Are you unknowingly using what Congress might soon classify as the “dark web“? A new Senate bill targeting opioid trafficking contains a definition so broad it could sweep up everything from your private WhatsApp conversations to your company’s VPN access.
The Definitional Disaster
Senate Bill 1975, the Dark Web Interdiction Act of 2025, aims to prohibit opioid delivery through dark web channels. While the intent is commendable, the bill’s definition of “dark web” is alarmingly overbroad, requiring only that content be (A) not indexed by search engines AND (B) require specific software or configurations that conceal user identities.
This definition inadvertently captures vast swaths of legitimate internet usage that most people wouldn’t consider “dark web” activity. However, it’s important to note that legislative definitions often require interpretation and context, and historical precedent suggests that such broad language is typically refined through the legislative process.
What Gets Caught in the Net
Your Private Communications: iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram all meet this definition. These platforms aren’t indexed by search engines, require specific apps to access, and use encryption that conceals user identities and locations.
Corporate Infrastructure: Company intranets, VPN systems, and internal networks routinely fall under this definition. They’re not search-indexed and require specific software that often masks user locations for security purposes.
Financial Services: Online banking platforms, trading apps, and financial services aren’t search-indexed and employ identity-concealing security measures to protect customer privacy.
Healthcare Systems: Patient portals and telemedicine platforms that protect medical privacy through encryption and access controls could technically qualify under this definition.
The Broader Privacy Paradox
This definitional overreach reflects a larger tension in digital privacy law. The US Cloud Act already creates conflicts with European privacy regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). While GDPR emphasizes individual consent and data protection, the Cloud Act grants US authorities access to data regardless of user consent, even when stored outside the United States.
This jurisdictional clash forces companies operating in both regions into an impossible position: comply with US law enforcement demands or respect European privacy rights, but not both. However, it’s worth noting that international data privacy conflicts are not unique to this bill, and mechanisms like ongoing negotiations for new transatlantic data privacy frameworks indicate that solutions are being actively pursued.
Legislative Refinement: Learning from History
Critics rightfully point out that broad legislative definitions can be problematic, but history shows that such issues are often addressed through the legislative process.
The USA PATRIOT Act, initially criticized for its broad definitions, underwent multiple amendments and refinements, including the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 and later the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, which added more specific language and safeguards.
Similarly, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) includes provisions to ensure that law enforcement access doesn’t compromise the privacy and security of law-abiding users. This iterative refinement process suggests that Senate Bill 1975 will likely undergo similar scrutiny and modification.
What This Means for Your Business
If you’re using standard business tools – from encrypted messaging to VPN access – you could theoretically fall under this bill’s definition of dark web usage. While enforcement would likely focus on actual criminal activity, the broad language creates legal uncertainty that could affect:
- Compliance frameworks requiring clear definitions of acceptable technology use
- Risk assessments for standard privacy-protecting tools
- Vendor relationships with companies providing encrypted services
- International operations where privacy laws conflict with US enforcement priorities
However, businesses have historically demonstrated remarkable adaptability to new regulatory environments. When GDPR was introduced, companies worldwide successfully adjusted their data protection policies. Similar adaptations can be expected if Senate Bill 1975 is enacted, with businesses likely updating their practices to ensure compliance.
The Path Forward
Effective legislation requires precise language that targets actual criminal networks without criminalizing legitimate privacy practices. A better approach would distinguish between intentionally hidden services designed for anonymity (like Tor networks) and mainstream platforms with standard privacy features.
The legislative process typically involves iterative refinement based on feedback from stakeholders, including industry experts and civil liberties advocates. Bills are commonly amended to address unintended consequences – a process that helps ensure final legislation is more balanced and effective.
As privacy regulations tighten globally and cross-border data conflicts intensify, organizations need clear guidance on what constitutes acceptable privacy protection versus potential legal liability. While the current bill’s broad definition adds to this confusion, the historical pattern of legislative refinement suggests that these concerns will likely be addressed through the democratic process.
Understanding the Real Dark Web
For readers unfamiliar with the term, the “dark web” traditionally refers to encrypted portions of the internet that require special browsers like Tor to access and are intentionally hidden from search engines. This is different from the everyday privacy tools most people use, which is precisely why the bill’s broad definition is concerning.
Are your standard privacy practices about to become legally questionable? The answer may depend on how Congress refines this definition – or whether they recognize the problem at all. But if history is any guide, the legislative process will likely produce a more nuanced and targeted final version that better balances security concerns with privacy rights.