![Wisconsin VPN Ban Scrapped: What This Means for Your Privacy [2025]](https://tryrunable.com/blog/wisconsin-vpn-ban-scrapped-what-this-means-for-your-privacy-/image-1-1771589383316.jpg)
Introduction: A Victory for Privacy, But the Fight Isn't Over
Last month, Wisconsin lawmakers did something you don't see very often in tech policy. They actually listened to the internet.
After facing massive pushback from digital rights advocates, security researchers, and everyday internet users, Wisconsin legislators removed a controversial provision from their age verification bill that would've effectively banned VPNs. The proposal would've required tech platforms to detect and block Virtual Private Network connections, essentially forcing citizens to choose between accessing content and protecting their privacy online as reported by TechRadar.
But here's the thing: this isn't quite a clean victory. While removing the VPN ban is genuinely good news, the underlying age verification law still exists, and privacy experts say it comes with serious problems that the state needs to address according to Mayer Brown.
Wisconsin isn't alone in this fight. States across America are wrestling with the same question: how do you protect minors online without obliterating privacy rights for everyone else? The answer, it turns out, is way more complicated than lawmakers initially thought as noted by Built In.
In this comprehensive guide, we're breaking down what happened in Wisconsin, why the VPN ban was such a terrible idea in the first place, and what this situation tells us about the future of privacy regulation in America. Whether you're a digital rights advocate, a concerned parent, or just someone who values your online privacy, this matters to you.
Let's dig into the details.
TL; DR
- VPN Ban Removed: Wisconsin lawmakers scrapped the controversial provision that would've blocked VPN usage on age verification platforms, responding to public backlash from security experts and civil liberties groups as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
- Age Verification Still Law: Despite removing the VPN requirement, Wisconsin's age verification law remains in effect and still requires platforms to verify user ages as reported by Wisconsin Public Radio.
- Flawed Implementation: Experts warn the age verification system still lacks clarity on data protection, verification methods, and how personal information will be stored and used according to Bloomberg Law.
- Privacy Remains at Risk: Without proper safeguards, age verification systems can create detailed profiles on minors and collect vast amounts of personally identifying information as noted by Mayer Brown.
- National Implications: Wisconsin's situation foreshadows battles across other states implementing similar age verification requirements, particularly regarding privacy protections as seen in Alabama's legislative efforts.
What Was the Wisconsin VPN Ban, and Why Did It Matter So Much?
When Wisconsin initially proposed its age verification bill, it included a requirement that would've made it illegal for platforms to allow access through VPNs. The logic seemed straightforward to some lawmakers: if you're verifying someone's age, you need to know where they actually are and who they really are. VPNs mask both of those things, so ban them as discussed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But the technical reality is where everything falls apart.
A VPN, or Virtual Private Network, is software that encrypts your internet connection and routes it through a remote server. This protects your privacy by hiding your real IP address and location from websites and internet service providers. Millions of people use VPNs every single day for legitimate reasons: protecting their data on public Wi-Fi, accessing services while traveling abroad, or simply keeping their browsing habits private from corporate data brokers as noted by CNET.
If Wisconsin had enforced a VPN ban, here's what would've happened. Anyone trying to access age-restricted content on platforms operating in Wisconsin would've had their VPN automatically blocked. The platform would detect the VPN and refuse access. For many people, that means lost access to legitimate content. For others, especially journalists, activists, and people in vulnerable situations, it means giving up a critical privacy tool as highlighted by Top10VPN.
But it gets worse. To effectively detect and block VPNs, platforms would need to implement sophisticated surveillance technology. This isn't like blocking a single IP address. VPNs are constantly evolving, and blocking them requires real-time monitoring of user connections. That means building infrastructure specifically designed to detect how users are accessing the internet and then interfering with their connection choices as explained by Help Net Security.
The security research community was practically apoplectic about this proposal. Why? Because this kind of surveillance infrastructure is exactly the tool that governments use to monitor and control internet access. You're essentially asking private companies to build better censorship mechanisms. That's a precedent with serious implications as reported by TechRadar.
The Public Backlash: How Internet Users and Experts Fought Back
When Wisconsin's initial age verification bill went public, the response was swift and fierce. The Internet community doesn't always unite around issues, but privacy concerns? That gets everyone's attention.
