UK households could face VPN 'ban' after use skyrockets following Online Safety Bill
-
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.
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.
-
Work VPN doesn't look any different a porn VPN to the people tapping the line.
Yeah that's the point of the license from Ofcom, to approve the endpoint address used for the VPN. Most work places don't use some random IP address but a small pool of known DNS entries for their endpoint. Just because you are using a VPN doesn't mean nobody can see which endpoint you using.
-
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.
"Hey! Stop using well known workarounds to my idiot demands! Surely this is brand new technology that no one could have known about!"
-
How is WG vulnerable to replay attacks? They already address that in their documentation.
It's doesn't fall over, it just slows down. Or appears to much more than OpenVPN. There could be something else going on, but for what ever the problem was, OpenVPN was coping better and just spitting out errors about a possible replay attack and continuing like nothing was wrong. I've not looked again as OpenVPN is working fine. For everything else, I'm using WireGuard.
-
Wouldn't it be detected via initial connection only? WG does not send packets while connected, does it?
now that you say, I think I remember reading something like this earlier
-
Wouldn't it be detected via initial connection only? WG does not send packets while connected, does it?
update: I think not only the handshake packets contain a recognizable pattern. look at "Subsequent Messages: Exchange of Data Packets"
https://www.wireguard.com/protocol/
especially if the receiver/sender_index and the counter are what I think they are.
also have a look at this page: https://www.wireguard.com/known-limitations/
-
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.
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.
-
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.
"Stop defending yourself, and let me hit you" vibes.
-
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)
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.
-
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.
Reddit already tried to block VPN users.
Expect the corpos to bend the knee.
-
Possible? Yes. Probable? No. LTE would work wonderfully for such usecase, but the firmware to it is never shared. Wifi would work theoretically, but the distance would get in a way. Bandwidth would go down all the way to a rounding error.
Could limited bandwidth perhaps be transmitted via ham radios?
-
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.
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.
-
Could limited bandwidth perhaps be transmitted via ham radios?
IP over ham radio is a thing, so yes. Wouldn't be very fast mind you.
-
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.
Can't wait for the next election to kick out the Tories so can roll back all their draconian bills.
-
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.
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.
-
If only I could start my own business….
become a sole trader with no assets, no expenses but still a business. Sorted!
-
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.
Turning into China, aren't we?
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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?
-
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.
after reports in Guido Fawkes suggested it was possible.
That's the only source? A far-right conspiracy website?
-
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.
It isn't. And the only source in the article is that a far-right conspiracy theory site said they're considering it.
