A bill advancing through the Wisconsin state legislature has ignited a fierce backlash from digital rights organizations, cybersecurity professionals, and privacy advocates who warn that the proposed legislation would effectively criminalize the use of virtual private networks — a technology relied upon by millions of Americans for legitimate security, business, and personal privacy purposes.
The bill, introduced in the Wisconsin State Assembly, ostensibly targets individuals who use VPNs or similar tools to conceal their identity while committing crimes online. But critics say the language is so broadly written that it could ensnare ordinary citizens, remote workers, journalists, domestic abuse survivors, and anyone else who uses basic encryption tools to protect their digital communications. As reported by TechRadar, digital rights advocates have called the proposal “a spectacularly bad idea” and are urging Wisconsin lawmakers to reject it outright.
What the Bill Actually Says — and Why Experts Are Alarmed
The proposed legislation would create criminal penalties for individuals who use VPNs, proxy servers, or other anonymizing technologies in connection with unlawful activity. On its face, this might seem like a narrow provision aimed at cybercriminals. But legal experts and technologists have pointed out that the bill’s definitions are dangerously vague. The language does not clearly distinguish between someone using a VPN to commit fraud and someone using one to protect their banking credentials on public Wi-Fi — a routine practice recommended by the Federal Trade Commission and virtually every cybersecurity authority in the country.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other advocacy groups have raised alarms about the chilling effect such legislation could have. If using a VPN becomes a potential aggravating factor in any criminal charge, individuals may be discouraged from using privacy tools altogether — even when those tools serve entirely lawful and protective purposes. According to TechRadar, the bill has been characterized as one that fundamentally misunderstands how internet privacy technology works and who uses it.
VPNs Are Not Criminal Tools — They Are Standard Business Infrastructure
Virtual private networks are among the most widely deployed technologies in modern enterprise computing. Corporations, government agencies, hospitals, law firms, and financial institutions all rely on VPNs to secure communications, protect sensitive data, and comply with regulatory requirements such as HIPAA, SOX, and GDPR. Remote workers — a category that expanded enormously during and after the COVID-19 pandemic — routinely connect to employer networks through VPN tunnels as a matter of standard IT policy.
Beyond the corporate world, individual consumers use VPNs for a variety of legitimate reasons: protecting personal data on unsecured networks, preventing ISPs from tracking browsing habits, accessing region-restricted content, and safeguarding communications in countries with repressive surveillance regimes. Journalists, whistleblowers, human rights workers, and political dissidents around the globe depend on VPN technology to communicate safely. Legislation that attaches criminal liability to the mere use of such tools represents, in the view of many experts, a fundamental misunderstanding of digital security.
Digital Rights Groups Mount an Organized Opposition
The backlash against the Wisconsin bill has been swift and organized. According to TechRadar, multiple digital rights organizations have formally called on Wisconsin lawmakers to reject the measure. The criticism centers on several key points: the bill is overly broad, it would be nearly impossible to enforce consistently, it penalizes a technology rather than a behavior, and it could set a dangerous precedent for other states considering similar measures.
Privacy advocates have drawn comparisons to proposals that would ban encryption or mandate government backdoors into secure communications — ideas that have been repeatedly rejected by technologists and civil liberties organizations. The argument is structurally identical: a technology that is overwhelmingly used for legitimate purposes should not be criminalized because a small number of bad actors also use it. By that logic, critics note, lawmakers could justify banning automobiles because they are sometimes used as getaway vehicles in robberies.
The Enforcement Problem: How Would This Even Work?
Even setting aside the civil liberties concerns, the proposed bill faces enormous practical obstacles. VPN usage is extraordinarily common — industry estimates suggest that roughly 30% of internet users worldwide employ a VPN at least occasionally, and adoption rates in the United States have been climbing steadily. Determining whether a particular individual was using a VPN “in connection with” illegal activity, as opposed to simply having a VPN active on their device at the time, would present prosecutors with significant evidentiary challenges.
Moreover, many modern operating systems, browsers, and applications incorporate VPN-like functionality by default. Apple’s iCloud Private Relay, for example, routes Safari traffic through encrypted relays in a manner functionally similar to a VPN. Would a Wisconsin resident using an iPhone with default privacy settings enabled be in potential violation of the law? The bill’s sponsors have not addressed these technical realities, and critics argue that the legislation was drafted without meaningful input from cybersecurity professionals or technologists.
A Broader Pattern of Misguided Tech Legislation at the State Level
The Wisconsin VPN bill is not an isolated incident. Across the country, state legislatures have been introducing technology-related bills that reflect a limited understanding of how digital systems actually function. Age verification mandates, encryption restrictions, and social media regulations have all drawn criticism from technologists who argue that well-intentioned legislation often produces unintended consequences that harm the very populations lawmakers claim to be protecting.
In recent months, several states have passed or considered laws requiring age verification for access to certain websites, prompting concerns about the creation of massive databases of personal identification documents. Other states have explored mandating backdoor access to encrypted communications for law enforcement — proposals that cybersecurity experts universally condemn as creating vulnerabilities that would inevitably be exploited by malicious actors. The Wisconsin VPN bill fits squarely within this pattern of legislative action that prioritizes the appearance of tough-on-crime governance over sound technology policy.
What Happens Next in Madison
The bill’s fate in the Wisconsin legislature remains uncertain. While it has attracted sponsors and is advancing through committee, the organized opposition from digital rights groups, the VPN industry, and cybersecurity professionals may give some lawmakers pause. Public comment periods and committee hearings will provide opportunities for opponents to make their case, and the technical arguments against the bill are formidable.
Industry groups representing VPN providers have also begun mobilizing. The commercial VPN market is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and companies that operate in the space have significant resources to devote to lobbying and public education campaigns. If the bill were to pass, it could face immediate legal challenges on First Amendment and Fourth Amendment grounds, as courts have generally recognized that individuals have a right to use encryption and privacy tools to protect their communications.
The Stakes Extend Far Beyond Wisconsin
Perhaps the most significant concern raised by opponents of the bill is the precedent it would set. If Wisconsin successfully criminalizes VPN use in connection with illegal activity — using language broad enough to encompass virtually any VPN usage — other states could follow suit. The result could be a patchwork of state laws that effectively discourages the use of privacy-enhancing technologies nationwide, weakening the security posture of American individuals and businesses alike.
For an economy that increasingly depends on secure digital communications, the implications are serious. Companies that require employees to use VPNs for remote access would face legal uncertainty. Consumers who follow best practices for online security — as recommended by organizations like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) — could find themselves on the wrong side of the law. And vulnerable populations, including domestic violence survivors who use VPNs to prevent stalkers from tracking their online activity, could lose access to a critical safety tool.
The Wisconsin VPN bill represents a collision between legitimate law enforcement interests and the fundamental right to digital privacy. How the state’s lawmakers resolve that tension will be watched closely not just by their constituents, but by legislators, technologists, and civil liberties advocates across the country. The consensus among those who understand the technology is clear: this bill, as written, would do far more harm than good.