Court Agrees with EFF: Utah's VPN Law Demands a Technical Impossibility (eff.org) 50
"When state lawmakers attempt to rewrite how the internet works," argues an EFF blog post, "users rely on courts to recognize that laws can't make technical impossibilities a reality."
"That's why we were happy to see that a court has blocked Utah's attempt to outlaw the privacy protections of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)." In a win for digital rights, a federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction blocking Utah's SB 73, the state's draconian anti-VPN age verification law... Signed into law earlier this year, SB 73 attempted to regulate adult websites by requiring them to block VPN users or to identify the physical location of visitors using them or similar tools that mask their network traffic. It even went so far as to prohibit websites from offering instructions on how to use a VPN to bypass these checks. This made Utah, to EFF's knowledge, the first state in the nation to target the use of VPNs to avoid legally mandated age-verification gates. The Utah federal court halted enforcement of the law's VPN provisions last week, ruling that the law likely violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on passing laws that significantly burden businesses and people outside Utah's borders.
SB 73 burdens the rights of all internet users outside of Utah because it requires adult websites to either know every visiting user's physical location, and then block those in Utah, or to verify every visitor's age just in case they might be in Utah. The law's "actual-location provision in practice requires an entity to perform age verification services for every user visiting its site from any location because the entity would violate the law if even one of those users happened to be obfuscating," the court wrote. The court essentially ruled that Utah has less-burdensome ways to prevent Utah minors from accessing adult websites than requiring all users in the world to comply with SB 73.
EFF's position is that "forcing platforms to detect and block privacy-preserving tools undermines user privacy and security worldwide while demanding the impossible."
But there's another problem, explained an EFF email this week. "Age verification laws that are predicated on users possessing identity documents exclude critical sections of populations. And this problem is global in nature: Millions of people lack government-issued identification or encounter regular challenges to obtaining or updating it...." Every site-blocking bill has the same rotten idea at their core: That enforcing copyrights requires building a censorship machine for websites into the architecture of the internet. This is, of course, a disaster for a free and open web. These proposals keep coming, but there is still no way to create a mechanism for blocking access to an entire website that does not invite both deliberate abuse and lots of collateral harm to free and lawful speech.
EFF has declared this month "Opt Out October," and each day they're offering new guides on how to "stand our ground and take control over what happens with our data."
"That's why we were happy to see that a court has blocked Utah's attempt to outlaw the privacy protections of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)." In a win for digital rights, a federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction blocking Utah's SB 73, the state's draconian anti-VPN age verification law... Signed into law earlier this year, SB 73 attempted to regulate adult websites by requiring them to block VPN users or to identify the physical location of visitors using them or similar tools that mask their network traffic. It even went so far as to prohibit websites from offering instructions on how to use a VPN to bypass these checks. This made Utah, to EFF's knowledge, the first state in the nation to target the use of VPNs to avoid legally mandated age-verification gates. The Utah federal court halted enforcement of the law's VPN provisions last week, ruling that the law likely violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on passing laws that significantly burden businesses and people outside Utah's borders.
SB 73 burdens the rights of all internet users outside of Utah because it requires adult websites to either know every visiting user's physical location, and then block those in Utah, or to verify every visitor's age just in case they might be in Utah. The law's "actual-location provision in practice requires an entity to perform age verification services for every user visiting its site from any location because the entity would violate the law if even one of those users happened to be obfuscating," the court wrote. The court essentially ruled that Utah has less-burdensome ways to prevent Utah minors from accessing adult websites than requiring all users in the world to comply with SB 73.
EFF's position is that "forcing platforms to detect and block privacy-preserving tools undermines user privacy and security worldwide while demanding the impossible."
But there's another problem, explained an EFF email this week. "Age verification laws that are predicated on users possessing identity documents exclude critical sections of populations. And this problem is global in nature: Millions of people lack government-issued identification or encounter regular challenges to obtaining or updating it...." Every site-blocking bill has the same rotten idea at their core: That enforcing copyrights requires building a censorship machine for websites into the architecture of the internet. This is, of course, a disaster for a free and open web. These proposals keep coming, but there is still no way to create a mechanism for blocking access to an entire website that does not invite both deliberate abuse and lots of collateral harm to free and lawful speech.
EFF has declared this month "Opt Out October," and each day they're offering new guides on how to "stand our ground and take control over what happens with our data."
Re:Utah (Score:5, Informative)
OT, but
Utah is Mormon country, not Christian/Jesus land.
Mormons are profoundly _not_ Christian; they have a non-Christian view of Jesus.
Christianity requires trinitarian monotheism, with the fully man, fully God nature of Christ the defining feature, and that Christ is unique in this regard.
