this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
1036 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

73495 readers
3368 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 46 points 2 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.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

You don't get it. They will just force VPNs to black list sites. Business users will happily do it because they don't care about porn anyway. Any VPN which doesn't enforce UK laws will be blocked at the ISP level.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Iambus@lemmy.world 40 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 13 points 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 41 points 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 16 points 2 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 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bubbey@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Even the CCP can't stop VPNs... good luck UK

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] inkrifle@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Labour has already spoken out and said they will make no attempts to ban VPNs.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 111 points 3 days ago (13 children)

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.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 days ago (6 children)

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MudMan@fedia.io 364 points 4 days ago (25 children)

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 111 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] TheOrionArm@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Ronno@feddit.nl 31 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"Stop defending yourself, and let me hit you" vibes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KonnaPerkele@sopuli.xyz 233 points 4 days ago (8 children)

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

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 173 points 4 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] falynns@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago

"Hey! Stop using well known workarounds to my idiot demands! Surely this is brand new technology that no one could have known about!"

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 15 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You cant ban vpns, its easy for tech people to set up a vpn server on any server on the internet and connect to it. Wireguard for example, super simple.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Oh, sweet summer child. Of course you can ban them. Lawmakers don't always care about the technicality of things, because in most cases they don't have to.

You can't prevent VPN from existing, and short of a very tightly curated whitelist of services, you can't prevent people from actually using them, sure. Unless you're on the side of the state, the Law, and the enforcement. In which case, you can. A blanket ban on VPN usage is the perfect gateway to "we've seen traffic from your house toward a known VPN server, so, blam, arrest". And it does not have to stop at known server.

Given the regular tries to outright ban encryption, this is the perfect venue to mass target encrypted communications. Depending on the wording, the mere presence of unobservable traffic could be enough for an arrest.

If what I'm saying here sound dystopian to you, just remember that not only most of this was actually tried (and aborted) time after time, but also that until quite recently, the general public actually using strong encryption was illegal in many places, including our western countries, and experiments to make state spyware mandatory are also a recurrent thing (which might take hold with the "ID verification through your phone" apps soon).

[–] xorollo@leminal.space 11 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Thanks for this. I think it's really important to point out that merely having unobservable traffic could be a trigger for this.

We can't avoid taking these threats seriously because we think we are smarter.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] arc99@lemmy.world 80 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (22 children)

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.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 152 points 4 days ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 36 points 3 days ago

But they can't seem to muster up the "political" will to tax the rich

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 51 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

"Safety" meanwhile these same mp's can't budget can't run critical public services like bloody hospitals.

But don't worry, your thoughts and activity are policed.

Democratic failure to prioritise and run a country at its finest on display for the world to see. The waste is astounding.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rozodru@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

for those in the UK and/or Other places in Europe just know it's so painfully easy to either set up your own VPN or just use something like Mullvad.

I set up my own VPN this morning for the first time on my server and it took less than 10minutes. plenty of guides online on how to do it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 3 days ago

I love watching politicians try to understand the internet.

VPNs have loads of vanilla use cases.

It would be infinitely more productive to regulate the predatory practices of stream providers and reduce the incentive for piracy.

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 167 points 4 days ago (3 children)

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?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world 44 points 3 days ago (6 children)

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??

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 71 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Damn. Labor really wants to lose that election to Farage. Good luck to Corbyn and Sultana, I guess.

[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 54 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Farage: Gets elected.

Everyone: At least you'll abolish the OSA!

Farage: Nah, I said that because it would make me popular. Amma use the OSA to ban things I consider "woke".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 62 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 123 points 4 days ago (16 children)

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

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 21 points 3 days ago (3 children)

just do what the chinese do to get around thier great wall. use proxies and anti-detect browsers, its the next step after VPN.. you might want to look around how to set these up.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 64 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Maybe if they see significant issues with the populace adhereing to this law they should identify the solution of revoking the unpopular law.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MangioneDontMiss@lemmy.ca 33 points 3 days ago

This online safety bill is dishonest. This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

after reports in Guido Fawkes suggested it was possible.

That's the only source? A far-right conspiracy website?

load more comments
view more: next ›