Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
freem
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Openai/69286bee-aafc-8011-ac5f-9fd90198a0a4
(section)
Add languages
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==== 3. Wisconsin: AB 105 / SB 130 and corporate VPNs ==== Wisconsin’s bill is different and more targeted: * It’s an age-verification and “harmful to minors” bill. * It requires websites that distribute certain “sexual content” / “material harmful to minors” to: 1. Implement age verification, and 2. Block users connecting via VPN when accessing that content.TechRadar<ref>{{cite web|title=TechRadar|url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/wisconsin-wants-to-force-all-adult-sites-to-block-vpns-with-a-new-age-verification-bill-heres-everything-we-know|publisher=techradar.com|access-date=2025-11-28}}</ref> Key points for your WFH question: * The obligation is on websites, not on ISPs or on you as an end user. * It is about using a VPN to access specific types of content (adult / “harmful to minors”), not about using a VPN to reach your company network. So if AB 105 / SB 130 passes in its current form, the most likely real‑world effect is: * Adult-content and other “sexual content” sites will either: - Block all traffic they think is from VPNs, or - Block all VPN traffic worldwide to avoid liability, since they can’t reliably tell which VPN users are in Wisconsin.Electronic Frontier Foundation<ref>{{cite web|title=Electronic Frontier Foundation|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/lawmakers-want-ban-vpns-and-they-have-no-idea-what-theyre-doing|publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation|access-date=2025-11-28}}</ref> That could cause collateral damage, such as: * Some sites overzealously blocking traffic from: - Data-center IP ranges - SASE egress points - Corporate exit IPs that look “VPN-ish” to their vendor But importantly: : The Wisconsin bill does not ban you from using a corporate VPN to do your job or require ISPs to block VPN tunnels generally. It’s about blocking VPN access to certain websites, not blocking VPNs as a networking tool. Your WFH tunnel to your employer’s private network should remain legal and technically unaffected, unless you’re trying to visit one of the regulated sites through that same tunnel and they decide to block that egress IP.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to freem are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (see
Freem:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)