this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
97 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

3697 readers
357 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] towerful@programming.dev 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Eh, a back bencher has called for a report on how VPNs interfere with ofcoms ability to enforce/regulate the online safety act within 6 months.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vpns-online-safety-bill-labour-champion-b2239810.html

"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."

The likely conclusion of that report is that "VPNs circumvent the age verification requirement, so circumvent the OSA, so VPNs must be banned"

[–] baggins@beehaw.org 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes, I read that. 'Likely conclusion' does not equal a ban though.

I'm just being a bit pedantic about the headline - this whole thing is crappy (and unworkable) enough as it is, without jumping to conclusions.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The only other solutions to "VPNs circumvent OSA" are:

  1. Licence/regulate VPN usage (which is essentially a ban WRT the OSA).
    Extremely difficult to do. It's fairly trivial to just tunnel your connection over SSH to a VPS in another country.
    Also fairly trivial to get a VPN that tunnels over a websocket, making the traffic identical to website traffic.
    The government is going to play cat&mouse with decades of legitimate infosec.

  2. Do something progressive, and drop the OSA (which isn't going to happen).
    They've literally just implemented these laws. It's not getting repealed.

They are going to make consumer use of anything that changes the public source address of a packet illegal.
How they enforce that, I dunno.
Like the whole OSA, it seems really poorly thought out. I dunno how they completely overlooked VPN usage

[–] RecallMadness@lemmy.nz 2 points 4 days ago

It’s about time we banned CGNAT.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 days ago

Somehow I don't see this being a popular move