Civil liberties organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation immediately condemned the VPN ban provision. Security researchers published detailed analyses of why the proposal wouldn't actually work as intended. Tech workers from around the country tweeted concerns. Reddit threads filled up with people explaining why this was a bad idea as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
But what really mattered was that regular internet users made their voices heard. People in Wisconsin contacted their legislators. They explained how VPNs protected them. They shared personal stories about why privacy matters: a woman using a VPN to research abuse resources safely, a whistleblower protecting themselves, a traveler keeping their banking information secure on foreign Wi-Fi networks as reported by Wisconsin Public Radio.
The backlash forced legislators to actually examine what they were proposing. Some staffers probably did their first real technical research on how VPNs work. Others consulted with security experts who explained the implications of what they were trying to do.
And to their credit, Wisconsin lawmakers listened. They didn't dismiss the concerns as coming from privacy extremists or tech elites. They recognized that the VPN ban was overreach, even if their underlying goal—protecting minors online—was legitimate as noted by TechRadar.
Understanding Age Verification: Why States Want It, What It Requires
Before we get deeper into the VPN issue, let's talk about why Wisconsin wanted age verification in the first place.
States across America have become increasingly concerned about minors accessing age-restricted content online. We're talking about things like alcohol sales websites, gambling platforms, adult content sites, and other services that are legally only available to adults. When these transactions happen online, there's no physical ID check like there would be at a bar or liquor store as discussed by Built In.
So the thinking goes: implement age verification systems. Make websites confirm that their users are actually adults before allowing access. This protects minors and helps enforce existing laws.
The problem is, age verification isn't simple. It's not like scanning an ID at a store. Online age verification requires one of several approaches, each with significant privacy implications.
Government ID Verification: This is the most reliable method. The user provides a copy of their government-issued ID—driver's license, passport, etc. The platform then verifies it's real and that the person is old enough.
This sounds straightforward, but consider what you're doing. You're asking millions of internet users to upload images of their government ID to websites. That's personally identifying information on corporate servers. Those servers can be hacked. The data can be breached. Your ID image could end up for sale on the dark web as noted by Mayer Brown.
Third-Party Verification Services: Alternatively, users submit their ID to a specialized verification company, which confirms their age and reports back to the platform. The platform never actually sees the ID.
This is slightly better for privacy, but now you're creating a detailed profile of who accessed what. That verification company knows you tried to access adult content on Tuesday at 3 PM. They know every age-restricted site you visit. That's valuable data, and it's exactly the kind of thing that data brokers and marketers want as discussed by Mayer Brown.
Age Verification Without ID: Some companies propose using other data points—your phone number, email address, payment history—to estimate your age without requiring ID.
This approach has huge accuracy problems. You can't reliably determine if someone is 21 or 18 based on their email address. And you're still collecting and storing sensitive personal information as noted by All About Cookies.
The Privacy Nightmare: Why Age Verification Systems Are Dangerous
Here's where it gets genuinely alarming. Age verification systems, even without a VPN ban, create serious privacy risks that experts have been warning about for years.
Consider what a comprehensive age verification system would create: a record of every minor (and adult) who tried to access age-restricted content online. Not just the successful attempts, but also the failures—the teenager trying to look up information about sexual health, the young adult trying to buy alcohol online, the curious kid exploring topics they shouldn't.
Now imagine that data centralized. Imagine the database that logs this information. Every access attempt, every piece of identifying information, every device, every location.
That's exactly the kind of data that governments, law enforcement, and corporations have historically misused. In authoritarian regimes, this information is used to identify and punish political dissidents, religious minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals. Even in democracies, this data can be subpoenaed by law enforcement, potentially exposing private browsing habits as highlighted by Mayer Brown.
One of the biggest concerns is function creep. That data exists for age verification today. But tomorrow, it could be used for something else entirely. Law enforcement could use it to investigate obscenity charges. Overzealous prosecutors could target parents. Platforms could use it to build detailed profiles on minors for advertising purposes as noted by Mayer Brown.
There's also the accuracy problem. Age verification systems make mistakes. A legitimate user might be incorrectly identified as a minor. Or a minor might slip through. When these systems fail, they either over-block (denying access to people who should have it) or under-block (allowing access to people who shouldn't have it).
And then there's the security problem. Every system that collects data can be breached. There's no age verification infrastructure in America that's been thoroughly tested for security. We're essentially asking companies to build systems that collect sensitive data about minors, and we're hoping they don't get hacked as discussed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Why the VPN Ban Specifically Made Things Worse
So Wisconsin's age verification law was already problematic from a privacy perspective. The VPN ban would've made it catastrophically worse.
