The bill specifically addresses circumvention tools "designed to bypass internet filtering mechanisms or content restrictions," so unless your corporate VPN is designed to do that (as opposed to granting remote access to the company network) I don't think it would be covered.
All VPNs do the same thing: give remote access to another network. Plenty of companies use full tunnels so access to the general internet goes through the company network. That happens to bypass content restrictions using exactly the same mechanism. Is it “designed” to do it?
FWIW some corporations do configure their VPN in a split tunnel config so that things like Youtube do not traverse the VPN and so that pizza delivery remains local. They instead have inclusive lists of domains and IP's that will traverse the VPN.
Either way I think its a moot point. If the bill could include corporations they would band together and kill the bill along with having the politician censured or expelled. Corporations have a lot of influence, lawyers and money. Threaten their money and they make things happen.
Not much if any critical thinking went into this proposal. It's likely just a virtue-signal to win favor.
Absolutely. It’s a sore point for me because I spent a couple of years with all the traffic from my computer in Seattle being routed through Bentonville. :) The tradeoff is split tunnel setups usually mean you also need an endpoint firewall and/or DLP installed on your laptop.
Anyway, yeah, I was responding to the comment, not the politicians. We can only hope it’s a moot point.
