this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
1035 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

73655 readers
4157 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 6 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.

[–] Iambus@lemmy.world 39 points 6 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 6 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 42 points 6 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

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 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 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

I just don't believe that method will be as successful as you may think.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bubbey@lemmy.world 30 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] imouto@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] commander@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 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

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 6 points 6 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.

[–] Ronno@feddit.nl 30 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheOrionArm@lemmy.world 27 points 6 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)
[–] falynns@lemmy.world 31 points 6 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!"

[–] rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 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 6 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)
[–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 36 points 6 days ago

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

[–] inkrifle@lemmy.world 22 points 6 days ago (7 children)

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

[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I doubt their corpo overlords would allow a VPN ban considering the amount of companies that use them.

[–] cheloxin@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 days ago

It would be trivial for them to write it so it bans it for citizen use but is allowed for corporate and government use. The people have no rights anymore

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] npcknapsack@lemmy.ca 15 points 6 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.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 6 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)
[–] 1984@lemmy.today 15 points 6 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 6 days ago* (last edited 6 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 6 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)
[–] rozodru@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

yup just did it this morning on my server because now I'm moving my stuff, yet again, away from European companies because of all this. it was painfully simple and easy. I just followed a guide I found on a linux blog and within 10minutes I had a VPN of my own up and running.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 6 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.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 21 points 6 days ago (2 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.

[–] Mistic@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Proxy is a step below VPN since it doesn't tunnelise data.

Anti-detect browsers. Do you mean Tor? It's a decent solution, albeit the slowest one.

What people use to bypass the great Chinese firewall is VPN with VLESS protocols. Unlike usual VPN protocols, those are specifically made to bypass censorship.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rozodru@lemmy.world 11 points 6 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)
[–] possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 6 days ago

I'm looking forward to the next UK election where the headline will be: Labour has lost the election in a landslide that left them with dozens of votes total

Every single person who didn't think this would affect them who watches porn in any capacity is very likely highly pissed off and will continue to be for as long as this draconian bullshit is enabled.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago

after reports in Guido Fawkes suggested it was possible.

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

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 13 points 6 days ago

Reddit already tried to block VPN users.

Expect the corpos to bend the knee.

[–] MissingGhost@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What if we all started using I2P for most stuff? The governments couldn't do anything about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wrassleman76@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

I don't think it's even possible to get rid of VPNs without outright banning encryption. If I set up a VPN that uses an obscure port and the traffic is encrypted, how are they going to know it's even a VPN?

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Attached below is a Wireshark trace I obtained by sniffing my own network traffic.

I want to draw your attention to this part in particular:

Underneath "User Datagram Protocol", you can see the words "OpenVPN Protocol". So anyone who sniffs my traffic on the wire can see exactly the same thing that I can. While they can't read the contents of the payload, they can tell that it's OpenVPN traffic because the headers are not encrypted. So if a router wanted to block OpenVPN traffic, all they would have to do is drop this packet. It's a similar story for Wireguard packets. An attacker can read the unencrypted headers and learn

  • The size of the transmission
  • The source and destination IP addresses by reading the IP header
  • The source and destination ports numbers by reading the TCP or UDP headers
  • The underlying layers, up until the point it hits an encrypted protocol (such as OpenVPN, TLS, or SSH)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 6 points 6 days ago

Can't wait for the next election to kick out the Tories so can roll back all their draconian bills.

load more comments
view more: next ›