Here's why: if you can't use a VPN, then every age verification request reveals your real location and real IP address. Combined with the government ID verification, this creates a uniquely identifying record of who accessed what, from where, when as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
You're not just saying "someone tried to access adult content." You're saying "the person with Social Security Number [X], living at [address], accessed adult content at [time] from [location]." That level of specificity is incredibly dangerous as noted by Mayer Brown.
Second, banning VPNs creates a chilling effect on legitimate privacy-conscious behavior. If you can't use a VPN when accessing age-restricted content, you might start thinking twice about using a VPN for anything else online. Why? Because you've essentially told people that privacy tools are for people doing something wrong as reported by TechRadar.
That's a dangerous message to send. Privacy should be normal. Privacy should be a right, not a red flag. But once you've told people that using privacy tools to access certain content makes them suspicious, you've created a culture where privacy itself is stigmatized as discussed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Third, from a practical standpoint, a VPN ban doesn't even work as intended. VPN providers are sophisticated. They employ engineers who understand how detection systems work. The moment Wisconsin implemented a VPN detection system, VPN providers would've started figuring out ways around it. It would've become an arms race between VPN companies and the state of Wisconsin as explained by Help Net Security.
So you're not actually protecting minors—you're just creating a security theater that hurts legitimate users as noted by TechRadar.
Age-of-User Detection: The Not-So-Magic Alternative
After the VPN ban was removed, some lawmakers floated an alternative: age-of-user detection without blocking VPNs.
This sounds appealing. The idea is that platforms could use other signals—browsing patterns, account information, payment history—to estimate a user's age without needing VPN blocking.
But this approach has its own problems. For one, it's much less reliable than ID verification. You can't accurately determine someone's age based on their browsing patterns. Young people browse the same websites as older people. They like the same music, watch the same shows, play the same games as noted by Mayer Brown.
For another, it actually requires collecting more personal data, not less. To estimate someone's age, platforms need to track their entire browsing history. They need payment information. They need device information. They're not just verifying age—they're building a comprehensive profile of who you are as discussed by Mayer Brown.
This is worse than government ID verification in many ways. At least with ID verification, you know exactly what data is being collected. With behavioral analysis, it's completely opaque. The algorithm decides your age based on factors you don't know and can't challenge as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The Broader Picture: Age Verification Laws Spreading Across America
Wisconsin isn't the only state implementing age verification requirements. This is happening across the country.
Utah has passed age verification laws. Florida has age verification requirements for social media. Texas has proposed legislation. Multiple states are considering similar bills, and at the federal level, there have been discussions about a national age verification standard as noted by Built In.
Each of these efforts faces the same fundamental tension: how do you protect minors without creating a surveillance infrastructure that threatens everyone's privacy?
Some states are handling this better than others. A few have included privacy safeguards in their legislation: requirements that platforms delete verification data after a certain period, limits on how that data can be used, or requirements that verification happens through independent third parties rather than by the platforms themselves as reported by Bloomberg Law.
But many states haven't thought through these implications. They see age verification as a straightforward solution to a straightforward problem. They don't realize they're creating infrastructure that could be repurposed for other kinds of control and surveillance as discussed by Mayer Brown.
The fact that Wisconsin removed the VPN ban might actually inspire other states to reconsider similar provisions in their own proposed legislation. When one state listens to privacy advocates and changes course, it sends a signal to other states that these concerns are serious and legitimate as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Privacy-Preserving Age Verification: Is It Even Possible?
Some researchers and technologists have started asking: is there a way to do age verification that actually protects privacy?
The theoretical answer is yes. There are privacy-preserving techniques that haven't been widely implemented yet.
Decentralized Verification: Instead of a central database logging everyone's age verification attempts, the verification could happen on the user's device. The user's device performs the age verification, confirms it's correct, and then communicates only that "this user is over 18" to the platform—without revealing how the verification happened or any personally identifying information as noted by Mayer Brown.
This is technically feasible, but it requires significant infrastructure changes. It also requires companies to implement it correctly, which doesn't always happen.
Cryptographic Proofs: Similar concept, but using cryptographic techniques. The user proves they're over 18 without revealing their actual age or identity. They don't send an ID; they send a cryptographic proof that they passed the age verification.
