceable.
They are enforceable. In the first case they can ban transactions to the VPN and ban the website from all ISP’s. In the second case they can just ban transactions to Mullvad and should Proton not comply with the ban to Proton too.
It’s not about banning people from using the VPN, it’s about scaring away the VPN providers.
You can easily make VPN’s effectively illegal. You could make them require age verification for example, or you could ban commercial VPN’s and only allow self-hosted ones. They could also do what Utah did and make it so that you effectively can’t access any websites with a VPN, because the site would be liable for any VPN users accessing the site.
The idea that the government can’t ban VPN’s is giving us a false sense of security. They can at the very least completely undermine them.
Well, then do that.
Those tools cost money.
Goodbye device ownership, and the last vestiges of free speech will die with this bill as well.
The last vestiges of free speech always have and always will be offline.
This lawsuit is about end-to-end encryption and the lack of age verification on Instagram. So not good.
This lawsuit is about end-to-end encryption and the lack of age verification on Instagram. So not good.
Just make me CEO of a company. Surely I can’t do worse than the crop of people they’re currently finding.
I’m trying to find a rebuttal to that but I got nothing, and it finally makes sense to me why the government isn’t banning VPN’s.
Currently most major VPN’s respond to legal requests from the government. If the government chooses to ban VPN’s, then people will change to VPN’s that won’t respond to legal requests. That would leave the government with less power to police the internet, not more.