Mormonism doesn't posit Christ as a theologically unique being. Mormonism holds that Christ was a special individual on _Earth_, and _became_ a God of this planet -- but that he was not previously divine, and more importantly, that his divinity is not unique.
tl;dr - Mormonism posits that mortal men may ascend and become Gods of their own planets; Christ just happened to do that here on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I come to Slashdot. Intriguing. Did not know that about Mormons.
I've only ever known one person who I knew to be a Mormon. He was a good guy. Sample size of one proves nothing but it did give me a positive view of them, and I've been atheist since at least 13.
Re: (Score:2)
I've also generally had positive experiences with Mormons. And outwardly, there is much to admire about them.
Theologically, their view of Christ is what makes them non-Christian.
for example: this doctrine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
or, that the LDS Church rejects Trinitarianism.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I come to Slashdot. Intriguing. Did not know that about Mormons.
I've only ever known one person who I knew to be a Mormon. He was a good guy. Sample size of one proves nothing but it did give me a positive view of them, and I've been atheist since at least 13.
I learned about Mormons from watching South Park.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
No, it doesn't.
WP mentions, and links to this page (for example)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Christians do not believe that we are God or can become God.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You fell for the marketing.
Mormons may claim to be Christians - especially when doing evangelism.
But Christians who look into the doctrines of the Mormon faith usually conclude that Mormonism is not Christian, for the reasons I mention.
Re:Utah (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, YOU decided you are the gatekeeper for who is and isn't a Christian who believes in Christ, and because they don't worship the way YOU do, they must not be Christian. Most people that you declare as "non-Christian" just shake their heads and walk away from your ignorance.
Traditional Christianity is based on some core doctrinal beliefs that have been identified in Scripture and have been formalized in what became the Nicene Creed. One of the core doctrines in the Nicene Creed is the Trinity: one God in three persons, eternal and uncreated.
Mormonism's teaching is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate beings, that the Father has a body of flesh and bones and that humans can progress to become gods themselves. This is not compatible with the doctrine of the Nicene Creed.
That's the reason traditional Christianity does not consider Mormonism as part of Christianity from a doctrinal's point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
So this is wandering a bit from VPNs, but..,
you probably think the Council of Nicaea established Trinitarianism as a doctrine, wrote the Nicene Creed, and of course didn’t involve Constantine, who definitely was not dressed in full body paint as a representative of a different god, Sol Invictus, with full military escort. And that while only 200 of the 350 priests in attendance signed the document, the vote was unanimous, and the losers certainly were not retaliated against in any way.
opening Colin Jensen's answer to How do Mormons view the Council of Nicaea and its influence on mainstream Christianity? Why might some reject its teachings? [qr.ae] on Quora.
And also
This is tough to answer because “the Trinity” is intentionally undefinable.
opening David Christofferson's answer to How does the LDS church’s definition of God and the Trinity differ from mainstream Christianity? [qr.ae], also on Quora.
Re: (Score:2)
I know of those arguments: I don't really buy them, but that's beside the point. Regardless of the reasons, the Nicene Creed became the defining creed for Christianity and Mormonism believes in something different.
Re: (Score:2)
Muslims believe in Christ too. Does that make them Christians? Or, by the same mechanism, are Christians also Jews (Jesus was a Jew)?
Re:Utah (Score:4, Informative)
Who decides what Christianity requires? The pope?
Traditional Christianity is based on the adherence to the Nicene Creed [wikipedia.org].
Nearly all Christian denominations, including Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches (e.g., Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Continental Reformed, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists), regard the Nicene Creed as a foundational and authoritative statement of faith.
So Mormonism believes in Christ in a way that is not compatible with the Nicene Creed. This makes them "not Christian" from a doctrinal point of view in the eyes of all those Christian denominations that do hold the Nicene Creed as foundational.
Re: (Score:2)
The theological underpinnings of LDS includes both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. The bulk of LDS theology is the same as the rest of Christianity.
From the point of view of the rest of Christianity you need to at least agree with the Nicene Creed to be Christian.
That the bulk of the LDS theology is the same is irrelevant if they disagree with that fundamental creed, which they openly do. They have a different understanding of the nature of God compared to what the Nicene Creed professes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be confusing Christianity with Catholic doctrine. Nice try, but you do not get to define Christianity.
The Nicene Creed is accepted far more broadly than only by the Catholic Church and that's how "Christianity" has been defined for centuries.
Now people can decide to define their own terms, but it's fact that the vast majority of Christian denominations agree to the fundamental doctrine that one needs to believe to be "Christian" and Mormonism believes in something different.
Re: (Score:3)
They're very Christian/Jesus focused and don't want other people to see nakedness.
Not unlike the makers of basically all US text-to-image generator models, which is why the world uses Chinese models instead, which actually know human anatomy.
