Prominent backbench MP Sarah Champion launched a campaign against VPNs previously, saying: “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.” And the Labour Party said there were “gaps” in the bill that needed to be amended.

  • minorkeys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    3 days ago

    Funny how its always so important to ban useful and empowering things for citizens in the name of safety but someone we can’t ban business practices that cause mass extinctions, change the climate, impoverish the working class or kill enough of us to only be seen as a statistic instead of people. If they actually cared about safety, they would be banning the things that cause mass suffering and death, not VPNs. We should be opposed to these kinds of bans on the principle that it further disempowered us so we are less able to deal with the threats of all the mass suffering and death that they refuse to keep us safe from.

  • GreenBottles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Yeah, businesses will not accept this. Remote work and remote connections rely on VPN for ALL KINDS OF SHIT. If you must adhere to some kinds of government compliance, it is even MANDATED BY THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. Explain to me how the hell that is going to just poof and not cause all kinds of problems.

    • Shayeta@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Individual customer VPN providers get banned, corporate VPN providers not banned. It’s quite simple really.

      Or are you expecting the average Joe to spin up his own VPN server?

  • Iambus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 days ago

    Lol what is going on over there. The UK is becoming more dystopian by the day.

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      They looked at their calendar and thought “Oh shit!” when they saw they were overdue to start V for Vendetta.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    3 days ago

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

    Your law is the difficult problem you daft cunt

  • npcknapsack@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    People are “at risk”… of what? What a terrible article to not even clarify what the risk is. Because it sounds to me like the government is who put those people at risk by making them go look for solutions to a draconian policy.

  • commander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    To me it looks like every government in the world is pro-surveillance and anti-privacy; they’re just all at different stages of depth into those ideologies done in practice. Privacy and anti-surveillance against foreign governments and corporations, pro for domestic. And I continue decade after decade to say that you should fear your domestic government far more than any foreign unless you’re a country that may have US and allies bombing/droning and paratrooping your country. Countries with a modern enough military mostly have to worry about their own government rather than foreign governments

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      To me it looks like every government in the world is pro-surveillance and anti-privacy; they’re just all at different stages of depth into those ideologies done in practice.

      Because they are all fuckin crooked and all want to keep their power.

    • imouto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      Most conventional VPNs, e.g. OpenVPN, WireGuard, AnyConnect, PPTP/L2TP, IKEv2/IPsec, etc., actually don’t work in China. Technology-wise GFW is quite sophisticated and conventional VPNs are not designed for censorship circumvention anyway.

      You’ll have to use things like Shadowsocks or V2Ray, which is out of the reach of most people.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        The Great Firewall doesn’t block by protocol. If you set up your own OpenVPN server, you can still connect to it. I’ve done this many times in my trips to China, and it’s worked fine. That being said, they still do seem to throttle connections to international servers, though this happens to all servers, even those that are not blocked. There are many clandestine VPN operators in China who spin up their own VPN servers and sell the service. They are mostly OpenVPN-based.

        My university used Cisco AnyConnect, and I was able to successfully connect to the university VPN servers as well.

        The limited experimentation I have conducted seems to indicate that the Great Firewall blocks by IP and not by protocol.

        • imouto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          And how do they update that IP list? Manually? If you set up your own overseas server, it’s gonna be ok for a few days for sure. But they update the block list automatically so people had to e.g. use CloudFlare websocket as a jump host to avoid switching providers every other month. Of cos CF is mostly blocked these days too so it’s probably just easier to offload the work to those VPN operators you mentioned.

          Universities are a different matter. They use Edu network and there used to be no censorship at all in Edu IPv6. Nowadays it’s still relatively easy for them to get exemptions for their labs and whatnot.

          • NateNate60@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            I don’t know how they update their IP list. My university is an American university which I believe has no ties to China, but I can’t say for sure. According to friends who use the clandestine OpenVPN services, they pay about 20 CNY a month and every month they are issued a new OVPN configuration file. Only occasionally do their servers get blocked before this, and then they have to issue new config files to everyone.

            As for myself, I have been to China two times using the OpenVPN server that I deployed on a US-based VPS I rented from a German hosting provider. Each trip lasted about one month. So far, the IP has not been blocked. The government’s philosophy regarding the firewall and VPNs seems to be “make it as annoying as possible for the average uninformed layperson to bypass and go after people selling illegal VPNs, but otherwise, we don’t give a shit”. I do not sell access to my VPN to anyone else. It is strictly for my own use.

