Thread

Court agrees with EFF: Utah's VPN law demands a technical impossibility

802 points · 405 comments · hn_acker

SoftTalker · 1790960547 · focus · HN ↗
> platforms are left with an impossible choice: completely block all VPN traffic nationwide or withdraw access from Utah entirely
Is it even possible to reliably know that a connection is from a VPN? Anyone can proxy through a random hosting provider.
1. ad_fontes · 1790960973 · focus · HN ↗
  Depends on how you define "reliably". You can get pretty damn close by triangulating on traffic patterns and browser fingerprinting. There is a lot of research in this area. But it'll never be perfect.
2. ranger_danger · 1790961233 · focus · HN ↗
  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.
  1. codedokode · 1790961628 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    [deleted] · 1790961772 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    iAMkenough · 1790962209 · focus · HN ↗
    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 · 1790966681 · focus · HN ↗
    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 · 1790967822 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    306bobby · 1791016743 · focus · HN ↗
    He said nothing about traffic type, that will always be HTTPS and websocket stuff. Nothing out of the ordinary to block there VPN or not
    With cross tunneling all your normal traffic would go through your ISP usually and just your porn traffic goes through the VPN. Unless it's a major provider, as far as your ISP is concerned you're just connecting to someone's private server occasionally
    malfist · 1790962351 · focus · HN ↗
    > 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?
    ranger_danger · 1790963146 · focus · HN ↗
    "Suspicious" is not illegal, and neither is hosting.
    zen928 · 1790966833 · focus · HN ↗
    Why would that be suspicious?
    someonebaggy · 1791028271 · focus · HN ↗
    If anybody is monitoring traffic patterns to this extent, it's not public knowledge. Even the NSA is unlikely to see traffic from one house to another in the same neighbourhood. And nobody except top terrorists gets prosecuted based on NSA intel because they have to reveal how they got the intel.
  2. irenaeus · 1790963295 · focus · HN ↗
    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 · 1790964181 · focus · HN ↗
    > 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?
    mahboi · 1790966966 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    fc417fc802 · 1790974982 · focus · HN ↗
    Common sense on the part of the judge presumably. Best effort and common practice will enter into it. Lots of regulation is like that.
    someonebaggy · 1791028207 · focus · HN ↗
    Nothing. Making laws that are impossible to comply with, then selectively enforcing them, is a favourite tactic of fascism because it allows you to imprison anyone you want, arbitrarily.
  3. EvanAnderson · 1790965066 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
3. not_a_bot_4sho · 1790961532 · focus · HN ↗
  Kinda.
  I use VPN most of the time. My work requires it, and I like Mozilla VPN for personal privacy. (Note: it has ad blocking DNS built in which is nice!)
  I occasionally get blocked by websites or services, especially streaming apps, if I'm on VPN. I suspect they're just looking out for Amazon/Microsoft/etc IP address blocks. It's very annoying
  1. alnwlsn · 1790961993 · focus · HN ↗
    My home internet is on a CGNAT, so I experience a lot of the same. Ironically, sometimes a VPN will get through.
  2. manquer · 1790963312 · focus · HN ↗
    Mozilla VPN runs on Mullvad who are transparent and publish active server and IP lists <a href="https://mullvad.net/en/servers.so" rel="nofollow">https://mullvad.net/en/servers.so trivial to block them without blocking all of Azure/GCP/AWS[1]
    There are also third party providers of IP annotations to classify known VPN address ranges that content providers typically subscribe to blanket block providers.
    The reason for this aggressive approach is streaming apps all need your IP as core signal for tagging your region and all content licensing is region locked (even on YT).
    Netflix are/were the most relaxed about it , and for long time would only buy content if they got global distribution rights, but not anymore. Many VPN ads specifically used to market that you can watch Netflix geolocked content.
    [1] IME they block DC IPs too although not needed for blocking professional VPN, even self hosted OpenVPN on cloud box usually gets flagged.
    [deleted] · 1790966268 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    kevincox · 1790966893 · focus · HN ↗
    That list is the IPs users connect to. It is entirely distinct from the list of IPs the VPN traffic egresses from. I doubt believe that they publish their egress ranges.
    buckle8017 · 1790967523 · focus · HN ↗
    It's almost always in the same /24.
    VanTheBrand · 1790979068 · focus · HN ↗
    Don’t think there was ever a time since Netflix started streaming where they only licensed global rights to shows. For their own originals they get global rights but the majority of their content is licensed and has always been slightly different in different territories.
  3. Aurornis · 1790963869 · focus · HN ↗
    That's not the same. You get blocked because the IP address you're coming from is associated with a VPN list, not because they're analyzing the traffic in detail.
    The simplest methods block known datacenter IP ranges like you thought. More will score it based on several heuristics and a reputation over time. If you get 100 different users connecting from a single IP, it's probably not someone's home internet connection.
    a4isms · 1790967633 · focus · HN ↗
    > If you get 100 different users connecting from a single IP, it's probably not someone's home internet connection.
    Or, their so-called "smart" TV is acting as a proxy without their informed consent.
    someonebaggy · 1791027800 · focus · HN ↗
    One of the positive side effects of smart TV proxies: IP addresses become useless information.
    medvidek · 1791009995 · focus · HN ↗
    > If you get 100 different users connecting from a single IP, it's probably not someone's home internet connection.
    In some parts of the world hiding (NAT) entire neighborhoods behind one public IP is normal practice.
4. codedokode · 1790961541 · focus · HN ↗
  You do not need to know "reliably". You can block everything remotely suspicious, and in case someone is blocked by mistake, they can file an application with all necessary documentation proving the connection is not a VPN.
  1. llama052 · 1790963430 · focus · HN ↗
    Sounds like the great firewall of China. Pretty wild how much we are regressing in the states to say this out loud.
    Let’s block traffic on the internet blindly just in case someone is looking at an adult website.
    hn_acc1 · 1790966144 · focus · HN ↗
    Next it will be illegal for anyone to visit an adult website from some states, even with proof of age, kinda like Prohibition..
    fc417fc802 · 1790974797 · focus · HN ↗
    We should also restrict access to foreign fake news websites that spread destabilizing propaganda. We can include an exception for academics, and thus will require a new accreditation and licensing scheme for them. Naturally we will then want to implement common sense guardrails for their conduct ... /s
    someonebaggy · 1791028063 · focus · HN ↗
    Our politicians are affected by the same destabilising forces so that won't happen.
5. TeMPOraL · 1790961956 · focus · HN ↗
  All it would take is for a major ISP in Utah to route everyone through a VPN, and boom, it's the same picture.
  1. irenaeus · 1790963654 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah but the state of Utah could just tell them to knock it off because they're the state.
  2. michaelbuckbee · 1790964692 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't this kind of what Apple's Private Relay is?
  3. someonebaggy · 1791027971 · focus · HN ↗
    Well no, because the laws for ISPs and VPNs are different.
    Most ISPs are already VPNs. Your connection is tunneled from your router at home, through some expansive DSL/ATM or GPON/PPPoE network, to a box at a data center that serves five neighborhoods with a single link by establishing a tunnel to each individual consumer router.
