Did you know you can pass a bill that states 1 + 1 = 3 ?
-
@tinker VPN’s have IP ranges that can be blocked.
@mcg - So, this is sort of true, but not really - especially in practice.
So *public* VPNs do go through a known IP address, and those lists can be generated and actioned upon / blocked - but... they often rotate IP addresses.
This does two negative things for people trying to block them. One, the block is only temporarily effective, and you're always playing catch-up. Two, once the IP is released by the VPN its often grabbed up by another non-VPN service, so you end up blocking something you didn't intend to.
You could certainly subscribe to a service that maintains a blocklist for you, but these aren't very effective either (and they cost money) for the above reasons. Lots of false negatives and false positives.
Further, anyone can spin up a VPN service. A simple OpenVPN service on a VPS can be done in less than 10 minutes with a simple guide.
And that's just one aspect of it.
Also, Utah is holding ALL websites? On the internet? Liable? How would they enforce it? How do THEY know the website is or is not blocking it? Are they going to visit every website from one random VPN connection and go "ah-ha! Gotcha!" ? Then what? Send a cease and desist letter? Fine each website on the internet? All over the world?
All this will do is at best be completely ineffective and at worst cause the entire internet to "de-federate" from Utah.
Long and short, VPN's do have IP ranges, kind-of, but they can't be meaningfully blocked. And there is no meaningful way to detect OR enforce it.
-
@mcg - So, this is sort of true, but not really - especially in practice.
So *public* VPNs do go through a known IP address, and those lists can be generated and actioned upon / blocked - but... they often rotate IP addresses.
This does two negative things for people trying to block them. One, the block is only temporarily effective, and you're always playing catch-up. Two, once the IP is released by the VPN its often grabbed up by another non-VPN service, so you end up blocking something you didn't intend to.
You could certainly subscribe to a service that maintains a blocklist for you, but these aren't very effective either (and they cost money) for the above reasons. Lots of false negatives and false positives.
Further, anyone can spin up a VPN service. A simple OpenVPN service on a VPS can be done in less than 10 minutes with a simple guide.
And that's just one aspect of it.
Also, Utah is holding ALL websites? On the internet? Liable? How would they enforce it? How do THEY know the website is or is not blocking it? Are they going to visit every website from one random VPN connection and go "ah-ha! Gotcha!" ? Then what? Send a cease and desist letter? Fine each website on the internet? All over the world?
All this will do is at best be completely ineffective and at worst cause the entire internet to "de-federate" from Utah.
Long and short, VPN's do have IP ranges, kind-of, but they can't be meaningfully blocked. And there is no meaningful way to detect OR enforce it.
-
@da_kink - IANAL but its not unheard of for legislatures to pass contradictory laws or laws that are already superseded by others or even unconstitutional. Thats up to the courts to decide afterwards. So, your reasoning might be a challenge that is brought up now that its passed.
@tinker thanks, that's informative.
-
@tinker "Any crime that is considered a crime in person is considered a crime on the internet." Is 100% true, lmfao. You are just afraid of that reality so your fear makes you want to refuse that realoty. Which is denial. Congratulations, welcome to reality.
-
@tinker "Any crime that is considered a crime in person is considered a crime on the internet." Is 100% true, lmfao. You are just afraid of that reality so your fear makes you want to refuse that realoty. Which is denial. Congratulations, welcome to reality.
@Mage_of_Chaos @tinker that doesn’t…that doesn’t mean…like, literally that’s completely unrelated to the thing you two are talking about. Troll? Gosh, I hope so.
-
@tinker You aren't asking me to copy paste something, you're asking me to go back through years of reading law instead of you doing the research yourself, it's not just something you can copy paste, which you would know if you knew anything about law.
Imagine thinking lawyers jobs are as easy as copy pasting cherry picked statutes from online data base that's not a program or data base that costs a LOT of money to access and maintain access to lmfao.
Google it if it's so easy to copy paste!
-
@tinker you know when age verification started only on california and then extended on the rest of america? This is the same. They are just testing it in one state for later extend it on the rest of the country.
I don't think that's what happened. The UK passed the Online Safety Act and started enforcing it. The OSA requires platforms to do age verification, which they do in a bunch of privacy-hostile ways, and (rightly) blame the government for the fact that they're harvesting even more personal data.
California rushed through a poorly worded law that said that, if doing age verification is required for any purpose then you must use whatever 2-bit value the OS gives you and you may not verify it unless you already hold contradictory data for another purpose (which privacy legislation in California already restricts). And operating systems must have some mechanism for passing the 2-bit value so that 'my OS doesn't provide it' isn't a valid excuse.
Then the rest of the US started trying to pass laws like the UK ones.
-
Please link the statute that says otherwise.
First rule of legality:
Burden of proof is never EVER on the petitioner/victim aka the person making a claim.You have to disprove me to find your answer and I am absolutely not educating you when you behave like THIS when corrected about literally written law.
-
Yes. I spent my time in court houses and law libraries. Years of time researching, in mostly paper books, correct.
You repeated my statement & incorrectly assume I "copy pasted" things for your convenience.
Thank you for minimising or invalidating my education.
Didja know there are cyber security courses available for attorneys through Harvard FREE?
Just be pro se. Good luck paying for Lexus Nexus, though, that one's pricey.
"Shepardize" literally stole my intellectual property, but I digress. -
No, do your own research, because nothing I say is going to change your mind and it's not my job to make you able to represent yourself because you think ignorance to the law refutes culpability of breaking/violating it.
Find a statute that proves I'm wrong, and copy paste it. A SINGLE STATUTE. Instead of asking me for more than 10 in more than four sections of federal law and more than 50 Supreme Court cases.
-
Also YOU made the claim of Utah introducing legislation that's new. YOU bare the burden of proof. Law 101.
-
You introduced the article, I don't come online to debate, you aren't genuinely interested in anything other than debating and arguments (which you've made abundantly clear with your desperation to make this appear as some sort of conflict it never was) and that's gross, so have the day you deserve "whew internet arguement won". Here's your trophy
Okay, you lost your temper BUT you won the arguments that didn't exist. Congratulations. Have a gold star.
Oh & all the medals!
️ -
@tinker oh hey look it's another legislative movement I helped make sure was going into U.S. history.
Phenominal.
I wish less were over what I went through as a child or victim I guess.
You have a better day, how about that! The Mormons are going to not give a shit about this, at least!
Lmfao. -
@tinker oh hey look it's another legislative movement I helped make sure was going into U.S. history.
Phenominal.
I wish less were over what I went through as a child or victim I guess.
You have a better day, how about that! The Mormons are going to not give a shit about this, at least!
Lmfao.@Mage_of_Chaos - I've had a chance to step back and I need to apologize. I should not have taken such a flippant stance and I need to not use sarcasm as a defense mechanism.
I have a tendency to attract reply guys in my posts - legit trolls that are not engaging sincerely. And I acted out in frustration. That was not good.
I think you have been engaging sincerely and I reacted poorly.
I'm sorry.
I'm going to delete my interactions with you. But I'm going to leave this post up as an indication that I acted poorly. I want to remove the things that hurt without hiding that I hurt you or made your day any worse.
I, sincerely, do hope you have a good day.
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
