And worse, they then asked the defence lawyers if it would be acceptable to add a 'no VPN' term...

Those defence lawyers then presumably consulted their client before agreeing to it...

So... SBF used a VPN, and was then asked "Heya, we're considering banning you from using VPN's because we can't track what you do on them, what do ya think??". And only later did a ban come into force... Giving plenty of time to use a VPN for whatever deeds he doesn't want the court to know about...

> plenty of time to use a VPN for whatever deeds he doesn't want the court to know about

This is why SBF’s counsel “represented that the defendant will not use a VPN in the interim.” Absent that representation, the government would have petitioned the court to revoke bail.

and then can just switch to tor next anyway

My understanding is that that's pretty normal, even for normal people. The prosecution asks the defense if they'll acquiesce to a particular term, and if the defense says no, the prosecution decides whether it's really worth it to push the issue.

Defendants often agree to changes like this to score some brownie points with the judge and prosecutor that they can cash in later on when they want to change bail terms, or want to fight some other change in bail terms. It carries a bit more weight when the defense says "we think X is unreasonable" if they haven't said that every time the prosecution brings something up.

> Giving plenty of time to use a VPN for whatever deeds he doesn't want the court to know about...

That's pretty much going to happen regardless. If the prosecution doesn't ask the defense, then they'd go straight to filing a motion. A copy of that motion would have to be served to the defense, and the defense would be afforded adequate time to prepare arguments against it. Practically nothing happens instantaneously in the legal world, barring egregious acts.

His lawyers are trying to create an issue where none exists, with the implicit threat of bringing up civil rights claims in motion work and at appeal, jacking up the cost to the prosecution.

This is how wealthy defendants operate: argue every little thing to death, then plant stories in the media like 'prosecutors have spent amazing high $/% of budgeted taxpayer monies on trying to prosecute one guy'.

SBF says he only has at most $100k. At this point that's probably all gone especially considering hiring daily private security squads. How can he afford all this litigation?

The same way he afforded bail.

His parents used the house that he bought for them as collateral, and a few unnamed benefactors also contributed.

Looks like the court just named them today, though. Larry Kramer and Andreas Paepke, heavyweights from the Stanford clique who might be friends of his family:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/sam-bankman-frieds-two-bond-...

He could be simply lying

Presumably his rich parents want him to have a good defence.

> the state and his lawyers are arguing about the exact bail terms that should apply

My understanding is his bail terms didn’t mention a VPN. The government is petitioning the court to alter the bail terms to now prohibit the use of a VPN.

Are they going to disallow HTTPS, DNS over HTTPS, and encrypted SNI too?

They have “asked to allow him only the use of a monitored Gmail account, and SMS and voice calls on a tracked phone” [1]. Basically, he’s being switched from a blacklist to a whitelist.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/347e2d5c-b146-472d-bbd1-3793300dd...