    But the ISP has to make sure the geolocation databases have accurate information about it, and it has to retain logs of which user used which IP address at which time because the law says so. That's why it's not a "VPN".
    olyjohn · 1791043983 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think that's how it works.
6. [deleted] · 1790964350 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
7. mahboi · 1790964426 · focus · HN ↗
  It's hard to find a proxy or VPN that isn't flagged as such. People pay extra for residential proxies.
  1. SV_BubbleTime · 1790968487 · focus · HN ↗
    I’ve been using different VPNs for years for work. I’m starting to come around to the value of a residential proxy service.
    It’s starting to get annoying that things aren’t working. They’re shooting themselves in the foot though.
    If they didn’t block VPNs, they would at least know what category to group them in.
8. happyPersonR · 1790967013 · focus · HN ↗
  Requires the vpn provider to snitch and possible tag the ip frames or http frames lol
  Folks would just host their own vpns various places and this would be pointless ….
  1. unglaublich · 1790967265 · focus · HN ↗
    It's all just an effort to control the 90%.
    pkilgore · 1790968322 · focus · HN ↗
    It lawfare against porn. They don't want these companies to exist. They want it to be impossible to comply with the law to shut them down.
    pessimizer · 1790968763 · focus · HN ↗
    They don't care about porn. The people who would vote for it in Utah do, and that's why Utah is being used as a vehicle by other people to bolster the need to root all computers.
    EA-3167 · 1790969805 · focus · HN ↗
    How can you be that paranoid about one thing and so gullible with another? We’re surrounded by phones, cameras, smart cars, IoT, microphones and most people are on social media too.
    The government demonstrably has the ability to break into your comms and data without going through any of this. Instead of a libertarian conspiracy theory have you considered that politicians chase power and re-election?
    Taking a stand and making major changes is hard to pull off, costs a lot of political resources, and can backfire horribly. Doing symbolic, popular crap that’s popular with the (admittedly thick and ignorant) majority is an easy win. Moral outrage is an easy win. “Think of the children” is an easy win.
    Ed: Corrected “comma” to “comms”
    HeatrayEnjoyer · 1790970034 · focus · HN ↗
    Break into your comma? Google-fu is letting me down on this one
    0cf8612b2e1e · 1790970365 · focus · HN ↗
    I assume auto correct for “coms” or “communications”?
    306bobby · 1791016461 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the political landscape is too divided and not recognizing that actually makes you gullible. These people don't need to chase re-election individually as much as they just need to convince the populus to vote for their party
    For years now Americans vote by party, not politician
    EA-3167 · 1791050985 · focus · HN ↗
    You’re just rephrasing the problem and pretending that it makes your point for you. The parties aren’t magical hydras, they’re made of people running mostly their own campaigns and when they mess up badly states flip. See: Doug Jones in Alabama.
    You’re also missing the entire dimension of primaries in which there’s intra-party competition. Honestly you’re missing more or less everything.
    bigbuppo · 1790969137 · focus · HN ↗
    It's lawfare against Constitutionally-protected speech. The "for the children" bit is just an appeal to emotion.
    /Same as it ever was
    bozhark · 1790987995 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s to control their Women
    Kids are the misdirection
    p-e-w · 1790988529 · focus · HN ↗
    Please elaborate on how a law that targets websites that overwhelmingly skew towards a male audience is designed to “control their women”.
    autoexec · 1790989764 · focus · HN ↗
    Charitably, outlawing porn would put a lot of women out of work, and place a new limitation on what types of work they can get, and in the process limit what women did with their bodies (on camera, for money). It'd do the same for men too, but as you said the audience is primarily men and the content they're looking for is primarily women. The truth is it would suck for pretty much everybody.
    Chris2048 · 1791044619 · focus · HN ↗
    > limit what women did with their bodies (on camera, for money)
    like how murder laws limit what women did with their bodies (strangling people to death, with their hands)
    hellojesus · 1791046391 · focus · HN ↗
    Murder isn't a voluntary trade.
    Chris2048 · 1791136001 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not sure what your point is. Mine was that phrasing this as a limitation on the use of your body is an irrelevant misdirection;
    Anything that is illegal and requires use of your body is a restriction in the use of your body.
    Purchasing, selling and muling drugs is a voluntary trade, and also illegal.
    autoexec · 1791146957 · focus · HN ↗
    > Mine was that phrasing this as a limitation on the use of your body is an irrelevant misdirection;
    Not in the context of a long and extensive history of efforts to place limitations (often through the use of laws) on what women can do with their own bodies, especially as it pertains to sex. The existence of entirely unrelated acts that have also been outlawed doesn't show that laws prohibiting pornography can't be a continuation of that same tradition of repression and control or that it wouldn't produce the same effect.
    0xR1CK · 1791000427 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly. If they cared about the children, they'd be going after the Ep.-Class (no arrests yet), or a good 2/3rds regime in play right now.
    ekianjo · 1791019282 · focus · HN ↗
    EP class are the lawmakers so good luck with that...
    sgc · 1791045334 · focus · HN ↗
    Your comment is a bit inaccurate.
    1. There are laws already. It is an enforcement problem.
    2. The Epstein-type crimes appear to be more prevalent in other branches of government and other parts of society than specifically in the legislative.
    3. Enforcement problem is specifically in the executive, of which enforcement is a part.
    Braxton1980 · 1791057705 · focus · HN ↗
    >The Epstein-type crimes appear to be more prevalent in other branches of government and other parts of society than specifically in the legislative.
    Based on what?
    Alive-in-2025 · 1791184259 · focus · HN ↗
    Saying its an enforcement problem is itself inadequate, because there seem to be nothing really happening and there are endless numbers of powerful and wealthy people who are "in the Epstein files" that gets out in the media, yet somehow none or almost none of them are being prosecuted now or in the past. Some of the now adult victims have made public acknowledgement, congress passed a law saying the details must be disclosed, and the trump admin refuses to do that. Congress is captured by republicans and repubs in congress are captured by trump. So nothing happens.
    At the highest level the release of the files is blocked (i.e. congress and the president are the highest level).
    HiPhish · 1791021513 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's lawfare against Constitutionally-protected speech.
    Obscenity is not protected as Free Speech.
    <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/" rel="nofollow">https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/
    timr · 1791022787 · focus · HN ↗
    ...and porn isn't automatically obscenity. In fact, it rarely is. C'mon, this is the fundamental outcome of the case you're citing.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California
    We learn about this in high school.
    SoftTalker · 1791047840 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm actually surprised that's the case. I'm not opposed to a willing adult making or consuming pornography, but honestly I don't see how most of it does not "appeal to the prurient interest" and "lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
    That only leaves whether the material is "patently offensive" which is probably what is most open to interpretation.
    timr · 1791050460 · focus · HN ↗
    This case is not the end of the saga -- it just defined the "Miller test" which established a three-pronged definition of obscenity. This test itself reads like an anachronism to any modern viewer. Subsequent cases further narrowed the definition of speech that can be restricted.
