UK Labour urges government to consider crackdown on VPNs - Literally 1984.


Online Safety Bill amendment would require Ofcom to investigate use of VPNs to circumvent web rules

Labour has urged the government to consider a crackdown on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) amid concerns that children and teenagers could use them to circumvent age restrictions.

An amendment to the government's Online Safety Bill proposed by MP Sarah Champion on Monday would require telecoms regulator Ofcom to examine whether VPNs are undermining the enforcement of internet regulations.

A VPN is an encrypted connection to the internet that masks a person's location and identity from the websites they are accessing, by routing their data via another computer.

They are commonly used to bypass regional locks on content, by people working remotely who need to access their employer's networks, and by those concerned about their privacy.

But speaking in a Commons debate on Monday Ms Champion said she was worried children could use VPNs to bypass new age verification controls included in the government's bill.

"There are vital protections in the bill, but there is a real threat that the use of virtual private networks — VPNs — could undermine the effectiveness of these measures," the Rotherham MP said.

Ms Champion said evidence suggested that large numbers of teenagers knew how to use a VPN "which means that they can avoid age verification controls".

"So if companies use age assurance tools, as listed in the safety duties of this Bill, there is no guarantee that they will provide the protections that are needed," she said.

"My new clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill’s passage, a report on the effect of VPN use on Ofcom’s ability to enforce the requirements under clause 112.

"If VPNs cause significant issues, the Government must identify those issues and find solutions, rather than avoiding difficult problems."

It is likely that all restrictions in the Online Safety Bill can be wholly bypassed by use of a VPN, as the UK government is unable to regulate other countries' connections to the internet – which VPNs give access to.

Virtual Private Networks are widely used by people accessing the internet in countries like China to circumvent government internet restrictions.

Labour’s frontbench confirmed to The Independent on Tuesday that it was supporting Ms Champion's amendment. Speaking for the opposition in the Commons on Monday afternoon Shadow digital minister Alex Davies-Jones said the unamended bill had "gaps" that needed closing.

"I was pleased to see that my honourable friend the member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) had tabled new clause 54, which asks the Government to formally consider the impact that the use of virtual private networks will have on Ofcom’s ability to enforce its powers," she said.

"This touches on the issue of future-proofing, which Labour has raised repeatedly in debates on the Bill."

The amendment was not called for a vote on Monday but could return at a later stage depending on the passage of the bill.

Under the Online Safety Bill websites that publish pornography or adult content will have to ask users to prove their age.

Controls could include asking for a credit card or having a third-party service confirm age against government data. Sites that fail to act could be fined 10 per cent of their global turnover by Ofcom.
 
Your first draft was better. At least more honest.
If by "better", you meant "didn't point out an effective solution seeking to balance restriction of materials of vice along with internet privacy, and went off about something mostly irrelevant", then I need to get more familiar with how the new generation is stretching the limits of language.

And what about tor?
You ever use Tor?

If, somehow, teens took interest in using Tor to get their porn, the experience will probably be at least closer to the days of dial-up where you had to wait 30 minutes for half an areola.

An effective mitigation in its own right... but then, I'm just speaking for my own aims.
 
If by "better", you meant "didn't point out an effective solution and went off about something mostly irrelevant", then I need to get more familiar with how the new generation is stretching the limits of language.
By better as I said, more honest. Laying out the whole "well it doesn't protect you anyway" line of defense really shows just how obvious it is that it's a privacy concern for VPNs to be banned/regulated into uselessness. No wonder you deleted it when you reread it lmao.

Arguing in the same disingenuous manner progressives do doesn't serve anybody any favors, especially when you're an advocate for internet I.D. systems.
You ever use Tor?
Yeah, to use this site when it's DDOS'd, the .onion tends to stay up.
If, somehow, teens took interest in using Tor to get their porn, the experience will probably be at least closer to the days of dial-up where you had to wait 30 minutes for half an areola.

An effective mitigation in its own right... but then, I'm just speaking for my own aims.
Really, it's amusing that your response boils down to "well they wouldn't use tor!". As if the government wanting to more easily identify people online has anything to do with kids, internet safety, or pornography to begin with. Or are you going to seriously tell me you think the U.K. government gives a shit about kids after what happened (continues to happen?) in Rotherham?
 
By better as I said, more honest. Laying out the whole "well it doesn't protect you anyway" line of defense really shows just how obvious it is that it's a privacy concern for VPNs to be banned.
No? It shows how much I misunderstood your gotcha and its context, at the onset.

You liked the comment because, as irrelevant as it was, it was on your turf.

VPNs (the commercial ones) being banned isn't a privacy concern, because you don't use commercial VPNs to protect your privacy in the first place. Even then, I never propose the banning of VPNs. The people mentioned in the article can't even attest to the capabilities of a VPN to properly suggest their banning, either.
Arguing in the same disingenuous manner progressives do doesn't serve anybody any favors, especially when you're an advocate for internet I.D. systems.
Lying about what I'm an advocate for and misrepresenting the gamut of my concerns doesn't do you, specifically, any favors. Especially when you accuse me of being disingenuous.

Yeah, to use this site when it's DDOS'd, the .onion tends to stay up.
So you know how utterly difficult it is to load websites and play multimedia with it.

Really, it's amusing that your response boils down to "well they wouldn't use tor!".
It's very evident that that's not a boiling down of what I said, given that said quote is largely is about what awaited them if they used Tor and how much said predicted outcome aligned with what I'd like to see.

You already had this bullet in the chamber and didn't care that it wasn't appropriate ammo.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FierceBrosnan
Just wait until they find out children can bypass age verification using a new technique called lying. Experts say pretending to be older than your actual age online may also be a pipeline to the alt-right, white nationalism, and incel ideology.
it's a good thing that sites don't record the answers, else everyone would share a birthday on Jan 1st 1900
 
The VPN would route them out to another country that doesn't have the same age ID requirements, thus bypassing it.

You can pay for a lot of VPNs using google pay, cash app, prepaid debit cards, or just use a free one. There are more free ones out there than you think.
I tried to find free ones, and not only do I not recall any free free ones, I don't think they even pretend to cloak your IP and usage trail.

There's Tor... but I don't imagine Tor's good for multimedia in general.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone else see the devious side of this? They're attacking, essentially, encrypted connections on the internet. They could have chosen instead to attack the porn sites, the porn creators, the search engines, the ISPs, router firmware, anonymous proxies, et cetera. They could encourage parents to actually watch over what their children do on the internet, they could educate children in schools - but instead they jump straight to decrypting VPN connections as, let's be honest here, they've probably been a thorn in the side of GCHQ for years. They don't care about your children, they just want to know what they're looking at all the time. Either that, or it's just another call to give up all of your rights (Anglos have almost none left) to save the kids.
 
Isn't the UK the place where you have to call your ISP and say "yes, I'd like to unblock me pornos please, it's where they've got all the willies and baps innit"? Doesn't needing to whitelist porn at the ISP level prevent children from accessing it? Or did that never come to pass?

I ask all of these questions largely rhetorically because, as has been pointed out here already, this has nothing to do with thinking of the children and everything to do with wrongthinking of the government.
 
Back