Again, technically possible but requires significant infrastructure investment and implementation expertise as discussed by Mayer Brown.
Selective Disclosure: The user's device discloses only the minimum information necessary—just the age bracket (adult or minor), not the specific age, location, or other identifying details.
Each of these approaches faces barriers to implementation. They require companies to invest in privacy-focused infrastructure when they might prefer to collect more data. They require regulatory frameworks that specify which techniques are acceptable. They require technical expertise that many companies don't have.
So while privacy-preserving age verification might be theoretically possible, it's not what most companies would implement without legal requirements to do so as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
What Happened: The Political Timeline in Wisconsin
Understanding how Wisconsin got to this point requires looking at the actual political process.
The initial age verification bill was proposed with the VPN ban provision included. It probably seemed like a straightforward way to ensure accurate age verification. If you can't hide your location with a VPN, the system works better.
But once privacy advocates got involved, things shifted. Organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation published detailed analysis of the problems. Cybersecurity experts explained the implications. Regular internet users contacted legislators as discussed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The backlash accumulated. Legislator offices were flooded with emails and calls. News coverage started framing the issue as a privacy threat, not just a tech regulation. Some tech companies based in Wisconsin probably didn't love the idea either—implementation would've been expensive and complex as reported by TechRadar.
At some point, someone in legislative leadership realized that the VPN ban was politically toxic. It was the one provision that united everyone against the bill: privacy advocates, tech companies, security researchers, and ordinary citizens.
So they removed it. This was smart politics. It let them keep the age verification law—which many people still wanted—while eliminating the most controversial provision. It made the bill more likely to pass as reported by Wisconsin Public Radio.
But it's worth noting what didn't change. The underlying age verification system remained. The data collection remained. The privacy risks remained. Wisconsin just made the law slightly less draconian as noted by Mayer Brown.
International Comparisons: How Other Countries Handle Age Verification
The United States isn't the only place wrestling with age verification. Other countries have been dealing with this for longer.
The European Union has taken a different approach. Rather than mandating centralized age verification systems, the EU emphasizes privacy-by-design and data minimization. Their regulations (particularly under GDPR) set strict limits on what data can be collected about minors and require platforms to delete verification data quickly as discussed by Mayer Brown.
EU regulations don't say you must verify age; they say that if you do verify age, here's the minimum data you can collect and here's how you must protect it.
The United Kingdom has implemented something called the Online Safety Bill, which requires platforms to consider age verification but doesn't mandate a specific approach. It gives platforms flexibility to choose methods that work for them while emphasizing user safety and privacy as noted by Mayer Brown.
Australia has experimented with various approaches, including age verification requirements for social media. But even Australia, which tends to be strict on tech regulation, has struggled with balancing age protections against privacy concerns as discussed by Mayer Brown.
The common thread internationally is that privacy advocates have fought hard against surveillance-based age verification. Countries that have listened to these concerns have implemented less invasive systems. Countries that haven't have faced significant criticism and technical problems as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Wisconsin's decision to remove the VPN ban puts it more in line with international best practices, though it still needs more work on privacy protections as noted by TechRadar.
The Data Broker Problem: What Happens to Your Information
Here's something that doesn't get enough attention in age verification discussions: data brokers.
When platforms collect age verification data—whether it's government IDs, payment information, or behavioral patterns—that data becomes valuable. It can be sold, shared, or breached. And the downstream uses of that data are often far removed from the original age verification purpose as discussed by Mayer Brown.
Your age verification information could end up with:
Marketing Companies: They want to know your age and interests. Combine age verification data with browsing history, and you've got a detailed profile for targeted advertising.
Insurance Companies: They might want to know about risky behaviors. If your age verification data reveals you're trying to access gambling websites or adult content, that's marketable information to insurance underwriters.
Financial Services: Credit card companies, lenders, and other financial services want to know about your habits and reliability. Age verification data revealing your purchasing patterns is valuable to them.
Law Enforcement: As mentioned earlier, this data can be subpoenaed. In some cases, it can be obtained through other legal mechanisms.
The problem is, most age verification systems don't explicitly prohibit these uses. The data is collected for age verification, but once it exists, there are limited restrictions on what it can be used for as noted by Mayer Brown.