    Ultimately, this is purely about the first amendment (which is why we learn it in high school). The fundamental principle is that the definition of "community standards" matters a great deal, and if you define obscenity too broadly, it becomes a loophole for censorship of all kinds.
    Said differently, the fact that you don't see redeeming value to some form of speech is kind of the point. There are three hundred million other people with opinions in the USA, and if we let all of them have a say in what speech gets labeled offensive, then freedom of speech and expression is a farce. Only when you set extremely stringent standards for limitations on free expression - even when it is offensive to you - can you have a society where free expression is a right.
    (For what it's worth, most cases about porn and the first amendment make very convincing counterarguments on the points you take for granted, as you might expect for arguments at the Supreme Court.)
    Braxton1980 · 1791057864 · focus · HN ↗
    I would claim that the vast majority of people in private don't believe the majority of porn is offensive
    [deleted] · 1791068397 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    someonebaggy · 1791026362 · focus · HN ↗
    Other lawfare has already stripped constitutional protection from this particular speech - judges unanimously agree the first amendment doesn't protect "obscenity" even though it clearly does by its wording.
    [deleted] · 1791039731 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    wwweston · 1791044817 · focus · HN ↗
    As a lifelong student of religious cultures like Utah's (and often in particular Utah's), this isn't bad at a first approximation but could be elaborated better.
    There is absolutely a class of Utah politicians that has little sincere personal investment in purity culture and associated culture war issues, but knows that they can be used for ingroup/virtue signaling. They also know that the dominant religious culture in Utah prepares the most significant statewide voting block to respond to such culture issues far more powerfully than any kind of attempt to engage on policy or detailed dialogue. This isn't that different from a common general strategy of running on symbolic issues and then devoting your time in office to favor trading/personal gain plus occasional personal pet policy issues, but the particular flavor is regional with a strong religious emphasis.
    But there's also significant portion of regional religious leadership and membership with sincerely held purity culture beliefs. Some of this is rooted in psychological traits amplified via theology where adherents achieve a perceived state of purity/redemption by cleansing rituals and avoiding contaminants. Some of this is rooted in credences: the tradition makes moral claims about sexual contaminants and you have to sign on to be part of the ingroup (and also the tradition's leaders speak for God and are therefore wrong and if you challenge them you're not just outgroup, you're actually challenging the authority of the tradition which makes you opposed to God himself, so from this perspective there's little legitimate discourse about sexuality topics leaders have spoken about, there's mostly authority of religious leaders and individuals declaring of which side of the spiritual war they're on).
    So, some people shaped under this culture over time do believe they are fighting crucial battles for the children, to the point where they have no problem with the erosion or even destruction of any secular treaties like those the 1st amendment supports (the fact that Latter-day Saints are quite vulnerable should secular treaties fall in a nation of much larger religious organizations that see LDS as blasphemous heretics is largely lost on most of the porn crusaders, there are some peculiar delusions that come with being a local majority with some national clout yet a national minority nonetheless).
    And others know this sincere belief is a convenient lever for other power plays, and all you have to do is flatter the prejudices and signals of the ingroup in order to get broad permission for corruption and other antisocial advances.
    [deleted] · 1791050095 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    freeopinion · 1791122836 · focus · HN ↗
    It's an interesting aspect of human nature to maintain contradictions in the same brain. Latter-day Saints are taught to value moral agency very highly. But humans in general tend to try to enforce their own practices on others (see Daniel and the Lions Den, also Prohibition).
    There will always be those who try to leverage people's human frailties into political advantage. Sometimes it's a real challenge to live a principled life. Indeed, it seems rare to meet people who hold to principles even when the principle appears to work against their own self interest in the moment.
    Obviously, moral agency in the extreme can lead to anarchy. Libertarians must always thread the line of figuring out the minimum amount of regulation that protects society just enough without infringing on the individual too much. If you want a libertarian to vote for your law, you have to convince them that it prevents a serious threat to enough important individuals to matter. You have to tip the scale on the contradiction in their brain.
    trinsic2 · 1791169327 · focus · HN ↗
    which anarchy are you talking about, the chaos one where everybody out for themselves, or the one with out rulers where there are leaders and people work together out of there own sense of authority?
    Real anarchy isnt about getting rid of laws, its about getting rid of people that use laws to rule over everyone else.
    ButlerianJihad · 1791170153 · focus · HN ↗
    Follow the money. The real “speech” is the revenue, and the spend from the patrons of porn.
    Sure, hungry working girl needs your $5 tip. Now she can have a Famous Star with fries. Story over. No, wait.
    Porn money rapidly becomes dark money. Who takes cuts? It goes offshore. It goes to pimps, gangsters, gun runners? Who knows? You don’t care!
    Are you opposed to human trafficking and slavery? No you’re not! That spicy OF that you like is part of your problem!
    Perhaps Utah and other people with morals are worried about the compromise of their men and the patrons of porn. You can drain a lot of information, and money, and desperate action, from porn addicts. So if there is a statewide financial drain, a trade deficit, if you will, perhaps it is in Utah’s best interest to keep dirty money where they can see it, and prevent their men from falling victim to the whore who sits upon many waters.
    pimeys · 1790970267 · focus · HN ↗
    Why are people so upset about porn? It's probably still the biggest portion of internet traffic. Kind of like human nature, don't you think?
    lokar · 1790972853 · focus · HN ↗
    Assuming you are really asking, the two largest objections:
    - religious/cultural. My beliefs forbid this, it makes people bad/worse in some hard-to-define way, so no one should be allowed to do it. Sometimes with an emphasis that the sellers are luring good people into sin/ruin.
    - it harms women. Many of the participants are trafficked or coerced in some way (and further abused). The profits from the industry encourage more of this. It “warps” the mind of men who use it, leading them to mistreat and abuse women.
    I see elements of truth in all these, but IMO they are ultimately not compelling, prohibition is unworkable and unduly infringes on willing participants and consumers.
    throwinthisaway · 1790973431 · focus · HN ↗
    Frankly I believe the whole “warps the mind of men to abuse women” is total nonsense.
    I’ve watched plenty of porn in my life, probably a bit more than average. I’ve never done anything out of the norm or unwanted to woman, let alone abuse one.
    I think shitty people will be shitty people and it’s just a really easy thing to point at instead of taking responsibility for it. It’s also a convenient plausible sounding correlation for people who already want to ban porn to use.
    schrodinger · 1790973645 · focus · HN ↗
    Agreed. It’s like the argument that video games cause shooters.
    Umm, I played plenty of GTA growing up and I’ve never stolen a car. People are actually very good at separating fantasy from reality, believe it or not.
    autoexec · 1790991598 · focus · HN ↗
    For those who aren't good at separating fantasy from reality literally anything can become the source of the voices in their head. Religion is as likely to drive them to violence as a video game would be.
    lokar · 1790973711 · focus · HN ↗
    I can see the argument for a “correlation vs causation “ argument, but I’m not a social scientist.
