I usually hate weird laws like that, and I hate giving the government more control in general, but... I'm having a hard time really freaking out about just being barred from websites being told not to tell their users... how to bypass the law. This would be bad in many scenarios.

Seems like the first part of that law would be struck down on First Amendment challenges.

Second would be technically impossible, or the responsibility of VPN providers to somehow forward geo-location information for website operators to consume.

I don't think so. How do you think they can implement your third quote with substantially undermining VPNs? Do you know of other states closer to banning them, either directly or indirectly?

I fail to see how making it illegal to tell people how to use a VPN isn't a blatant violation of the First Amendment, but I have a feeling the average Republican in my home state thinks Freedom of Speech only applies to them.

The current Supreme Court ?? I really doubt it will say these laws are illegal. They believe in "originalism", that means since the Internet did not exist in 1783, you have no rights to it and can be controlled in any manner the state of site owner sees fit.

I assure you that the NSA has its own substantial backhaul infrastructure, so local policies don't really affect its operations in any way. I think Utah is just very politically receptive to the idea that citizens communications should be monitored. I guess sure, the NSA likes that position in general, but it doesn't really have anything to do with where they store the bits.

People make tradeoffs when it comes to where to live. You can surely move, but that assumes you have the financial means (if finding a new job is possible for you and your partner, and your children aren't at a point in their lives where moving would be detrimental), the support system, the friend circles, the third spaces and accompanying social systems, the kind of nature and access to that nature that you've grown used to.

Yes, there are 50 states. But besides some superficial differences, they tend to cluster in terms of policy. So, as a state slides further towards one extreme, it's not easy to decide which straw will break the camel's back. Because it could always be worse elsewhere, and is it really worth the trouble?

That's true in principle, but there's a lot of people trapped in red states who in a practical sense don't have the means to leave. I'm privileged to not have to worry about that friction, but I never forget that others do.

> and relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them.

True when compared to emigrating to another country, which is much harder than most assume.

Moving is extremely disruptive if you have a lot of family and friends nearby, though. You go from having a huge community and social circle to almost nothing. Maybe some work friends to begin seeding a new social life, but everything has to be rebuilt.

This is why “if you don’t like it, you can leave” (the parent commenter didn’t claim this, I’m being it up separately) is not a good argument for tyrannical government decisions that get imposed on citizens of a location. They are invested in that place and have built lives there. Telling them to abandon it all and start over somewhere else is not a reasonable response. Some things have to be fought.

Unfortunately the 10th amendment has been undermined by disingenuous readings of the commerce clause and other fuckery, and states and people have whatever scraps of power congress / the feds don't feel like asserting. If you don't like it, well, lol, the civil war established the states cannot check federal power by seceding and as we are witnessing the sky is rapidly becoming the limit.

As a Canadian citizen, this is one of the things I envy about the USA the most: having 50 different choices. There is currently a lot of tension in Canada between provinces like Alberta and Quebec which want very different things but are bound by the same set of laws. In Canada you are given some choice regarding geography (although the vast majority of population lives within 100km of the southern border, so in reality if you want to live in a city there isn’t much choice), but very little choice when it comes to laws and general governance.

I personally would love to live in a western state like oregon, arizona, or new mexico where I feel like there is an appropriate balance between freedom, geography, and government for my lifestyle.

Sure but there’s also a constitution. And inhibiting speech and expression by attacking anonymity and privacy is a violation.

Of course, SCOTUS may not see it that way. But clearly this is an imposition of the age verification strategy in project 2025, which is meant to be an imposition of Christian religious values on everyone.

That mostly works when you're single and without any hard ties.

Uprooting a well grown tree isn't easy.

>relatively little friction

That word "relatively" is doing a lot of work in this phrase. 50 options sounds great until you think about the realities of it. As someone who's moved around a half dozen times, shared "values and beliefs" pales in comparison to the practical concerns of jobs, family, climate.

>IMO, this is one of the main strengths of the US: you have 50 different options to live according to your values and beliefs, and relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them.

Also a weakness. Utah, one of the most stunningly beautiful states in the union, is completely under the grip of a regressive theocracy that has controlled nearly every aspect of life there for over a century. Really sucks.

In theory yes, but it’s not applicable to the vast majority of people. You have to be musk or bezos to have that flexibility.

Even then as you see with the abortion ban, the folks on that side will not be satisfied without a federal level policy and they are just whittling away state by state.

The problem is when some states get full of themselves and try to regulate wants to remove the right for local kids to see adult content by pushing complex, unmeetable requirements onto all 50 states. Texas wants to block the other 49 from sending Federally-legal medicines to Texas residents. In general, "small government" states spent a lot of time and effort making other states implement their local experiments.

If Utah wants a firewall, they can erect one at their borders. It's crazy of them to expect everyone else to do their work for them.

> 'ba*s'

Is this balls? You can curse here.

I don’t understand how this is related. As I understand it, many of the websites affected by these laws did chose to blanket-ban those states from accessing them.

This VPN law is a weak attempt to claim that it’s not enough to geo-block people, similar to the UK governing bodies that are trying to go after websites that have geoblocked the UK because they don’t believe that’s sufficient.

I wonder if any of the lawmakers asked their IT how they work remotely before drafting any of this..

Not to defend the bill, but if I read the article right it only applies to websites subject to the state's age verification laws.

Dont they just pass a bill saying you can use the state audited VPN as provided by SecUTAH for remote access. Submit your business requirements for review and oh we also know all the keys for anti terror reasons.

Perhaps your CEO has less political capital than Meta’s.

Story goes they need proof of humanity for their business (advertising) survive. Pesky things like the continuity of businesses they don’t own, that can be figured out later.

Thanks for laying this out. “The hill to die on“

I can’t believe I’m defending a Yahoo tech blogger, but this is unnecessarily rude. You don’t need to be an attorney to report on legislation, and being from Portland has absolutely no bearing on his qualifications. You’re just appealing to lazy stereotypes.

How is this not a 1A violation?

It does. That isn’t going to survive judicial review.