This is where privacy legislation becomes critical. Laws need to specify that age verification data can only be used for age verification, and it must be deleted after a certain period. But Wisconsin's current law doesn't have those protections built in. It just requires age verification—the data handling is left up to platforms as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Security Concerns: Are These Systems Actually Secure?
Age verification systems are security nightmares waiting to happen.
Consider what happened at 23and Me, Equifax, and countless other companies that collected sensitive personal data. They were breached. The data was exposed. And the breaches often took months or years to discover and disclose.
Now imagine an age verification database with the same security practices. You've got millions of people's government IDs, payment information, and browsing histories in one place as noted by Mayer Brown.
That's not hypothetical. It's what would happen under a widespread age verification system. Create the data, and bad actors will try to steal it as discussed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Wisconsin's law doesn't include specific security requirements for age verification systems. It just requires the verification to happen. How companies secure that data is left to them as reported by TechRadar.
Most companies will secure it adequately. But some won't. And all it takes is one major breach to expose millions of people's age verification records as highlighted by Mayer Brown.
Alternatives to Age Verification: What Actually Works
Here's the fundamental question that states like Wisconsin haven't adequately addressed: do you actually need mandatory age verification to protect minors online?
There are other approaches that might work better:
Parental Controls: Let parents decide how their kids use technology. Build better parental control systems into operating systems and browsers. Make it easier for parents to monitor and restrict what their kids access as discussed by Mayer Brown.
This doesn't require a central surveillance database. It puts control in the hands of parents rather than tech companies or government.
Digital Literacy Education: Teach kids how to stay safe online. Rather than trying to block them from content, educate them about the risks and how to protect themselves.
This sounds naive, but it's actually effective. Countries that emphasize digital literacy education see better outcomes for internet safety than countries focused on content blocking as noted by Mayer Brown.
Platform Design Changes: Require platforms to implement features that make it harder for minors to access age-restricted content without implementing age verification.
For example, a platform could make it harder to create accounts without a real email address, or it could implement age-gating at the content level without requiring full platform verification as discussed by Mayer Brown.
Existing Law Enforcement: Actually enforce existing laws against selling alcohol online to minors, gambling online to minors, and other age-restricted transactions.
We don't need new surveillance infrastructure. We need better enforcement of existing rules as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Each of these alternatives has limitations. But they're worth exploring before implementing systems that collect massive amounts of personal data as noted by TechRadar.
What's Next: The Future of Age Verification in Wisconsin and Beyond
Wisconsin removed the VPN ban, which is good. But the age verification law is still on the books. What happens next?
Likely scenario: platforms will start implementing age verification systems. Some will use government ID verification. Others might try behavioral analysis or third-party verification services. Users will be annoyed but will comply or avoid the platforms as noted by Mayer Brown.
Over time, problems will emerge. The systems will make mistakes. Some people will be unable to verify their age. Others will be incorrectly blocked. Data breaches might happen. Legislators will then face pressure to either tighten the law with more privacy protections or eliminate age verification requirements entirely as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The more interesting question is what happens in other states. Wisconsin's decision to remove the VPN ban signals that privacy concerns are serious. Other states considering similar legislation will probably think twice about including such provisions. Instead, they might start the conversations earlier with privacy advocates and security experts as reported by TechRadar.
At the federal level, there might be efforts to standardize age verification across states. This could be either good or bad depending on how it's designed. A federal standard with strong privacy protections could prevent the worst abuses. A federal standard without privacy protections could create a nation-wide surveillance infrastructure as noted by Mayer Brown.
That's the battle that's going to play out over the next few years as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Expert Perspectives: What Security Researchers Say
The security research community has been remarkably consistent in their criticism of age verification systems and VPN bans.
Their main concerns:
These systems don't actually work: VPN bans don't prevent determined users from accessing content. Age verification can be spoofed. Bad actors will find ways around any restrictions as discussed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
They create permanent records: Once you collect this data, it exists forever. Even if you delete it from your systems, copies might exist elsewhere. Threat actors can access it. Law enforcement can subpoena it. That's a permanent privacy risk as noted by Mayer Brown.
They normalize surveillance: When governments and companies implement surveillance infrastructure for legitimate-sounding reasons (protecting minors, preventing fraud), it becomes normalized. Tomorrow's authoritarian government inherits tomorrow's surveillance infrastructure as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Better alternatives exist: We don't need massive data collection systems to protect minors. We need better parental controls, better digital literacy education, and better law enforcement of existing rules as discussed by Mayer Brown.