    BobaFloutist · 1790977289 · focus · HN ↗
    If you change the argument to "can warp the mind of some men", it becomes much harder to falsify.
    margalabargala · 1790980359 · focus · HN ↗
    Right, but only because it becomes vacuously meaningless. For example, your comment can warp the minds of men. As can mine here. As can a blade of grass waving in the wind.
    taneq · 1791073967 · focus · HN ↗
    Clearly men are the problem, if their minds are so easily warped. /s
    margalabargala · 1791078297 · focus · HN ↗
    No one said they were easily warped, just possible to warp.
    Porn, this comment, and grass blowing in the breeze all can warp the minds of women, and nonbinary individuals, as well.
    taneq · 1791098639 · focus · HN ↗
    Re-reading the whole thread, you make a good point. I agree.
    krrrh · 1790984543 · focus · HN ↗
    > I’ve never done anything out of the norm or unwanted to woman, let alone abuse one
    Yeah the Dworkin contention that porn turns men into rapists has basically been disproven.
    But there’s no reason to say “warps the minds of men” has to lean in that direction. Reading forums of young men who have porn addictions and grew up with HD hardcore porn it seems more like the opposite happened, they become more withdrawn, less likely to engage with women enough to develop social skills, less able to perform sexually irl and subject to porn-induced erectile dysfunction. When it was just magazines and socially stigmatized VHS rentals it was unheard of for college aged men to take viagra, now it’s widespread. Arguably warped minds led to this.
    rootusrootus · 1790989884 · focus · HN ↗
    > When it was just magazines and socially stigmatized VHS rentals it was unheard of for college aged men to take viagra
    In the days of VHS, Viagra wasn’t a thing.
    numpad0 · 1791019243 · focus · HN ↗
    Fun fact: Japan now has the highest birth rate in East Asia, and everyone knows what it's best known for.
    edoceo · 1791061101 · focus · HN ↗
    Godzilla?
    bushwart · 1791067327 · focus · HN ↗
    Sushi? Ramen?
    alpaca128 · 1790987793 · focus · HN ↗
    Reminds me of a study[0] I saw recently which concluded that antisocial behaviour from drunk people seems to stem mostly from antisocial people consuming alcohol.
    [0] <a href="https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/43/2/204/122225?login=false" rel="nofollow">https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/43/2/204/122225?logi...
    QuiEgo · 1790994055 · focus · HN ↗
    This reminds me of the whole "playing video games causes violent behavior" stream of thought. Like people, I do not think CounterStrike is real nor do I want to engage in gun battles to the death in real life.
    OroPla · 1791057185 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree, but maybe the problem people see with porn is people having that same attitude? "Relax, I don't want to have sex in real life."
    Ma8ee · 1790996995 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m quite sure porn impacts what is considered “the norm”.
    UltraSane · 1790976191 · focus · HN ↗
    The "porn harms women" argument really seems to infantilize women and assumes that women can never want or enjoy sex for the sake of sex.
    lokar · 1790976630 · focus · HN ↗
    Some argue it harms all women who participate in, but others argue it harms some women who participate, which seems undeniable.
    fwip · 1790978277 · focus · HN ↗
    True, and this is probably true of all work. Retail work has probably harmed many more women than sex work (by virtue of being much more common).
    UltraSane · 1790991507 · focus · HN ↗
    Almost all activities harm some of the people who participate in them.
    jonahx · 1790978171 · focus · HN ↗
    This is not the claim. The claim is that, empirically, many (or enough) of the women who end up in porn are underage, trafficked, or psychologically coerced (due to poverty, drug addiction, abuse, etc) such that the choice is not really the free choice of willing participant.
    I am all for individual freedoms, but I've read enough about this issue, and seen enough documentaries, that I think the claim is very well-founded. Of course, some porn stars are just willing adults doing something they want to do, but there are many who are not.
    UltraSane · 1790978664 · focus · HN ↗
    > The claim is that, empirically, many (or enough) of the women who end up in porn are underage, trafficked, or psychologically coerced (due to poverty, drug addiction, abuse, etc) such that the choice is not really the free choice of willing participant.
    The main point of contention becomes what "enough" constitutes. Almost no women in commercial porn is underage as all countries that legally allow its production also require strict proof of age for the people actually having sex.
    lokar · 1790979288 · focus · HN ↗
    I’ve seen two arguments:
    Women who do not provide fully informed and voluntarily consent are harmed
    Porn makes some (or many, or all) men who consume it treat some (or many, or all) women badly
    reilly3000 · 1790981292 · focus · HN ↗
    Admittedly hot take, but I think the existence of ubiquitous porn on-demand does take away power from people who would withhold sex as part of a negotiation in a relationship.
    serf · 1790981493 · focus · HN ↗
    but you can apply this argument to almost any product or good on the market and get a similar ratio of 'willing participant' and 'pseudo-slavery' involvement. Across the board.
    in other words I wouldn't ban oranges because some of the farmers have been found to have been enslaved; instead i'd investigate and penalize the enslavement and crimes taking place.
    Similarly : I wouldn't ban pornography on some false pretense that it's to save someone, because quite honestly if I began that boulder rolling it shouldn't stop , every industry victimizes someone; it's a question of stopping and penalizing abuses and preventing victimization, not about regulating broad industries ( a move that worsens human rights violations by moving them into a highly lucrative black market, into the shadows ) .
    jonahx · 1790984750 · focus · HN ↗
    I never argued to ban pornography, and I'm not in favor of that.
    That said, no, it's not like other industries. The amount of well-documented abuse is much higher. Degree matters.
    BEEdwards · 1790991884 · focus · HN ↗
    Find chocolate that doesn't involve slave labor at some point in it's production and then say that again.
    Semaphor · 1791030978 · focus · HN ↗
    There is some of the bean to bar variety. Very different price class, though.
    I'd also guess (not know, haven't researched that area at all) that some of the fair trade and similar certified labels you can find even in supermarkets have a good enough control for that.
    autoexec · 1790992279 · focus · HN ↗
    I'd be willing to bet that there are far more people who voluntarily make porn than people who voluntarily work on cocoa farms in Western Africa. Not that the existence of other industries where slavery and abuse are more prevalent make those problems in the porn industry any better, but at the very least a lot of work has been done to limit the amount of abuse in the adult entertainment industry and there are a lot of places where people who are being abused can find help and support, especially here in the US. You're more likely to be supporting slavery and abuse buying a Hershey's Bar or an iphone than by watching a video on pornhub.
    xorcist · 1791022403 · focus · HN ↗
    This is perhaps the clearest example of whataboutism I have ever seen. Sure, the porn industry is nasty, but have you seen the chocolate industry? Let's talk about that instead!
    nsomaru · 1791023571 · focus · HN ↗
    In this case it’s not because this subthread is specifically about comparing abuse levels in other industries and further whether the product should be banned or the abusive practice should be investigated and eliminated.
    swiftcoder · 1791012237 · focus · HN ↗
    > it's not like other industries. The amount of well-documented abuse is much higher. Degree matters.
    It's certainly not that different in degree to the agricultural industry (undocumented workers packed into squalid working conditions, long hours in harsh climate, wage theft, constant threat of ICE...), and we're not out here trying to ban tomatoes
    jonahx · 1791014003 · focus · HN ↗
    You can honestly acknowledge what both industries do without "being out there trying to ban them." In any case, plenty of people want to improve working conditions in the agricultural industry. Probably the best you can do in both cases is imperfect regulation which at least tries to change incentives for the worst kind of abuse.
    swiftcoder · 1791015412 · focus · HN ↗
    Right, but I'm specifically pointing out here the difference in knee-jerk response (particularly in the political arena). Rampant worker abuses in porn leads to attempts to ban it entirely, while similar abuses in the agriculture sector engender a very lukewarm response
    rpdillon · 1791015674 · focus · HN ↗
    How about phone battery manufacturing? Shall we do an accounting of abuses there? Phones warp minds, and have extensive slavery overseas in the supply chain. Societies love to claim the moral high ground by externalizing bad behavior, and importing the result. The US does this extensively with climate and labor laws, and Europe does it with pesticides. The difference with porn is its pretty girls, and its all on camera. I see some parallels with Missing White Woman Syndrome.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
    [deleted] · 1790983601 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    monksy · 1790984896 · focus · HN ↗
    > of the women who end up in porn are underage, trafficked, or psychologically coerced (due to poverty, drug addiction, abuse, etc) such that the choice is not really the free choice of willing participant.
    People who believe that are not aware how the industry has changed and the standards attached to that.
    Additionally, that wasn't the draw of the industry. Using the "porn/stripping" preys on the poor is a far over simplification and a weasly thing to say.
    swiftcoder · 1791012086 · focus · HN ↗
    > People who believe that are not aware how the industry has changed and the standards attached to that.
    This very much depends on where you look at. If you are only consuming Made in California™ porn from the big producers, then yes, a lot may have changed.
    If you are searching out the raw shit from Russia/Eastern Europea/Asia, then no, the industry is still heavy on the abuse and intertwined with organised crime.
    306bobby · 1791015932 · focus · HN ↗
    But that's literally the same with virtually all industries in those regions. Porn isn't some sort of exception
    swiftcoder · 1791045218 · focus · HN ↗
    Indeed, but it is treated as an exception in most political discussions
    olyjohn · 1791043232 · focus · HN ↗
    Sounds like call centers. People are trafficked, kidnapped and and forced to work in them, but nobody is trying to ban call centers.
    monksy · 1791180349 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a disingenuous response.
    Having legalized and accessible adult content hurts the scope and desire for "the raw shit". Organized crime created the problem, not the production/consumption of adult content. They're unethical, unlawful, immoral opportunists.
    subscribed · 1790989150 · focus · HN ↗
    All fast fashion comes from the trafficked or abused workers. All meat comes from the grave abuse of the animals.
    It's still sold on the high street and advertised everywhere.
    halfcat · 1791043377 · focus · HN ↗
    Let’s replace a few categories of your argument and see how your logic holds up.
    ”This is not the claim. The claim is that, empirically, many (or enough) of the men who end up in construction jobs are underage, trafficked, or psychologically coerced (due to poverty, drug addiction, abuse, etc) such that the choice is not really the free choice of willing participant.
    I am all for individual freedoms, but I've read enough about this issue, and seen enough documentaries, that I think the claim is very well-founded. Of course, some construction workers are just willing adults doing something they want to do, but there are many who are not.
    You could replace construction with mining or fishing or factory work. It’s pretty clear to me that outlawing fishing jobs isn’t going to solve the problem of forced labor.
    OroPla · 1791057552 · focus · HN ↗
    Never quite understood how that applies to drawn porn or nowadays AI porn.
    malfist · 1790987529 · focus · HN ↗
    It also ignores gay porn.
    UltraSane · 1790989909 · focus · HN ↗
    It is amazing how comprehensively gay porn is ignored in these debates which I think supports my argument that the "porn harms women" argument fundamentaly removes female agency.
    pimeys · 1791011480 · focus · HN ↗
    Being the writer of the parent comment who started this discussion, gay porn was the open I was thinking about. Then it the whole discussion was about harming women.
    BTW all the women I know in my age group watch porn too...
    numpad0 · 1791042105 · focus · HN ↗
    It does. This whole logical train of thoughts just fall apart without extremely sexist premises, disregard of agency and human rights and tons of other stuffs. It probably don't even support ideas of toxic masculinity for heterosexual males. It's just mild insanity.
    germandiago · 1791002098 · focus · HN ↗
    Any intervention to protect adults with laws infantilize.
    The cause is clear in my mind: the world outside is what it is. If you cannot take good decisions (whatever that is for you) and you need someone to get protrcted and you soend your day whining about your own problems bc the world is not perfect, then you did not become an adult, ever.
    There are extreme cases: for example you cannot say aperson in a country with no weapons is infantilized bc the complain for being abused by an armed gang. Something like that is legit.
    But for many things I see around I just see people complaining instead of changing strategy, solve a problem, change their choice or just plain skip things they do not want. Instrad of that they demand some kind of protection.
    For a very narrow set of exceptions I would agree. For the rest, we sre just adults, we should know what to do.
    popdu · 1791024324 · focus · HN ↗
    > For the rest, we sre just adults, we should know what to do.
    We should. Yet a significant portion of mental health issues would be solved if psychiatry provided mother as a service: Teach interpersonal skills and to take care of yourself. They don't teach that stuff in school and parenting is a hit-or-miss.
    The world indeed is what it is and your diagnosis is spot on: Most people didn't become adults as defined by being able to make consistently good decisions without support. Can either let them hang themselves or infantilize just a bit to let most dodge the worst pitfalls.
    Don't really have a strong personal opinion on where the pragmatic optimum is, but surely a long way before banning porn. Tangentially it'd be far more ideal if that pragmatic optimum could cater to the ideal adult without catastrophic social consequences, but that'd literally be a generational effort.
    failbuffer · 1790980228 · focus · HN ↗
    I would add:
    - natalism. Some people worry about inverted demographic pyramids. They want to see more births, so they need more horny guys trying to form relationships instead of being content single. Sometimes there is a racist angle.
    - industry. Anything that's "too fun" for young people disincentives education or working.
    - addiction. (But people get addicted to shopping or eating dirt too.)
    Some arguments against outlawing it include:
    - free speech.
    - a sizeable fraction of the population wants it to exist.
    - better option for economically impoverished women than prostitution.
    - societies that suppress it don't really seem better for women, or anyone.
    - prohibition of a widely demanded product creates crime (and nothing is easier to smuggle than pure information).
    autoexec · 1790990406 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    germandiago · 1791001727 · focus · HN ↗
    You could say natalism as opposed to maltusianism, or that is not a thing? One with a worse outcome IMHO given the aging of population and low birth rate.
    Industry: agree.
    Addiction: true, many things can be addictive, I think this is in big part a matter of education but there are some things that are more addictive than others also.
    As for better option than prostitution. I would say this is kind of prostitution is some way.
    AnthonyMouse · 1791012688 · focus · HN ↗
    > natalism. Some people worry about inverted demographic pyramids. They want to see more births, so they need more horny guys trying to form relationships instead of being content single.
    This one seems to have an obvious problem.
    It's October, consider the traditional Halloween party for 20-somethings. Slutty costumes, college students making out on the couch, and those are the tame ones.
    All of that stuff has been effectively banned from workplaces and official school functions and the like for a while now. Meanwhile people increasingly do their social interaction via social media. So what happens if you ban revealing images and sexual dialog from there too? Where are you leaving for people to actually do those things, if you want them to connect with each other?
    theultdev · 1791024111 · focus · HN ↗
    Birth rates are down. And you used "traditional Halloween party", yes that's what you think happens traditionally, but what if you just opened cosplay category on Pornhub and didn't go to the party to meet your potential mate? Seems easier right? That's what they are getting at.
    It's not a full replacement, but it's enough to keep people content with the status quo.
    Telemakhos · 1791030491 · focus · HN ↗
    Halloween has only been a major, marketed holiday for the millennials and later generations. As late as the beginning of the 1980s it was a kids’ holiday only for most of America. Spirit Halloween was founded in 1983; 80s horror films (like Halloween) helped build the holiday for adults.
    Traditional ways of meeting a spouse don’t involve slutty costumes at once-a-year parties (Halloween is not a spouse-selection fertility festival), but family, church, and neighborhood connections that build over spans of time in 3d. Sometimes HN seems to miss slow, complex, physical-world interactions because of a focus on modeling transaction-like events or instants (like parties).
    AnthonyMouse · 1791047917 · focus · HN ↗
    > Halloween has only been a major, marketed holiday for the millennials and later generation. Spirit Halloween was founded in 1983; 80s horror films (like Halloween) helped build the holiday for adults.
    The people who were in college in the 1980s aren't millennials. If you were 22 in 1983 then you were born in 1961. That's not even Gen X, that's a boomer.
    And Halloween in particular isn't really the point anyway. The decade associated with topless hippies and free love was before the 1980s. The Romans would dispute the notion that this sort of thing is a recent development.
    > Traditional ways of meeting a spouse don’t involve slutty costumes at once-a-year parties (Halloween is not a spouse-selection fertility festival), but family, church, and neighborhood connections that build over spans of time in 3d.
    The issue being that the neighbors are no longer renting a hall to have local discussion meetings because that sort of thing now happens on Facebook. And then if Facebook is a place where non-platonic sentiment gets you a ban, what happens?
    AnthonyMouse · 1791046180 · focus · HN ↗
    > what if you just opened cosplay category on Pornhub and didn't go to the party to meet your potential mate?
    The thing about imposing content restrictions via corporate intermediaries is that they're not that selective. If you're not banning cleavage and innuendo from the mass market services then they become the funnel to OnlyFans and escort services, but if you are then the result is a de facto ban on real people flirting with each other because they're afraid of having their account locked.
    Consider what "chilling effects" implies in the context of sexual expressiveness.
    brookst · 1790987378 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah both of those arguments would work fine for banning religion, but oddly that is shocking to proponents.
    Rohansi · 1790989487 · focus · HN ↗
    I thought the same. People would realistically be thinking "not my religion" but, even if that were true, that is the kind of thinking that leads to conflicts between religions. That can range from racism between individuals, to stuff like this, and even to entire wars. Despite all of this we specifically protect religion, which I'm fine with, but nobody should be forcing their religious beliefs onto others in any way. That has definitely harmed far more people overall.
    germandiago · 1791001493 · focus · HN ↗
    So in the absence of religion, there is no racism, no interests and no wars?
    You seem to suggest that banning religion would end up wars or human nature.
    And yes, noone should force everyone else, but not only om religious stuff. Sometimes there has been non-religious truths to which people are forced and that collides ireemediably with other thinkings.
    I am not sure why one philosophical thinking should be better than other just bc it does not contain religion.
    In fact, I consider a big part of most religious a compilation of wise advice about human nature. You can believe it or not, take it or not, that is a choice, but when not taken into fanatism I do not think it is harmful.
    Again, that is not anreason to force a position to others. But there are a handful of things that are very controversial.
    Dylan16807 · 1791010178 · focus · HN ↗
    > So in the absence of religion, there is no racism, no interests and no wars?
    Nah. Between the two comments above there's an implication that in the absence of religion there would be somewhat less of those things.
    germandiago · 1791203233 · focus · HN ↗
    As there would be if you worship money or communism or any other belief that is not a religion also for which wars or oppression has been caused.
    306bobby · 1791016254 · focus · HN ↗
    Saying something is a major catalyst is not saying it's the only catalyst.
    Neither parent was being this black and white about it so I have no idea why you are
    hinkley · 1791054168 · focus · HN ↗
    I’ll take “Things You Learn In Introduction to Logic” for 500, Alex.
    In places where supposedly most of the people are in engineering or software, I’m surprised how often 1) people have to point this out, 2) people are willing to loudly pronounce their lack of basic logical skills.
    antonvs · 1791039363 · focus · HN ↗
    Religion acts as a mechanism for perpetuating and giving social acceptability to certain kinds of bigotry. If it didn’t exist, it’d be much more difficult to justify that kind of bigotry.
    hinkley · 1791054319 · focus · HN ↗
    Institutionalized Othering, literally. This is my in group and we spend every Sunday morning talking about everybody else. Sometimes with extra separate classes for the children.
    fleroviumna · 1791098159 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    germandiago · 1791203370 · focus · HN ↗
    This is not different from any political power or belief, which shapes mind and action.
    In fact, in the absence of religion, the hole is filled with political power.
    There is no void. If you leave a void, someone will fill it, after all. Bc there will still be social organization among us.
    numpad0 · 1791018521 · focus · HN ↗
    The way religion always comes up in these discussion makes me think that, there's a chance that the world sees what happened in the Uighur region of China as a right call, repeating it, not over the next 3-5 years but at 30-50 year history book timescale, just in trivially more humane manners.
    It's just weird that people could just base decisions on religions and hide behind freedom of thoughts, when there are actions and consequences of what are supposedly thoughts. It only works when the accusing and accused shares the same beliefs, and effectively collude out of a shared interest, which is not just wrong but increasingly becoming not a workable strategy.
    someonebaggy · 1791041182 · focus · HN ↗
    There's basically no country that hasn't done at least one holocaust in recent history. They happen wayyyyyy more than you'd think. We just don't care about most of them. It's the same reason almost all politicians support Israel - nothing that's happening there is different from anything they want to do or have done in their own countries.
    cindyllm · 1791041897 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    numpad0 · 1791042466 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't mean that I think nations will start harassing "foreign" religions, but that someone is going to redefine the concept of religions and draws some line as to what parts of it a civilized nation could tolerate; there are dictator's autobiographies that are legal to possess, read or study all you want, as speeches, but not to follow or to worship. What I'm thinking is that similar thing might happen to religious materials and organizations.
    tarpitt · 1791048483 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think it is a good idea to operate a society totally on the basis of reason. Religion exists as a framework for people rationalize their intuitions.