Re: (Score:2)
That means nothing in practice. Porn is everywhere in China, even moreso than when every shop had "huang DVD" behind the counter.
Re: (Score:2)
Large quantities of porn are made in China. The chance of being arrested just for possessing porn or distributing porn on a small scale are basically zero. Every convenience store in Shanghai sells vibrators (as in female sex toys), with the boxes displayed conspicuously. They're a lot less hung up about sex than the USA and a lot of other western countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because making something illegal means it doesn't happen. Prostitution is illegal in most of the USA, but still rife. The USA also lost their "war on drugs" in a spectacular fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
You really are stupid. I was pointing out that making something illegal doesn't prevent it from being widespread. Prostitution and drugs are illegal in the USA but are both widespread. Prostitution and porn are illegal in the PRC but are both widespread.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I said they're less hung up about sex than many western countries, with the fact that sex toys are on prominent display in convenience stores as evidence of that.
Can't make technical impossibilities a reality? (Score:2)
Then why call it AI when it clearly isn't? Might as well call yourself Napoleon if you believe so.
A better law (Score:1, Insightful)
A better law might simply say:
"if you cannot be sure that the person trying to access your content is an adult, don't serve them the content"
The porn industry has done a pretty good job of pushing back against _any_ requests for them to not peddle porn at kids by whining that the only way to fix problems is technical impossibilities that break the internet for everyone else.
That's nonsense, of course. The actual appropriate mechanism is to have the following policies:
1) "the internet gets to be private and
Re:A better law (Score:4, Insightful)
Even better law: Label your content and you're done. But like the RTA label on your site, and parents can configure the kid's PC to block everything that contains the label. That's a standard since 20 years and it is very simple to detect and already adopted by some large sites. Most porn sites do not want to serve to kids, so they probably do not have any problem to add the label if it becomes a requirement. And detecting it is trivial and could even be added in browsers directly.
Re: (Score:2)
I like it.
User tracking has a similar problem that needs fixed as well. It has taken away user choice and gives all the control to the ad industry ... and anyone else snooping on the data.
The ad industry needs to switch back to context based ads, rather than user profile based.
Re: (Score:2)
I read just now, that Facebook had a feature (or still has) to detect when young girls delete a selfie to then show ads for cosmetics. Don't they dare to tell tracking is not about manipulation and exploitation.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair though, I'm not sure the EFF is right here. It depends how the law was worded. For example, in the UK sites have to have "effective" measures to prevent under 18s accessing adult material. Not perfect, just "effective" in most cases.
Any many websites certainly do have effective measures against VPN users. Often pages won't load, or you get hit with multiple captchas.
Not that I'm endorsing this law, but as a VPN user I can say for certain that many websites do detect and block them, or at least th
Re:A better law (Score:4, Interesting)
Any many websites certainly do have effective measures against VPN users. Often pages won't load, or you get hit with multiple captchas.
To be actually effective though that requires that the website know the CIDR of every VPN provider on the planet, which I doubt they do. Sure they can block the big ones that advertise on Youtube and podcasts, but there are plenty of others that are most likely flying under the radar. I'm running an OpenVPN endpoint, for example. They probably don't have my IP on their list. There's no magic "I'm coming from a VPN endpoint flag in TCP" that a VPN provider can set, and no privacy-respecting provider would if there was.
And why should one jurisdiction get to destroy the privacy of the rest of the internet so that their age restriction laws get to be enforced? Blocking VPNs is only necessary if you need to geolocate someone so you know if you need to check their ID. Take away the ID check and there is no need to block VPN as it buys you nothing in terms of blocking minors.
The only really "effective" measure that respects privacy is to label content, and then parents need to parent and, if necessary, only provide children with devices that are locked down and block inappropriate content. Or don't. There are multiple ways to raise a child.
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial porn sites go out of their way to comply with rules to make sure their sites are filtered by adult content filtering software. This appeased the right for the past 20 years or so.
Now the right is actively trying to dismantle the porn industry as part of Project 2025 so that's no longer good enough. Now they want porn sites to check IDs because it's suddenly too hard for parents to put parental controls on phones and PCs now. No porn consumer in their right mind will hand over an ID to a porn site
Re: (Score:2)
This appeased the right for the past 20 years or so.
Not really. If you want to appease the moral conservatives (right as well as left), you have to get rid of porn. It took them 20 years to take the next step toward total eradication.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope I didn't misread the summary, but it looks like the eff's argument and the judge's ruling is that #2 is not possible.
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the little detail where US law is not enforceable globally and most of the globe does not give a rat's ass about US law.
Re: (Score:2)
A better law would actually be:
1) "the internet gets to be private and anonymous by default
2) "Deal with it."
I like EFF (Score:2)