Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You misunderstand. When they "ban VPNs", it's not that the VPN police will be patrolling your neighborhood trying to catch you using Mulvad or whatever. Instead, the AG will send a letter to the VPN provider, threatening to prosecute them for selling an illegal service. And they will comply and shut down. Once the commercial services are gone, it won't matter that you could hide your own VPN usage in a practical sense, because 1 in 100 people have the resources, technical expertise, and time to set up their own VPN server offshore. Furthermore, it may be cost prohibitive... I'm spending $3/month or so. I can't spend $250/month on this. And if I could, it will just break more often, I won't get the 99% uptime I usually get either.

Something that's extraordinarily low effort will become exceedingly high effort, and this will achieve their goals.



The law is stupid and dangerous. But this is not what it says.

It says that a site that distributes harmful content for minor, like, let's say, xvideos, will have to block vpn users from wiscosin.

Yes. that will mean, that if xvideos will wish to be compliant with Wiscosin laws, they would have to figure out a way to block all vpn users.

Bad. Really bad.

But no, it's not like Wiscosin citizens will be prevented to work remotely using a VPN to connect to their corporate network.


Florida requires age verification today to go on porn sites. Guess how many of the mainstream porn sites not based in the US completely ignore it?


The text we are discussing says: "It’s an age verification bill that requires all websites distributing material that could conceivably be deemed “sexual content” to both implement an age verification system and also to block the access of users connected via VPN." That's what I was discussing. Not sure where AG and vpn providers come in.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: