Court Agrees with EFF: Utah's VPN Law Demands a Technical Impossibility

Commenters debated Utah’s law that would force websites to detect or block VPN/proxy traffic to enforce age and content restrictions. Many argued the requirement is technically impossible to satisfy reliably: anyone can proxy through hosting providers or a friend’s connection, IP assignments rotate, and detection techniques (blocking known exit relays, ASN/IP blocks, latency triangulation, browser fingerprinting, traffic pattern analysis) are imperfect. Several pointed out DraftKings-style geofencing works only to a “good enough” standard for California but said Utah’s statute appears to demand perfection. Others noted enforcement mechanics - requiring providers to “snitch” or tag frames, or letting users appeal mistaken blocks - would be impractical or privacy-invasive.

The conversation broadened to civil‑liberties and political implications. Some commenters warned the law is a slippery slope toward state control of the internet, invoking China and Iran’s blunt network cutoffs and flagging First Amendment concerns. Suggested responses ranged from sites withdrawing service from Utah to ISPs maintaining whitelists, while others dismissed the law as lawmakers ignoring engineering reality. A few flagged religious or moral motives driving the policy and characterized the outcome as part of an ongoing arms race between regulators and technologists.