            Both times I was there, the firewall didn’t apply to cellular data because they do not apply the firewall to holders of foreign SIM cards using their cellular service. I purchased a SIM from a Hong Kong carrier (SoSim) with a few gigabytes of data in both Hong Kong and mainland China for 100 HKD. The firewall doesn’t apply within Hong Kong. It worked fine, though I do note that surveillance laws meant that I had to upload my passport to activate the service. I’m not a big fan of that, so I kept the VPN connected at all times, though normally-blocked websites did indeed work on cellular data even without the VPN. I checked on my cell phone’s settings, and I know it connects to China Mobile towers when in mainland China. Note that China Mobile is owned by the Chinese state.

            I also confirmed that it doesn’t apply the firewall when I have my T-Mobile (my US cell carrier) SIM in there. My carrier provides unlimited worldwide roaming at 2G speeds but I can confirm that it also connects to China Mobile towers and I could successfully access Wikipedia, a blocked site, without the VPN.

      • 1984@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Edit: You meant they dont work to access things outside of China of course.

  • TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 days ago

    this is obviously such a dumpster fire that I can’t help but wonder, “When will they realize how dumb this is and back out of it?”

    then i remember that Brexit happened

    fuckin stubbornness is a national identity for you blokes innit

          • Shayeta@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            What I meant was during the Brexit referendum most people were saying it wouldn’t pass. In other words, if there was a referendum for this it probably WOULD pass since it’s really easy to influence people through media.

            • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              I get what you mean, for it to be comparable I think we’d need a “should there be legislation to protect kids on the Internet” referendum and then this is the implementation and everyone hates it…

  • muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    If they outlaw VPNs then all internet-connected businesses will flee and everyone will just move to the dark net. Then you’ve got a whole other problem.

    These ancient tyrants are in over their heads.

    • PastafARRian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Selfishly, I think this is great for I2P/Snowflake/Tor. The incoming legitimate traffic helps to protect its most vulnerable users.

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Honest question but what makes you think that would happen? Do most businesses use VPNs?

      • skisnow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        4 days ago

        VPNs are one of the core security measures of all large companies.

        VPNs aren’t just a “hide your IP” tool, they’re a way of giving someone access to an organisation’s internal network. Sensitive servers such as databases, wikis, scheduling tools etc don’t have publicly exposed IPs, they only have connections that are accessible from inside that VPN. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_in_depth_(computing)

        • Blemgo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 days ago

          Not only that, but they are crucial for network security. VPNs allow all network traffic (with a few necessary exceptions) to be routed through the company’s network and benefit from its security measures, mainly monitoring traffic for suspicious and malicious behaviour. Without it, finding compromised PCs is much harder and enforcing company policies regarding web use would be impossible outside the office.

      • muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        4 days ago

        Damn near every business uses VPN technology. They literally cannot exist in the modern world without it. It would be incredibly expensive and impractical to do without.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      The UK has long championed writing legislative checks that their emaciated state infrastructure can’t cash.

    • LinyosT@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      If they do outlaw it will likely be banned solely for non-business use for this reason alone.

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      This makes me feel like they were in a bind here. The so called “online safety bill” was a tory concoction that took years to pass through the courts because of how invasive it is and how anyone could easily bypass it.

      If labour want to stop it, they’ll be accused of not wanting to protect children.

      Whatever anyone thinks of labour, I’d ask people to ask themselves, if you were in that position, what option do they have other than to let it play out as the spectacular failure it was always going to be and making sure everyone knows who’s fault that was afterwards?

      • IcyToes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        No. They could put it into a review and quietly shitcan this. It’s not particularly popular. They just want to say they’re protecting kids.

        They’re spineless and Keir is an authoritarian.

        • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          “Oh, i see. You want to help paedophiles do you? Why do you hate children then, hey? Of course keef comes out to help the Jimmy Savile brigade again.”

          Congratulations, you just lost the media narrative and now all but one paper is going to write about how all the things that hurt every child in the UK is your fault, for the next 3 years. The whole system is compromised and they’re passengers, only a little more engaged than we are.

  • TheOrionArm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    How is this even feasible? People need them for work, business, school etc. The UK is going nuts with the attempts to regulate the internet.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      It isn’t. And the only source in the article is that a far-right conspiracy theory site said they’re considering it.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Take China for example. There is a common misconception that all VPNs are illegal in China. That’s not fully true. In China, VPNs are legal and must obtain a licence from the Ministry of Public Security, like all other online businesses. This also means that they have to agree to monitoring and censorship from the Government, so you can’t use legal VPN services to bypass the firewall in China.

  • Rob T Firefly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    The linked story has been updated. The headline now reads:

    Labour rules out VPN ban in UK but issues warning to UK households

    Labour won’t ban the use of Virtual Private Networks

    And the story begins:

    Labour has ruled out a possible VPN ban after reports thousands of UK households were at risk following the Online Safety Act kicking in under the government. Labour Party Tech Secretary Peter Kyle has revealed that the Government is “not considering a VPN ban” - after reports in Guido Fawkes suggested it was possible.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      This shows that this bill has shit all to do with the protection of children, it’s just again the over reach of religious zealots

      Can we please ban religions instead? This would ACTUALLY protect minors and just in general make the world such a better and more beautiful place.

