Should VPNs Be Banned? Why These New Laws Miss the Mark
Lawmakers in Wisconsin and Michigan have introduced legislation that would ban or significantly restrict the use of VPNs within their states. The stated goal is reasonable enough: stop people from using VPNs to sidestep age verification systems for online content. The method, however, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how VPNs actually work — and who depends on them every day.
This isn't just a tech policy story. It's a cautionary tale about what happens when legislation outpaces understanding, and why VPN bans carry consequences far beyond what their sponsors intend.
Why a VPN Ban Is Technically Unenforceable
Let's start with the obvious problem: you cannot effectively ban VPN usage at a state level. The internet doesn't respect state borders, and VPN protocols are woven into the fabric of how modern networks operate.
Blocking VPN access would require a level of deep packet inspection and network surveillance that, in practical terms, doesn't exist in the United States outside of highly authoritarian frameworks. Countries like China and Russia have spent years and enormous resources trying to suppress VPN usage — and even they haven't fully succeeded. A state-level mandate in Wisconsin or Michigan faces the same technical walls, with a fraction of the enforcement infrastructure.
Beyond the technical hurdles, any serious attempt to enforce such a ban would require monitoring what every resident is doing online. That's not a side effect of this legislation — that's a prerequisite for it. To catch people using VPNs, authorities would need to watch everyone's traffic. The cure becomes worse than the disease.
The Legitimate Uses Lawmakers Are Ignoring
The assumption embedded in these proposals is that VPNs are primarily tools for circumventing rules. That assumption is wrong.
Every day, millions of people use VPNs for purposes that have nothing to do with accessing restricted content:
- Remote workers use VPNs to securely connect to their company's internal systems. This isn't optional — it's a basic security requirement for countless businesses and government agencies.
- Journalists, activists, and whistleblowers rely on VPNs to communicate without being surveilled or identified.
- Domestic abuse survivors and others in vulnerable situations use VPNs to mask their location and protect their physical safety.
- Students and researchers use VPNs to access academic resources, databases, and educational content that may be geo-restricted.
- Travelers use VPNs to protect their data on public Wi-Fi networks, where unencrypted connections are a common target for attackers.
A blanket VPN ban doesn't surgically remove bad actors. It removes the security layer that protects everyone else.
What This Means For You
If you live in Wisconsin, Michigan, or any state where similar legislation might emerge, the implications are worth taking seriously.
First, your ability to work securely from home could be compromised. Many employers require VPN connections for remote access — a state-level ban could put workers in an impossible position between compliance with state law and compliance with their employer's security policies.
Second, your personal privacy online could erode quickly. Enforcing a VPN ban requires surveillance infrastructure. Once that infrastructure exists, it rarely stays narrowly scoped.
Third, the precedent matters. If state governments can ban privacy tools under the umbrella of content regulation, the principle can be extended. Today it's VPNs and age verification. Tomorrow it could be encrypted messaging apps or private browsing modes.
It's worth noting that the underlying concern — protecting minors from inappropriate content online — is legitimate. But removing privacy tools from the entire population is not a proportionate or effective response to that concern. Better-targeted solutions, ones that don't require mass surveillance as a foundation, deserve serious exploration instead.
Privacy Is Not a Loophole
The framing of these proposals treats online privacy as something people use to escape accountability. That framing gets it backwards. Privacy is what allows people to seek medical information without embarrassment, report wrongdoing without fear, and communicate honestly without an audience they didn't choose.
VPN bans don't protect people — they expose them.
At hide.me, we believe that access to private, secure internet connections is a right worth defending. Whether you're a remote worker, a student, or simply someone who values keeping your browsing habits to yourself, tools that protect your connection matter. If you want to understand more about how VPN encryption works and why it's essential to modern internet security, it's worth getting familiar with the basics — because lawmakers making decisions about these tools often aren't.
Stay informed, stay protected, and don't let a misunderstanding in a statehouse quietly take away tools that safeguard your digital life.