    That being said, I don't think religion as we know it will be a powerful force in the future, so there will be little reason to persecute the religious. The framework of religion is built to deal with perrenial problems of human nature, and we are in a dynamic time. People may not see religion as adequate for answering modern questions
    [deleted] · 1790991772 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    GolfPopper · 1790975651 · focus · HN ↗
    >Kind of like human nature, don't you think?
    That's one reason why traditionists in power usually crack down on any sort of pornography or alternate sexuality. Sex is a huge driver for human behavior. And established power structures would prefer that the only way for anyone to get sex is via compliance with the existing power structures. It's not something where the establishment is ever going to be able to perfectly control things, but if they can make it more difficult to get any sort of sexual gratification that doesn't align with their preferred social structure that gives the establishment an advantage in holding on to power.
    lazide · 1790985524 · focus · HN ↗
    They want to protect their local ‘woman’ market, without them having to compete with porn expectations.
    tyrabound · 1791023874 · focus · HN ↗
    So you produce pornography? Does your mother produce pornography? How about your sister or father or grandmother, do they produce pornography? So you consume their pornography since just regular and normal human nature?
    What about pornography…the concentrated, focused depiction of sex acts…makes it human nature to you?
    ButlerianJihad · 1791152541 · focus · HN ↗
    Adam and Eve partook of the Tree of Knowledge because of the serpent, and blamed one another in a chain of blame for it. Adam even blamed God for "this woman"!
    Now that I have eaten of it as well, I want to testify to the good that it did in me. My "love life" was full of failures, and terrible relations with my female peers. I realized eventually that I didn't honestly know what love was, or how to be a husband, much less a father.
    It was a few years ago when I came across a handful of pornographic scenes that opened my eyes to what people mean by "consent" and what a really loving relationship could look like, as a "fly on the wall". Because it had never played out in front of me until then, I didn't know what it looked like, or sounded like or felt like when people were consenting to intimacy, enjoying that intimacy, accepting their partner, and encouraging them for more. It was literally just beyond my experience, and when I saw it, I was so ashamed of myself.
    I was ashamed of how I'd treated women and I was sad because they had treated me so badly, and I hadn't even the guts to say "no". I try not to "belong" to an incel community or foster bitterness to women for how I am, but my gender ID and my sexuality have been thoroughly ruined, even without so much porn. Just from imbibing pop culture depictions, and all the singers, and MTV, and actresses, and fake sitcoms and films that warped my self-image along with warping my reality into fantasy.
    Porn addiction isn't moral, and there are many, many ways for a man to be trapped by porn into worse and worse mental health, ruining his RL relationships as well. But it seems that women are empowered to use all their qualifications and gifts to earn a living and provide for themselves and families, and even sincerely follow their faith and conscience to worship the demons that fuel porn. So who am I to judge that they do the needful, because we capitalists live by PT Barnum's maxim, "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute".
    miohtama · 1790975783 · focus · HN ↗
    The UK is doing it.
    Ofcom is investigating PornHub even after PornHub installed age checks as Ofcom claims age checks not “robust” (read: VPN ban). So hand over your id to see porn.
    <a href="https://x.com/moo9000/status/2102726344975040565?s=20" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/moo9000/status/2102726344975040565?s=20
    EmbarrassedHelp · 1790992725 · focus · HN ↗
    The UK government is extremely socially conservative when it comes to sex/porn online, and they never let an opportunity to violate privacy rights go to waste.
    The rest of the world would be better off to just block the UK from online platforms rather than risky complying with their increasingly insane demands.
    miohtama · 1791016270 · focus · HN ↗
    Blocking does not work either. Ofcom is drunk with their own juice under the current Labour government.
    Ofcom fines you even if you block the UK because it is not "robust"
    <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1osgyg4/the_ofcom_files_part_2_ip_blocking_the_uk_is_not/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1osgyg4/the_ofc...
    someonebaggy · 1791027609 · focus · HN ↗
    Then we should treat it like Afghanistan or North Korea, which do the same thing: ignore the ridiculous shit they say, and don't go visit.
    [deleted] · 1791024090 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    k12sosse · 1790991807 · focus · HN ↗
    For the porn argument I mean, just generate your own locally on your own device, they tend to overlook that when they're shoving AI down everyone's throats. Like everything else techwise that's worthwhile in the last 30 years, it's been driven by porn culture.
  2. sparkling · 1790967793 · focus · HN ↗
    Detection can be based on the IPs themselves, no packet tricks required. Plenty of services can do that: <a href="https://focsec.com/" rel="nofollow">https://focsec.com/
    Now of course, if your VPN is a home-lab style VPN where you are connecting to a little wireguard box sitting in your own home, that is a totally different story.
    compiler-guy · 1790968063 · focus · HN ↗
    And still required by Utah law.
  3. mmooss · 1790969790 · focus · HN ↗
    > Folks would just host their own vpns various places and this would be pointless
    In the real world, very few people have that capability.
    mey · 1790969983 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you have a friend/family out of state? Do they have a commodity router? Many have such a feature built in.
    Less savvy individuals/business would also have no reason to obey these laws.
    See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit
    mmooss · 1790971243 · focus · HN ↗
    The limitation isn't access to the technology. There is endless OSS, it's probably built into many standard OSes, and there are many available products and projects that will deploy the whole thing for you.
    The limitation is technical skill, even having enough skill to know that this is a solution.
    mightyham · 1791028533 · focus · HN ↗
    How many out of state friends and family would you feel comfortable asking to set up a VPN for you so you can watch porn?
    ddlsmurf · 1790985253 · focus · HN ↗
    But also there's very little need today, it's very cheap to do, just complicated, a barrier that can be easily solved if there appears demand
    mtlmtlmtlmtl · 1791001410 · focus · HN ↗
    This is such a common HN trope, and it's tiresome.
    Yes, lots of things will at any point be beyond the technical ability of most people as long as they remain niche. But as soon as a sizable market exists(e.g one created by a law, like in this case), products and services that close that gap will appear.
    Hell, there's even stuff for doing this already, which is not that hard for non-technical people to set up, like Tailscale. I can easily imagine a Tailscale-like product that easily allows friends to use eachothers networks as a VPN with zero configuration or Wireguard knowledge required. I mean, when you think about it it's just Tailscale but more streamlined for that particular purpose.
    someonebaggy · 1791027721 · focus · HN ↗
    Chinese people manage. Mostly by knowing someone who has the capability.
  4. campbel · 1790974447 · focus · HN ↗
    You can do for free with tailscale exit nodes. Just have a friend in a different location host for you or buy some compute space somewhere
    stingraycharles · 1790977621 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes that’s the point the parent was making, although I don’t even think Tailscale is the easiest option if all you want is a relay.
  5. hnlmorg · 1791018556 · focus · HN ↗
    > Folks would just host their own vpns various places and this would be pointless
    I think that’s the GPs point.
    Though some services do already block traffic originating from popular hosting providers like AWS out of fears of bots.
    someonebaggy · 1791027696 · focus · HN ↗
    There's fears of bots and there's actual bots. My custom WAF blocks 500 requests per second, and let's through 2. There should be nearly zero false positives with the detection method I'm using.
    thefreeman · 1791036407 · focus · HN ↗
    what's this fool proof method?
    someonebaggy · 1791039290 · focus · HN ↗
    I can't share the detection method for obvious reasons.
    hnlmorg · 1791063676 · focus · HN ↗
    There’s no such thing as a fool proof method. Anyone who claims there is, is vastly exaggerating their capabilities.
    hnlmorg · 1791064117 · focus · HN ↗
    > There's fears of bots and there's actual bots.