      Convert churches into museums for art and displaying the horrors of religion

      • HalfSalesman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Convert churches into museums for art and displaying the horrors of religion

        Not all of them have pretty art. Just turn the boring looking ones into secular club houses or even just regular housing.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    327
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Just to fast-forward this dumb cat-and-mouse thing, the next step is people go back to torrenting their porn and deeper down the rabbit hole of garbage “free” websites skirting the rules.

    As always, the UK is useful on the international stage because sometimes you need to be able to point at some idiot trying dumb stuff to explain to people why dumb stuff is dumb.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      105
      ·
      4 days ago

      It does feel that way. UK bureaucracy is just one giant guinea pig stunting it’s own commonwealth.

      Next someone will try enforcing paper umbrellas as a solution for climate action. We’ll all say, “That won’t work”. They’ll still do it; it won’t work. We’ll say, “We told you so”, and it won’t get reversed because they’re already aiming at the next foot to shoot.

      • Whostosay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        4 days ago

        There has to be a logical next step for the information age. Old school government is not fucking working, and we can all see it.

        The fact that there aren’t large scale riots already is astounding.

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Neoliberal political class implementing fascist surveillance capitalism laws — masquerading as child protection — because they are owned by a fascist oligarchy.

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s never about the children, it’s an excuse for surveillance capitalism.

      • deafboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        4 days ago

        You know the old saying… The politicians don’t want children to be able to recognize a cunt.

      • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

        If data is collected that can be used for blackmail, it will eventially be used for that purpose.

      • fodor@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s probably true that a few anti-porn people exist somewhere in the world. It’s certainly true that fascists love adding in new tools to keep the general population from using the internet freely.

        So the answer to your question is yes, and yes.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        I am pretty sure they would consider tor as using a VPN.

        Probably they would demand ISPs to run lists of known VPN addresses and if you connect to them, they will forward the information to the anti-terrorism unit and you will get SWATed.

          • Tiger@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            I believe China can stop any kind of access at any time, they just choose to allow a certain percentage of folks to get through above a certain bar of sophistication and need.

          • Saleh@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            Don’t the people in those countries use a proxy to access tor first? probably that means cycling through the proxies regularly as they become known. I have no doubt that it is impossible to prevent truly tech savvy people from access. Also Russia, Iran and China all run state sanctioned hackers, so the governments have a vested interest in allowing these groups to obscure where they are coming from.

            But i am not sure how much that transpires to a broader public.

            • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              4 days ago

              That’s what things like snowflake and bridges are for. Because, at least with snowflake, it just looks like a webRTC phone call. But it’s actually tor traffic. And snowflake proxies are ephemeral, since you can just run them in your browser and help anyone connect.

    • thatonecoder@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      Their next strategy will be to keep a list of websites that are “government approved”, I’m afraid. Long live the Great UK Firewall!!

  • KonnaPerkele@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    215
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    This kinda proves that it was never about the children. How many children have know how and the means to buy a VPN subscription?

    • Anivia@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Were you never a child? I formatted my family pc and reinstalled windows xp in 5th grade, and used a proxy to circumvent the schools online filter in 7th grade.

      Children are not as stupid as you seem to think

      VPNs also accept many anonymous payment methods that happen to be easily accessible to children, like gift cards. And free VPNs exist

      • KonnaPerkele@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        Where there is a will there is a way, I guess.

        Still, a possible ban on VPNs affects way bigger group of business and adult users than the number of tech savvy kids.

        Where should the line be drawn? How much rights should everyone have to give up so that little techie Billy can’t hack his way to see some titties?

    • Bluewing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      4 days ago

      All it takes is one big brother/sister that knows how to access a free or paid VPN and their 5 year old little sibling and all their friends will have it also. Despite the difficulty teaching them math or history, they DO learn very quickly and are fast to figure out new things that interest them.

      Do you know what’s smarter and more talented the the UK government?

      14, 402, 544 kids…

    • Novaling@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      I started using a VPN after my friends/classmates told me about them in my Sophomore year of HS, mostly to get around the Wifi banning us from accessing certain apps (social media). Now, like all the other dumb kids, I used whatever they recommended, which was some shitty “Free” VPN that was probably stalking my data. But by Senior year, I smartened up and learned about online privacy and got myself a Proton VPN subscription after using the free version for a bit.

      So yeah, I could totally believe middle-school and up are using VPNs, cause that’s what we literally did.