These aren't fringe opinions. These are the consensus views of organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, major cybersecurity researchers, and even some tech companies as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The fact that Wisconsin lawmakers listened to these concerns is significant. It shows that expert input can influence policy, if you make the case clearly enough as reported by TechRadar.
Recommendations: What Wisconsin Should Do Next
If you're a Wisconsin legislator reading this (or influencing one), here's what experts recommend:
1. Add Privacy Protections to the Age Verification Law
Specify that platforms must delete age verification data after 30 days. Prohibit using age verification data for any purpose other than age verification. Require that verification data not be shared with third parties without explicit user consent as noted by Mayer Brown.
2. Require Decentralized Verification
If platforms are going to do age verification, require them to use methods that don't create central databases of personally identifying information. Push for decentralized, privacy-preserving techniques as discussed by Mayer Brown.
3. Include Audit Requirements
Require independent audits of age verification systems to ensure they're secure and accurate. This would catch problems before they cause widespread damage as noted by Mayer Brown.
4. Establish Liability
If a platform's age verification system fails—either by incorrectly identifying a minor as an adult or vice versa—hold the platform liable for damages. This creates incentive for accurate implementation as discussed by Mayer Brown.
5. Sunset Clause
Make the age verification law expire after a certain period (maybe 5 years) unless explicitly renewed. This forces legislators to revisit the law and consider whether it's actually working and whether privacy impacts are acceptable as noted by Mayer Brown.
6. Research Requirement
Before implementing age verification, require the state to research and publish data on its effectiveness and impacts. Don't just assume it works. Prove it works as discussed by Mayer Brown.
The Bigger Picture: Privacy as a Fundamental Right
The Wisconsin VPN ban wasn't just about VPNs. It was about a fundamental question: is privacy a right or a privilege?
If privacy is a right, then the burden is on the government and companies to prove that restricting it serves a compelling interest that can't be achieved any other way.
If privacy is a privilege, then restrictions can be justified more easily. You can't use a VPN because it makes verification harder. You can't access content without giving us your personal data. You can't maintain any anonymity online as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The direction that Wisconsin moved—removing the VPN ban while keeping age verification—suggests that policymakers increasingly recognize privacy as important, even if they're not fully prepared to protect it as reported by TechRadar.
But this is fragile. It only lasted because internet users made noise about it. Because security experts published research. Because civil liberties organizations fought back as discussed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The next VPN ban proposal, or the next age verification law, might not get the same pushback. That's when privacy rights could actually disappear as noted by TechRadar.
That's why Wisconsin's decision, while incomplete, is significant. It's a reminder that these battles aren't predetermined. They can be won. But only if people care enough to fight as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Conclusion: What Wisconsin's Decision Means for the Future of Online Privacy
Wisconsin's removal of the VPN ban from its age verification legislation is significant, but it's not the end of the story. It's a beginning.
What happened in Wisconsin is evidence that internet users can influence policy when they organize, when experts provide credible information, and when the stakes are clear. The removal of the VPN ban shows that policymakers can be persuaded to protect privacy if enough people make the case loudly enough as reported by TechRadar.
But the underlying age verification law remains. It still creates privacy risks. It still requires collecting and storing personally identifying information. Wisconsin has made the law less terrible, but not good as noted by Mayer Brown.
The real work happens now. Wisconsin needs to strengthen privacy protections in its age verification system. Other states need to learn from Wisconsin's experience and avoid implementing similar surveillance provisions. The federal government needs to consider whether national privacy standards are necessary to prevent a patchwork of conflicting state laws as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
For individual internet users, Wisconsin's decision is a reminder that privacy is worth fighting for. VPN services still exist. Privacy tools are still available. But they only remain available if people care about them and are willing to defend them as noted by TechRadar.
The bigger question is whether privacy can scale. Wisconsin is one state. The internet is global. Right now, different countries and states are approaching age verification differently. That fragmentation is actually helpful for privacy, because bad actors can't implement a single solution worldwide. But it's also problematic, because the worst approaches can spread as discussed by Mayer Brown.
The future of online privacy might depend on whether the Wisconsin approach—listening to experts, removing obviously bad provisions, strengthening privacy protections—becomes the norm, or whether the surveillance approach becomes standard as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
That choice is being made right now, state by state, country by country. Wisconsin got it partly right. Now everyone else needs to follow, and push even further as reported by TechRadar.