    They’re not mutually exclusive statements ;)
  6. sylware · 1791020988 · focus · HN ↗
    And some VPN "services" could use some compromised systems here and there.
    Who is going to check anyway? You need significant technical leverage AND law leverage for the people doing that.
9. gorgoiler · 1790968067 · focus · HN ↗
  The classic: ping the endpoint address, then “ping” the code. If the IP address comes back in 30ms but the JavaScript responds in 330ms, then the client is probably 300ms further away than they say they are claiming.
  1. zbentley · 1790979099 · focus · HN ↗
    Or they’re on a computer that’s doing something intensive, swapping, or in low power mode. Or they have a browser extension that does stuff before scripts run. Or their cache is emptier than usual and they’re spending a long time doing an initial fetch of the latest ad tracking package your site installed. The list goes on. That’s far too noisy a signal to decide block-or-not based on. Good enough to try to sell someone faster gear, maybe, but not more than that.
  2. patrakov · 1790987557 · focus · HN ↗
    This will also catch a SIM card in roaming, which is not a VPN.
    someonebaggy · 1791028354 · focus · HN ↗
    except it is literally a VPN, actually. That's why it would have that characteristic. Except actually it wouldn't, because the test described only catches proxies at L4 and higher. It would catch a lot of CGNATs.
10. babelfish · 1790969027 · focus · HN ↗
  It seems like withdrawing from Utah is the obvious option
  1. [deleted] · 1790969498 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  2. gwbas1c · 1790970192 · focus · HN ↗
    That was what the law attempted to do: Ban porn in Utah.
    There is a very vocal anti-porn group in Utah. They do things like put up massive billboards that say "[Store name] sells porn." (Which is basically free advertising instead of shaming.)
    hedora · 1790984867 · focus · HN ↗
    Right, but if everyone serving porn did that (e.g., google image search, so I guess all of Google should ban Utah), then people would just send money out of state for vpn access, and probably remember the annoyance when it was time to vote.
    gwbas1c · 1791168106 · focus · HN ↗
    People in Utah are different than the average American. I suspect they watch less porn. When I drove through in 2002, their "sex symbol" billboards involved a pretty couple with their kids in the background.
    It's a fun place to visit!
  3. spuz · 1791025400 · focus · HN ↗
    As the article explains - this was not an option.
    >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.
    In order to withdraw from Utah, they would be forced to block traffic from everywhere since it's possible that some kid in Utah used a VPN to make it look like they lived in Singapore.
    backpackviolet · 1791026564 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s really simple, require Utah to remove all their land lines satellite dishes and towers. Anyone found connecting to the internet from Utah and you fine the state of Utah
    someonebaggy · 1791027867 · focus · HN ↗
    But you don't have the power to issue fines, because you are not the state of Utah
11. semiquaver · 1790970453 · focus · HN ↗
  Right, all you see is the IP address. And anyone in the world can set up an “individual” VPN just for them on a cheap VPS or cloud server anywhere else in the world. There’s no technical way to accomplish what they’ve mandated, only something approximating it like “block all connections from known commercial VPN services”.
  1. s__s · 1790989544 · focus · HN ↗
    This isn’t true. Hosting providers have known IP blocks. Spin up a hand rolled VPN through a VPS and you’ll get blocked by a lot of services, or at the very least, treated as highly suspicious.
    semiquaver · 1791001979 · focus · HN ↗
    What’s the “this” that isn’t true in what I said? I was responding to
    > Is it even possible to reliably know that a connection is from a VPN?
    And I’m saying it’s not. Coming from a hosting provider IP block is far from a definitive sign that you’re using a VPN. A very plausible real world reason for that is that your company uses one of the large VDI providers, most of which egress from GCP or AWS.
12. greyface- · 1790971103 · focus · HN ↗
  TCP MSS < 1500 bytes can be a tell, although it will sometimes falsely identify non-"VPN" tunnels.
  1. eptcyka · 1790973670 · focus · HN ↗
    There are sooo many people out there who are clamped to something far lower than 1500. MTUs below 1280 are not that exotic either.
    On the other hand, using Masque for TCP transfers will probably fool a server to believe the MSS is 1500.
13. LoganDark · 1790974125 · focus · HN ↗
  > Is it even possible to reliably know that a connection is from a VPN?
  No, it's not possible. You can only try to identify known protocols or suspicious patterns of data, timing or entropy. Theoretically, with a big enough collaboration, you could hide a VPN behind shaping traffic patterns and request order towards hundreds of different servers, and there's just no method of traffic analysis that can possibly identify that without prior knowledge.
  Like, some firewalls try to identify an absence of connections outside the VPN, or an abnormal volume of data over a sustained period of time. But all that goes out the window when, say, you are connecting to hundreds of real servers at all times and only exchanging, say, basic HTTP requests with each one. For all they know you just have a million browser toolbars installed. They wouldn't know if the choice of request, order and timing encodes information because they wouldn't be able to prove what the client's intentions are in sending it or what the servers do with it.
  If you tried to identify it, you would block every real connection.
  I believe some VPN providers are beginning to play with things like this, but the problem is really that it's impossible to provide this. It only really works when you run it yourself, because that's the only way others don't know. So they're having to settle for compromises, like Mullvad's DAITA, which still uses a single server but tries to avoid showing tells of a VPN connection as opposed to something else like streaming.
14. whatever1 · 1790999336 · focus · HN ↗
  The great firewall probes the host ip and if it suspects it is a vpn server (udp traffic etc) it just throttles to a halt the ip.
  Tons of false positives, but they are non-domestic IPs so who (dares to) cares.
15. markdown · 1791013039 · focus · HN ↗
  Of course it is. Half the services I try to access reject me with a notice saying they don't allow VPNs.
16. tvbusy · 1791013841 · focus · HN ↗
  Many VPN providers have servers in many places. Anyone in the US can just use a server in Canada to bypass everything.
17. whimsicalism · 1791020153 · focus · HN ↗
  maybe not reliably, but i was impressed by the effectiveness and sophistication of the GFW when i was traveling in China. ISP level filtering would likely also comply with the restrictions in this lawsuit.
  It took quite a bit of finagling to bypass the GFW on my own and in some regions (Beijing) I was still randomly detected and throttled, it seemed.
  1. someonebaggy · 1791027771 · focus · HN ↗
    Note that as a foreign visitor, the GFW rules are somewhat looser for you.
18. greggsy · 1791021120 · focus · HN ↗
  Literally every TLS connection could be flagged as being a VPN connection.
19. thatsabadlook · 1791045107 · focus · HN ↗
  The better question is can you ensure your traffic doesn't get funneled to utah? The answer is probably not. There is a huge nsa data center there... So it's not even a choice, it's do both impossible things.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.