Lawmakers want to ban VPNs

Scope of the Wisconsin proposal

• Several commenters note the bill is not a blanket criminal ban on VPNs, but an age‑verification law: sites with “sexual content” must verify age and block VPN users from Wisconsin to be compliant.
• Disagreement over EFF’s framing: some feel calling it a “VPN ban” is misleading; others argue functionally it pressures sites and VPNs enough that it becomes a de facto ban for many users.

Technical feasibility and evasions

• Strong consensus that reliably detecting/blocking all VPNs is technically impossible for websites: they only see an IP, which may be a VPN, mobile CGNAT, a VPS, or residential proxy.
• Workarounds discussed: self‑hosted VPNs on VPSes or home connections, SSH tunnels, Tor‑like meshes, protocol obfuscation (e.g., “VPN over HTTPS”), DNS tunneling, and residential proxy botnets.
• Some argue the real aim is to make mainstream sites block known commercial VPN ranges, raising friction enough that only a small, motivated minority uses DIY tools.

Motives: “protect the children” vs control

• Many view child‑protection rhetoric as a pretext for expanding surveillance, censorship, and centralized control over online speech; parallels drawn to past “crypto wars,” anti‑terror and anti‑pedo justifications.
• Others push back that some politicians and parents genuinely want to protect children, but may be naïve, easily lobbied, or technically illiterate.
• Debate over Hanlon’s razor: some insist repeated overreach shows malice or at least “sufficiently advanced incompetence” indistinguishable from it.

Privacy, age verification, and digital identity

• Strong concern that mandatory age checks will normalize handing government IDs, biometrics, or credit cards to countless sites and third‑party age‑verification vendors, with inevitable breaches and doxxing.
• Fears of broader “real‑ID internet”: tying accounts to state digital IDs or wallets, chilling speech, and endangering marginalized or pseudonymous communities.
• A few point to zero‑knowledge or “age‑only” proofs as more privacy‑preserving, but others argue the political and commercial incentives favor data‑grabby systems.

Impact on VPNs and businesses

• Commenters stress that VPNs underpin remote work, corporate security, journalism, and personal safety (e.g., some domestic‑abuse scenarios), though one critic accuses EFF of overstating or muddling consumer vs corporate VPN use.
• Some predict corporate and “approved” VPNs would quickly get carve‑outs, entrenching big players and leaving ordinary users and smaller firms more exposed.

Authoritarian drift and selective enforcement

• Extensive comparisons to Russia, China, UK online‑speech arrests, and past US censorship attempts. Pattern described: pass technically impossible or vague laws, then use them selectively against disfavored people or companies.
• Several warn that pushing VPN use into illegality is valuable even if blocking is porous: it creates a pretext to punish targets “for the VPN” when power wants an excuse.