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.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 months 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
      3
      ·
      2 months 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.

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months 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
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

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

      • deafboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

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

      • fodor@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months 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
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months 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.

          • Saleh@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months 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
              2
              ·
              2 months 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.

  • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    the Government must identify those issues and find solutions, rather than avoiding difficult problems

    The government: Parents have you tried being a parent to your children?

    Parents: Oh lord no that’s too difficult can’t you just, I don’t know lol, ban it or something?

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      In my English textbook, ca. 2007 there was a comic of a child in a cage hanging outside the house. The father told the neighbor something like “This way they get out of the house, but stay off the streets.”

      I think that hit quite well, what many consider parenting in the UK.

  • jabjoe@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    This ends with just another war on encryption.

    When encryption is legal, they can’t know what is going on between two points. They going to make is so we can only have encryption to nodes they trust?

    It is dangerously technologically illiterate to wage war on encryption.

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Jokes on you, e2e encryption is already banned in some cases in the uk afaik. Hence apple dropping some cloud services

  • KonnaPerkele@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months 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?

  • kemsat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    The UK is the testing grounds. After they figure it out, they’ll be rolling it out everywhere else.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think it’s that centralized. Just some elite somewhere pushes through what elites everywhere would want, and they try to do the same around it.

      Like spread of a disease.

      I think the way to fight it is similar. Unions, customer associations, parties (not for election, but for having as many people as possible for mutual aid and actions ; it might even be counterproductive to get into government, since that breeds expectations which are not delivered upon, which hurts the party ; better to do volunteer projects without using state power as much as possible).

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months 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

  • Frenchfryenjoyer (she/her)@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    They can come and pry TOR from my cold dead hands lmfao

    this law can eat shit. i ain’t gonna dox myself and feed my personal info to companies. maybe they should take this as a hint that most people care about their privacy

    if you don’t want kids seeing NSFW stuff be an actual parent and don’t raise your kids on the internet??

  • OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    “It has come to our attention that we haven’t fascismed hard enough, nor in sufficient detail”

  • Flamekebab@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Best of luck with that, idiots. How are you planning to tell the difference between my personal VPN and my work VPN?

    • snowfalldreamland@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Either just banning remote work or more realistically you’ll need a permit for running a vpn server. Permit pricing starting at 100k a year

      • AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        How many small businesses can afford such permit? Hell, I’d argue that even bigger companies will have a problem paying for that.

        Also, what if I just connect to a vps overseas and set my exit point there? Will they ban vps too? This is gonna be so much fun to see from the outside

        • then_three_more@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          How many small businesses can afford such permit? Hell, I’d argue that even bigger companies will have a problem paying for that.

          Feature, not a bug.

          They want people back in offices to help landlords and property prices. This way they can say that remote work is not banned and it’s just companies choosing not to buy a permit and offer it.

          • AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I work from office and i regularly use a vpn at work to connect remotely to devices that are not physically with me. Not to talk about companies that provide remote assistance and use them to connect to their customers devices.

            Remote work is just a byproduct of vpns, but not the real reason why you use them at work.

            • then_three_more@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              You think given how well thought through this online safety act has been that they’ll understand that would be an issue and legislate accordingly?

  • arc99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It would have been smarter for the UK to mandate that every ISP must provide a family filter for free as part of their service. Something that is optional and can be turned on or off by the account holder but allows parents to set filters (and curfews) if they want. They could even require that ISPs require new signups to affirm if they want it on or off by default so people with families are more likely to start with it enabled.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The new Christian nationalist orders are not so patient. Even Charles X of France rolled back rights too speedily, sparking public outcry resulting in Parisian haircuts. (a bit off the top 🪟🔪)

      SCOTUS used to be sneakier, carving out sections of fourth- and fifth-amendment protections, but since Dobbs the Federalist Society Six have tossed subtlety and reason to the wind and now adjudicate away rights based on vibe and conservative rhetoric grievance.

      Hopefully the US and UK both will recognize why the French public was swift to act when manarchists took shears to the Napoleonic Code.

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The problem is that content filters don’t work all that well in the age of https everywhere. I mean, you can block the pornhub.com domain, that’s fairly straightforward … but what about reddit.com which has porn content but also legitimately non-porn content. Or closer to home: any lemmy instance.

      I think it would be better if politicians stopped pearl clutching and realized that porn perhaps isn’t the worst problem in the world. Tiktok and influencer brainrot, incel and manosphere stuff, rage baiting social media, etc. are all much worse things for the psyche of young people, and they’re doing exactly jack shit about that.

      • ErmahgherdDavid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        They know. The “think of the children” angle is just cover to enrage the tabloid readers and to be used as a straw man against anyone criticisng the law (“you’re a pedophile”). The real purpose is “let’s enumerate the IDs of everyone who uses the internet for anything we don’t like” and “let’s censor anything we don’t like starting with LGBTQ content”

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The problem is that they’re not trying to protect kids. They’re trying to be like China where every user has to identify themselves so they can be tracked across the internet.

  • JK_Flip_Flop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    If this comes to anything I’m moving to somewhere in the EU and pursuing citizenship there. This is clearly not about protecting the children anymore (not that it ever was).