| ▲ | ranger_danger 5 hours ago |
| Not when the definition of VPN is subjective. I could proxy/VPN through a friend's house and nobody would ever know it wasn't them. |
|
| ▲ | EvanAnderson 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| A lot of law is adjudicated based on the intent, not the black-and-white definition. Proxying your traffic thru a friend's house (VPS in another location, etc) would be considered a "VPN" by a court. Definitional hacks, for the most part, don't fly with judges. To handle the matter technically Utah would need a "great firewall of Utah" and a legislative mandate that all ISPs route thru it. Somehow they'd have to factor-in signals from cellular sites neighboring states and satellites. |
|
| ▲ | irenaeus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This requires a lot of extra work though, and extra work is downward pressure on the behavior (underage people looking at pornography) that the state of Utah is trying to exert downward pressure on. The inability to immediately and perfectly eliminate a behavior is not a good enough reason to be against any attempt to eliminate that behavior. |
| |
| ▲ | Rohansi 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The inability to immediately and perfectly eliminate a behavior is not a good enough reason to be against any attempt to eliminate that behavior. So if you are legally required to block all VPN users and then fail to actually block all VPN users what is stopping you from being punished for not complying with the law? | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Common sense on the part of the judge presumably. Best effort and common practice will enter into it. Lots of regulation is like that. | |
| ▲ | mahboi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, that's the problem. But if they changed the law to not require all users to be blocked, it'd still have the outcome they want. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | codedokode 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yes but isn't it suspicious that all your traffic goes to the friend's house and not to Facebook and Reddit? If you claim it is not a VPN does it mean your friend is providing illegal unlicensed hosting? That's even worse. |
| |
| ▲ | malfist 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > does it mean your friend is providing illegal unlicensed hosting Since when do you have to pull permits to put a server on the web? | |
| ▲ | iAMkenough 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Split tunnel is a thing, and in that instance the platform required to comply (like a porn site) doesn’t have any way to see all your traffic to determine if it’s a VPN/proxy connection or not. | | |
| ▲ | codedokode 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you cannot determine the traffic type, you can block it and wait until someone appears with proper documentation and explains what they were sending. | | |
| ▲ | iAMkenough 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's what the judge agreed with: it's unreasonable to require you to block all Internet traffic with the assumption it's all VPN traffic until proven otherwise. Under Utah's law as written, a private business has to assume any single IP address could be operating a VPN/proxy. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ranger_danger 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Suspicious" is not illegal, and neither is hosting. | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | zen928 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would that be suspicious? |
|
